Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread - June 2015

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32283
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread - June 2015

Post by chetak »

watch the video where nuland and biden are are laying out amriki policy/intentions as regards the nordstrean 2 pipeline

Things could not be more clear..


watch video
g.sarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4382
Joined: 09 Jul 2005 12:22
Location: MERCED, California

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread - June 2015

Post by g.sarkar »

https://www.rediff.com/news/report/indi ... 230419.htm
India overtakes China, becomes world's most populous nation
Hemant Waje, April 19, 2023

India has surpassed China to become the world's most populous nation with 142.86 crore people, shows the latest United Nations data, even as UN projections estimate that the country's population is expected to grow for the next three decades after which it will begin declining.
China now has a population of 142.57 crore, thus being the second most populous country, the UN world population dashboard showed.
Nearly 50 per cent of India's population is below the age of 25 years, according to United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) India representative Andrea Wojnar.
According to the UNFPA's State of World Population (SWP) Report 2023, about 25 per cent of India's population is in the age group of 0-14 years, 18 per cent in the 10 to 19 age group, 26 per cent in the age bracket of 10 to 24 years, 68 per cent in 15 to 64 years age group, and 7 per cent above 65 years.
Incidentally, the UNFPA's SWP report earlier said that India will surpass China by mid-2023.
The population demographics of India vary from state to state.
Kerala and Punjab have an ageing population while Bihar and Uttar Pradesh have a young population, UN analysis has revealed.
This is the first time that India has topped the UN list of most populous countries since it started collecting population data in 1950.
According to the United Nations' World Population Prospects-2022, India's population was 86.1 crore while China's population was 114.4 crore in 1950.
The report further states that by 2050, India's population is expected to rise to 166.8 crore while China's population would dip to 131.7 crore.
The report also stated that the global population is growing at its slowest rate since 1950, having fallen under one per cent in 2020.
According to the World Population Prospects-2022, India's population last year was 141.2 crore while China's population was 142.6 crore.
The report said the global population was projected to reach eight billion on November 15.
According to the UNFPA, the life expectancy at birth for male in India is 71 while for female it is 74 years.
The contraceptive prevalence rate of women aged 15-49 by any method as of 2023 is 51 per cent.
UN projections estimate that the country's population is expected to grow for the next three decades after which it will begin declining.
According to experts, India has achieved the replacement level of fertility but the population will grow due to momentum phenomenon.
.......
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
https://www.rediff.com/news/report/weve ... 230419.htm
We've quality: China on India becoming most populous country
K J M Varma, April 20

China on Wednesday sought to downplay India overtaking it as the world's most populous nation with 142.86 crore people, saying that it still has a 'quality' workforce of close to 900 million people to provide a strong impetus for development.
According to the latest United Nations Population Fund data, India surpassed China to become the world's most populous nation with 142.86 crore people.
China which has a population of 142.57 crore has now become the second most populous country, the UN world population dashboard showed.
Asked for his reaction to the report, Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin told a media briefing in Beijing 'when assessing a country's demographic dividend, we need to look at not just the size but also the quality of its population'.
"Size matters, but what matters more is talent resource. Nearly 900 million out of the 1.4 billion Chinese are of working age and on average have received 10.9 years of education," he said.
For those who have newly entered the workforce, their average length of education has risen to 14 years, he said.
On the ageing population, he said China has implemented a national strategy to respond to population ageing, including a third-child policy and supporting measures to address demographic changes.
"China's population is over 1.4 billion. Those in the working age is close to 900 million and that group of populations is 10.5 years of education on average," he said.
......
Gautam
Cyrano
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5481
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread - June 2015

Post by Cyrano »

One reason for the heartburn is from the fact that China cannot easily justify voting against the inclusion of the world's most populous nation - India into the UNSC. Its not a very big factor, but CCP is far more attached to propaganda narrative spinning that India.

The bigger reason for the heartburn is that all the articles appearing on this subject have also contrasted the demographics of the two countries, which puts back unwanted focus on one China's child policy, % of older population, reproduction rate and unfavourable future outlook as a global scale producer and consumer market.
g.sarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4382
Joined: 09 Jul 2005 12:22
Location: MERCED, California

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread - June 2015

Post by g.sarkar »

https://thediplomat.com/2023/04/the-adv ... gn-policy/
The Advantages and Pitfalls of India’s Multidirectional Foreign Policy
India’s rising capabilities and growing voice in global affairs are significant, but its ability to shape the contours of the international system in its image remains circumscribed.
Monish Tourangbam, April 19, 2023

The lure of an Asian century predicated on the two Asian civilizational powers and economic giants, India and China, has been subsumed by the Indo-Pacific era. And the shift in the United States’ grand strategy, now focused on managing China’s rise, is making all other stakeholders reorient their foreign policy directions. Moreover, while the prevailing debates on the United States’ relative decline and its ramifications for the world order have been apparent, Washington and its European allies’ response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has generated new tea leaves to be read. The anti-West China-Russia alliance has added new complexities to the China-U.S. great power rivalry, also putting the foreign policy paths of independent powers like India at a crossroads.
Although the newfound strategic tilt in India’s foreign policy toward the United States in particular, and the West in general, to manage China’s rise is unmistakable, New Delhi’s pursuit of dexterity and autonomy in its foreign policy choices is still overwhelmingly paramount. The world is neither bipolar nor unipolar, but is it truly multipolar amid the rising geopolitical rifts between the United States and China? India’s rising capabilities and growing voice in global affairs are significant, but its ability to shape the contours of the international system in its image remains circumscribed. In the face of such a hard reality, it is imperative to ask: What are the pros and cons of India’s multidirectional policy, a policy premised on the practice of strategic autonomy and abhorrence for strict alliances?
Do More Choices Mean No Friends?
Popular logic in international relations says that there are no permanent friends and no permanent enemies, but only permanent interests. Making temporary friends to deal with temporary enemies is the primary business of the games that nations play. As India became independent with deficient material capabilities but high aspirations in the midst of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, New Delhi chose the path of non-alignment, with the intention to create more choices and traction in its foreign policy.
Forces of geopolitics seemed to have pushed New Delhi closer to Moscow, as the India-U.S. differences dipped to their nadir in the early 1970s amidst some sort of a triangular alliance between the United States, China, and Pakistan. Yet both Washington and New Delhi found reasons to come closer briefly during and after the 1962 India-China War. As the Cold War ended with the demise of the Soviet Union, New Delhi had to reorient its economic and political ties with Washington while maintaining its defense relations with Moscow. In the 21st century, as the specter of China’s rise became a reality to reckon with, New Delhi found itself in a new strategic environment, which gave economic reasons for building an Asian century with China, but security reasons to see a new partnership with the United States as a means to deal with a proximate power like China.
Limits of India’s Balancing Act
Despite a growing adversarial relationship with China, India’s foreign policy still finds prudence in not embracing the United States completely.
......
Gautam
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32283
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread - June 2015

Post by chetak »

Image
bala
BRFite
Posts: 1994
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Re: India and Japan: News and Discussion

Post by bala »

SSridhar wrote: the US technological help that has very substantially led to China being where it is today.
The motivation behind the "technological" help needs to be understood. The fangs of the deep state operating in the US has global imprint across various nations including China. Many of the initial factories were owned and operated by the deep state actors/relatives/friends & family in the US. When China opened its land/power/water (all free) for global investments, these factories were dismantled and reassembled in China. All the costs for the transfer were borne by China. Cheap factory labor (of Chinese) enabled products to be churned out a lower cost. This was a win win for all concerned. Over time, the Chinese using their clout in foreign trade started the arm-twisting of politicos in the US. Now US technology started flowing to China and bank accounts started going up.

PS: I heard from reliable sources that the Chinese print the same number note 6 times and circulate them in the economy.
Dilbu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8272
Joined: 07 Nov 2007 22:53
Location: Deep in the badlands of BRFATA

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread - June 2015

Post by Dilbu »

International Relations Theory Suggests Great-Power War Is Coming
Realist IR theories focus on power, and for decades, they maintained that the bipolar world of the Cold War and the unipolar post-Cold War world dominated by the United States were relatively simple systems not prone to wars of miscalculation. They also held that nuclear weapons raised the cost of conflict and made war among the major powers unthinkable.

Meanwhile, liberal theorists argued that a triumvirate of causal variables (institutions, interdependence, and democracy) facilitated cooperation and mitigated conflict. The dense set of international institutions and agreements (the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, etc.) established after World War II—and expanded and depended on since the end of the Cold War—provided forums for major powers to work out their differences peacefully.

Moreover, economic globalization made armed conflict too costly. Why quarrel when business is good and everyone is getting rich? Finally, according to this theory, democracies are less likely to fight and more likely to cooperate, and the major waves of democratization around the world over the past 70 years have made the globe a more peaceful place.

At the same time, constructivist scholars explained how new ideas, norms, and identities have transformed international politics in a more positive direction. In the past, piracy, slavery, torture, and wars of aggression were common practices. Over the years, however, strengthening human rights norms and taboos against the use of weapons of mass destruction placed guardrails on international conflict.

Unfortunately, nearly all of these pacifying forces appear to be unraveling before our eyes. The major driving forces of international politics, according to IR theory, suggest that the new Cold War among the United States, China, and Russia is unlikely to be peaceful.
Let us begin with power politics. We are entering a more multipolar world. To be sure, the United States is still the world’s leading power, according to nearly all objective measures, but China has risen to occupy a strong second-place position in military and economic might. Europe is an economic and regulatory superpower in its own right. A more aggressive Russia maintains the largest nuclear weapons stockpile on Earth. And major powers in the developing world—such as India, Indonesia, South Africa, and Brazil—are choosing a nonaligned path.

Realists argue that multipolar systems are unstable and prone to major wars of miscalculation. World War I is a classic example.

Multipolar systems are unstable in part because each country must worry about multiple potential adversaries. Indeed, at present, the U.S. Defense Department frets about possible simultaneous conflicts with Russia in Europe and China in the Indo-Pacific. Moreover, U.S. President Joe Biden has stated that the use of military force remains on the table as a last resort to deal with Iran’s nuclear program. A three-front war is not out of the question.

Wars of miscalculation often result when states underestimate their adversary. States doubt their opponent’s power or resolve to fight, so they test them. Sometimes, the enemy is bluffing, and the challenge pays off. If the enemy is determined to defend its interests, however, major war can result. Russian President Vladimir Putin likely miscalculated in launching an invasion of Ukraine, incorrectly assuming that war would be easy. Some realist scholars warned for some time that a Russian invasion of Ukraine was coming, and there is still the possibility that the war in Ukraine could spill across NATO’s borders, turning this conflict into a direct U.S.-Russia conflagration.

In addition, there is the danger that Chinese President Xi Jinping might miscalculate over Taiwan. Washington’s confusing “strategic ambiguity” policy as to whether it would defend the island only adds to the instability. Biden has said he would defend Taiwan, but his own White House contradicted him. Many leaders are confused, including possibly Xi. He might mistakenly believe he could get away with an attack on Taiwan—only to have the United States intervene violently to stop him.

Moreover, after several U.S. presidents have threatened “all options on the table” for the Iranian nuclear program without backing it up, Tehran might assume that it can make a dash for the bomb without a U.S. response. If Iran is mistaken in doubting Biden’s resolve, war could result.
Realists also focus on shifts in the balance of power and worry about the rise of China and the relative decline of the United States. Power transition theory says that the fall of a dominant great power and the rise of an ascendant challenger often results in war. Some experts worry that Washington and Beijing may be falling into this “Thucydides Trap.”

Their dysfunctional autocratic systems make it unlikely that Beijing or Moscow will usurp global leadership from the United States anytime soon, but a closer look at the historical record shows that challengers sometimes start wars of aggression when their expansive ambitions are thwarted. Like Germany in World War I and Japan in World War II, Russia may be lashing out to reverse its decline, and China may also be weak and dangerous.

Some people might argue that nuclear deterrence will still work, but military technology is changing. The world is experiencing a “Fourth Industrial Revolution” as new technologies—such as artificial intelligence, quantum computing and communications, additive manufacturing, robotics, hypersonic missiles, directed energy, and others—promise to transform the global economy, societies, and the battlefield.

Many defense experts believe we are on the eve of a new revolution in military affairs. It is possible that these new technologies could, like tanks and aircraft on the eve of World War II, give an advantage to militaries that go on the offense, making war more likely. At a minimum, these new weapons systems could confuse assessments of the balance of power, contributing to the above risks of miscalculation.

China, for example, is leading in several of these technologies, including hypersonic missiles, certain applications for artificial intelligence, and quantum computing. These advantages—or even the false perception in Beijing that these advantages might exist—could tempt China to invade Taiwan.
In the new Cold War, international institutions have simply become new arenas for competition. Russia and China are infiltrating these institutions and turning them against their intended purposes. Who can forget Russia chairing a meeting of the United Nations Security Council as its armies invaded Ukraine in February? Similarly, China used its influence in the World Health Organization to stymie an effective investigation into COVID-19’s origins. And dictators vie for seats on the U.N. Human Rights Council to ensure their egregious human rights abuses escape scrutiny. Instead of facilitating cooperation, international institutions are increasingly exacerbating conflict.
The free world is recognizing that it is too economically dependent on its enemies in Moscow and Beijing, and it is decoupling as fast as it can. Western corporations pulled out of Russia overnight. New legislation and regulations in the United States, Europe, and Japan are restricting trade and investment in China. It is simply irrational for Wall Street to invest in Chinese technology companies that are working with China’s People’s Liberation Army to develop weapons intended to kill Americans.

But China is also decoupling from the free world. Xi is prohibiting Chinese tech firms from listing on Wall Street, for example, because he doesn’t want to share proprietary information with Western powers. The economic interdependence between the liberal and illiberal worlds that has served as a ballast against conflict is now eroding.

Democratic peace theory says democracies cooperate with other democracies. But the central fault line in the international system today, as Biden explains, is “the battle between democracy and autocracy.”

To be sure, the United States still maintains cordial relations with some nondemocracies, such as Saudi Arabia. But the world order is increasingly divided with the United States and its status quo-oriented democratic allies in NATO, Japan, South Korea, and Australia on one side and the revisionist autocracies of China, Russia, and Iran on the other. One does not need a stethoscope to detect the echoes of the free world’s conflict against Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, and imperial Japan.
Moreover, constructivists might note that the democracy versus autocracy cleavage in international politics is not simply an issue of governance but of ways of life. The speeches and writings of Xi and Putin are often ideological rants about the superiority of autocratic systems and the failings of democracy. Like it or not—we are back in a 20th-century contest over whether democratic or autocratic governments can better deliver for their people, adding a more dangerous ideological element to this competition.

Fortunately, there is some good news. The best understanding of international politics may be found in a combination of theories. Much of humanity prefers a liberal international order, and this order is only made possible by the realist military power of the United States and its democratic allies. Moreover, 2,500 years of theory and history suggest that democracies tend to win these hard-power competitions and autocracies flame out disastrously in the end.

Unfortunately, the clarifying moments that bend history in an arc toward justice often only emerge after major-power wars.
Jay
BRFite
Posts: 697
Joined: 24 Feb 2005 18:24
Location: Gods Country
Contact:

Re: India and Japan: News and Discussion

Post by Jay »

bala wrote: The motivation behind the "technological" help needs to be understood.
Bala ji, forgive me for my questions here but I have to ask.
The fangs of the deep state operating in the US has global imprint across various nations including China.
For this discussions sake, can you point out who or what you consider as "deep state"
Many of the initial factories were owned and operated by the deep state actors/relatives/friends & family in the US.
Like what companies, owned by who and who are these relatives/friends.
All the costs for the transfer were borne by China.
I have never come across this in my readings. But I do acknowledge that China granted these initial companies unprecedented access to labor and leverage to their ecosystem.
Over time, the Chinese using their clout in foreign trade started the arm-twisting of politicos in the US.
Who are these US politicos that got arm twisted in implementing what policies? As is stands now, The Biden/Democratic establishment is trying to cast China as combatant in the the coming cold war and is rewriting every security aspect to make China their number 1 adversary. The previous Trump/Republican admin also carried similar steps. During the second term of Obama admin was when this noticeable pivot of castigating China as US's number 1 adversary started to happen. Even before that, US and China's relationship centered on one thing and one thing only, which is Commerce and never politics. Infact, in election after election, since mid 2000's at least, every US presidential debate bemoaned US manufacturing's reliance on China. Once it became abundantly clear that both parties got what they wanted and nothing can be extracted more, this current dynamic set in.

Every time we cast this "deep state" net over any and every event, we lose insight into what really happened. I suspect the word "deep state" is being used a lot here on this forum when there is no sufficient analysis available and is a catch all term that cuts off any furthur questioning or analysis.
bala
BRFite
Posts: 1994
Joined: 02 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Office Lounge

Re: India and Japan: News and Discussion

Post by bala »

Jay, The Deep state are usually non-state actors with powerful financial clout (not listed in usual wealthy people lists). They include a network of people with state actors. Currently Blinken and Nuland are part of this deep state. All of the worldwide color revolutions are financed by them. Also interestingly, the "Deep State" existed during the British Raj rule of India which is a totally different topic.

The China tango happened during Nixon/Kissinger era. Behind the scenes were the "Deep State" enabling this tango. During Reagan era and George Bush Sr era it deepened. Clinton era saw the blatant exchange of critical rocket technology to China. Bush Jr furthered his father's policies, remember his father was China veteran. The only president who really opposed China was Trump and the Deep state tried its best at impeachment. The rest of US Presidents paid lip service. The love-hate relationship with China is more towards love, since the economic pillar is symbiotic and heavily mutually dependent. Only the military angle is heightened nowadays. I completely discount any verbiage emitted nowadays from the establishment.

Understanding the deep state takes a nuanced view of things since there is no deep media analysis, facts are hard to nail since they cover themselves up very well, since there are experts involved. Did you know that until 1968 the IB of India reported to MI of England?
Jay
BRFite
Posts: 697
Joined: 24 Feb 2005 18:24
Location: Gods Country
Contact:

Re: India and Japan: News and Discussion

Post by Jay »

bala wrote:Jay, The Deep state are usually non-state actors with powerful financial clout (not listed in usual wealthy people lists).
Bala ji, I kind of agree with you on these below points and only these.
The China tango happened during Nixon/Kissinger era. During Reagan era and George Bush Sr era it deepened. Bush Jr furthered his father's policies. economic pillar is symbiotic and heavily mutually dependent.
The rest of the stuff you quoted lacks anything to back up with, or in some cases there is public evidence to the contrary. I'm mostly doing this for my understanding, so please bare with me if I'm being obtuse, I assure you I'm not arguing for the arguments sake.
The Deep state are usually non-state actors with powerful financial clout. They include a network of people with state actors. Currently Blinken and Nuland are part of this deep state. (not listed in usual wealthy people lists).
This definition seem to be neither here nor there. If they are usually non state actors then how come people like Blinken, and Nulund, along with organizations like CIA are heavily quoted as "DEEP STATE"? I mean, Blinken and Nulund are exact opposite of "non-state actors". They are in fact poster Childs of state actors. What Blinken, and Nulund have in common is they subscribe to the policy of US's global intervention and conflict to keep US as the sole Superpower. Is that what makes them "deep state" in your eyes?
All of the worldwide color revolutions are financed by them.
Are you saying that there is one universal "deep state" tasked for the entire world which makes these revolutions happen or is there a "deep state" for every country? What about the direct regime changes financed and undertaken by US then, were then done by US government or US deep state? Let's take Ukraine for example. US government officials, including then US foreign secretary hillary, is under record saying US is trying to get a friendly government in Ukraine and they are working towards it. Does that make this Ukrainian saga a US sponsored regime change exercise, or a deep state sponsored exercise?
Deep State" existed during the British Raj rule of India which is a totally different topic.
I agree, its a different topic but I have to ask. If the "deep state" existed during British raj, beginning in the 1850's then are US Civil war, 1917 soviet revolution, WW1, WW2 products of this deep state?
The China tango happened during Nixon/Kissinger era. Behind the scenes were the "Deep State" enabling this tango.
Who is the deep state here? The US govt wanted it at that time. It comprised of the security establishment which was eager to get China on its side, and against the Russians, especially after the Sino-Russian conflict. The US commerce structure wanted it as they saw China's billion people as new customers. US companies worked hand in hand with US government to make this happen. Politicians wanted it because they say approval from all US sectors and this would be a political win for them. So in this case who constitutes "deep state" and what did they exactly enable?
Clinton era saw the blatant exchange of critical rocket technology to China.
I agree that Clinton, and US in that era was pretty short sighted in how they dealt with China in the 90's. What you forget is this is after the cold war ended, and 90's saw global peace, unprecedented economic prospects and an overwhelming majority of NATO and non NATO countries alike started cutting their defense budgets. US saw it's role with China with rose tinted glasses and US security establishment was winding down the security posture after decades of tensions with communist bloc. During this time, US telecom companies started looking at China for cheap satellite launches because NASA was dealing with huge budget cuts. This is the context in which US or Clinton admin OK'd this move and it was not of rocket technologies. Below is the quote. Below is the direct quote from clinton, as US president to the congress on what this is. Critical, sure. But nothing breathtaking.

Mr. Clinton said that he had approved the export of satellite fuel and explosive bolts, which eject the satellite from its launch vehicle.
Bush Jr furthered his father's policies, remember his father was China veteran.
Bush jr ignored China because his administration stupidly got mired in the middle east regime change. Between 2001-2012, US hardly had any bandwidth to address the coming China problem because of their military boondoggle which is of their own creation. By the way, Bush SR is hardly a China veteran.
The only president who really opposed China was Trump
Undoubtedly, Trump is the one who made the most political noise about US's trade imbalance with China. Like most things with him, he is also one of the few presidents who benefited from China. Over the years, he highlighted US's dependence on china for manufacturing, while turning a blind eye towards China's expansionist policies. Trump is a classic Isolationists when it came to non-entanglement in international affairs, but a nationalist in economic policies. For example, he enabled North Korea and China by extension, to the detriment of South Korea, and Japan. I will definitely give him credit for bringing anti-china rhetoric to the surface.
The rest of US Presidents paid lip service. Only the military angle is heightened nowadays.
Yes, and No and not because past US presidents did not had balls to be belligerent. Times back then are not the same as now. No one should expect presidents ranging from Nixon to Bush SR to not work with the Chinese because cold war was the priority. For presidents in the 90's, it was the specter of economic gains, which US corporations saw steadily climb up. More than a decade after that was lost to the middle east. It's only after 2010 it was becoming apparent to US establishment that China will be the threat. Now, this current administration has started clamping down on China in an unprecedented way, both militarily and economically. I think this trend is irreversible going forward.
I completely discount any verbiage emitted nowadays from the establishment.
It's your prerogative, bala ji.
Understanding the deep state takes a nuanced view of things since there is no deep media analysis, facts are hard to nail since they cover themselves up very well, since there are experts involved.
With that said, what you are saying is since media does not understand what deep state is, anything one comes across in the media will lack facts/analysis, hence it's all bunk. I strongly disagree with this line. This is the same argument which some people use to conveniently hand wave and gloss over analysis, facts, and opinions that does not confirm to one's pre-determined notions. Since, by your own definition the notion of deep state is not apparently visible, what proof does any one even have that such a "entity" even exist, and running the global policy?
Did you know that until 1968 the IB of India reported to MI of England?[
I absolutely did not know that. Can this be verified with a source?
Last edited by Jay on 29 Apr 2023 21:06, edited 1 time in total.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32283
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: India and Japan: News and Discussion

Post by chetak »

Jay wrote:
Did you know that until 1968 the IB of India reported to MI of England?[
I absolutely did not know that. Can this be verified with a source?

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 893291.cms

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/i ... Nehru.html
Jay
BRFite
Posts: 697
Joined: 24 Feb 2005 18:24
Location: Gods Country
Contact:

Re: India and Japan: News and Discussion

Post by Jay »

chetak wrote:
Jay wrote:


I absolutely did not know that. Can this be verified with a source?

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 893291.cms

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/i ... Nehru.html
This is what I expected happened and to be honest, knowing our colonial legacy nothing surprising here. In the MI5/MI6-IB relationship, we are the junior partner as culling the relationship meant we were instantly blind on what was happening on the Paki side, and in the rest of the neighborhood, at least until our assets got built up. Over the years, as we gained confidence in our capabilities, and stature this relationship seemingly ended(at least officially) and seems to be a transactional relationship now.
drnayar
BRFite
Posts: 925
Joined: 29 Jan 2023 18:38

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread - June 2015

Post by drnayar »

It's election time, things like this can be used to bash up the battered congis
sanman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2305
Joined: 22 Mar 2023 11:02

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread - June 2015

Post by sanman »

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread - June 2015

Post by ramana »

Link: https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/shaping ... nal-state/
Shaping a 21st-century world order: The nation-state vs the civilizational state
APR 30, 2023, 6:28 PM

Please note that the posts on The Blogs are contributed by third parties. The opinions, facts and any media content in them are presented solely by the authors, and neither The Times of Israel nor its partners assume any responsibility for them. Please contact us in case of abuse. In case of abuse,
Report this post.

US President Joe Biden positions the Ukraine war as a battle between autocracy and democracy. That reduces what is at stake in the war. The stakes constitute a fundamental building block of a new 21st-century world order: the nature of the state.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine represents the sharp end of the rise of a critical mass of world leaders who think in civilizational rather than national terms. They imagine the ideational and/or physical boundaries of their countries as defined by history, ethnicity, culture, and/or religion rather than international law.


Often that assertion involves denial of the existence of the other and authoritarian or autocratic rule.



As a result, Russian President Vladimir Putin is in good company when he justifies his invasion of Ukraine by asserting that Russians and Ukrainians are one people. In other words, Ukrainians as a nation do not exist.

Neither do the Taiwanese or maritime rights of other littoral states in the South China Sea in the mind of Chinese President Xi Jinping. Or Palestinians in the vision of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s coalition partners.

Superiority and exceptionalism are guiding principles for men like Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan, India’s Narendra Modi, Hungary’s Victor Orban, and Mr. Netanyahu.

In 2018, the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, adopted a controversial basic law defining Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.

“Contrary to Israel’s Declaration of Independence, the nation-state law was seen as enshrining Jewish superiority and Arab inferiority, as bolstering Israel’s Jewish character at the expense of its democratic character, ” said journalist Carolina Landsmann.

Israeli religious Zionist writer Ehud Neor argued that “Israel is not a nation-state in Western terms. It’s a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy that Jewish people were always meant to be in the Holy Land and to follow the Holy Torah, and by doing so, they would be a light unto the world. There is a global mission to Judaism.”

Similarly, Mr. Erdogan describes Turkey as “dünyanın vicdanı,” the world’s conscience, a notion that frames his projection of international cooperation and development assistance.

“Turkey is presented as a generous patriarch following in the steps of (a particularly benevolent reading of) the Ottoman empire, taking care of those in need—including, importantly, those who have allegedly been forgotten by others. In explicit contrast to Western practices described as self-serving, Turkish altruism comes with the civilizational frame of Muslim charity and solidarity reminiscent of Ottoman grandeur,” said scholars Sebastian Haug and Supriya Roychoudhury.


In an academic comparison, Mr. Haug and Ms. Roychoudhury compare Mr. Erdogan’s notion of Turkish exceptionalism with Mr. Modi’s concept of ‘Vishwaguru.’

The concept builds on the philosophy of 19th-century Hindu leader Swami Vivekananda.
“His rendition of Hinduism, like Gandhian Hindu syncretic thought, ostensibly espouses tolerance and pluralism. With this and similar framings, the adoption of an allegedly Gandhi-inspired syncretic Hindu discourse enables Modi to distance himself politically from the secularist civilizational discourse of (Indian nationalist leader Jawaharlal) Nehru,” the two scholars said.

“At the same time, though, Modi’s civilizational discourse, with its indisputable belief in the superiority of Hinduism, has begun to underpin official rhetoric in international forums,” they added.

{Note the secualr point of view on Hinduism from the two authors. Vishwaguru is about knowldge and not hegemony!}

In a rewrite of history, Mr. Putin, in a 5,000-word article published less than a year before the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, portrayed the former Soviet republic as an anti-Russian creation that grounded its legitimacy in erasing “everything that united us” and projecting “the period when Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union as an occupation.”

In doing so, Mr. Putin created the justification civilisationalist leaders often apply to either expand or replace the notion of a nation-state defined by hard borders anchored in international law with a more fluid concept of a state with external boundaries demarcated by history, ethnicity, culture, and/or religion, and internal boundaries that differentiate its superior or exceptional civilization from the other.

Civilisationalism serves multiple purposes. Asserting alleged civilizational rights and fending off existential threats help justify authoritarian and autocratic rule.

Dubbed Xivilisation by the Global Times, a flagship newspaper of the Chinese Communist Party, Mr. Xi has redefined civilization to incorporate autocracy.

In March, Mr. Xi unveiled his Global Civilization Initiative at a Beijing conference of 500 political parties from 150 countries.

Taking a stab at the Western promotion of democracy and human rights, the initiative suggests that civilizations can live in harmony if they refrain from projecting their values globally.

“In other words, quipped The Economist, “the West should learn to live with Chinese communism. It may be based on Marxism, a Western theory, but it is also the fruit of China’s ancient culture.”

Mr. Xi launched his initiative days before Mr. Biden co-hosted a virtual Summit for Democracy.

The assertion by a critical mass of world leaders of notions of a civilizational state contrasts starkly with the promotion by Nahdlatul Ulama, the world’s Indonesia-based largest and most moderate Muslim civil society movement, of the nation-state as the replacement in Islamic law of the civilizationalist concept of a caliphate, a unitary state, for the global Muslim community.

Drawing conclusions from their comparison of Mr. Erdogan’s Turkey and Mr. Modi’s India, Mr. Haug and Ms. Roychoudhury concluded that civilisationalist claims serve “two distinct but interrelated political projects: attempts to overcome international marginalization and efforts to reinforce authoritarian rule domestically.”
{Incorrect assertion. Civilizational states transend nations which are a construct of Treaty of Westphalia to bring peace to war torn Europe.}


Like Mr. Biden, Mr. Xi and other civilizationalist leaders are battling for the high ground in a struggle to shape the future world order and its underlying philosophy.

Mr. Biden’s autocracy vs. democracy paradigm is part of that struggle. But so is the question of whether governance systems are purely political or civilizational. Countering that assertion could prove far more decisive.





Dr. James M. Dorsey is an award-winning journalist and scholar, an Adjunct Senior Fellow at Nanyang Technological University’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, and the author of the syndicated column and podcast, The Turbulent World with James M. Dorsey.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Dr. James M. Dorsey is an award-winning journalist and scholar and a Senior Fellow at the National University of Singapore’s Middle East Institute. He is the author of The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer.
KL Dubey
BRFite
Posts: 1756
Joined: 16 Dec 2016 22:34

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread - June 2015

Post by KL Dubey »

There is nothing overly "secret" about this meeting, which is widely known and has an official website. https://bilderbergmeetings.org/

It's a North America-Europe dialogue venue, with participants only from those countries.
Since its inaugural Meeting in 1954, the annual Bilderberg Meeting has been a forum for informal discussions to foster dialogue between Europe and North America. Every year, approx. 130 political leaders and experts from industry, finance, labour, academia and the media are invited to take part in the Meeting. About two thirds of the participants come from Europe and the rest from North America; one third from politics and government and the rest from other fields.
The meeting agenda/topics are published:

https://bilderbergmeetings.org/press/pr ... ss-release
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32283
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread - June 2015

Post by chetak »

Sorry

double post
Last edited by chetak on 22 May 2023 18:04, edited 1 time in total.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32283
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread - June 2015

Post by chetak »

Sadly, this is one creep who is definitely the result of an unsuccessful abortion...

Imagine if Pakistan was doing a similar summit in PoK.

His reaction would have been - "Masterstroke- Pak remains undeterred by India.

India needs to rethink its foreign policy."

Image
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32283
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread - June 2015

Post by chetak »

“The ‘great risk’ Europe faces is getting ‘caught up in crises that are not ours,”

If the Europeans didn’t learn anything from Iraq.

After his 6 hour meeting in China he told reporters that Europe should create distance with the U.S. & should not get involved in supporting America over China when it comes to Taiwan

France will soon celebrate D-Day in remembrance of the fallen souls mainly scores of American, Canadian and British troops who gave their lives in bravery to liberate France from under the German occupation.

I wonder what kind of speech Macron will now have for the occasion.


Image
vijayk
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8785
Joined: 22 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread - June 2015

Post by vijayk »

Image
Stephen Dziedzic @stephendziedzic

Striking language from James Marape as he opens meeting between Indian PM Narendra Modi and Pacific leaders. Marape calls Modi the "leader of the Global South" and India the "third big voice" in global politics which "must emerge." He says the Pacific will "rally behind" India
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32283
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread - June 2015

Post by chetak »

Image
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread - June 2015

Post by NRao »

Dilbu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8272
Joined: 07 Nov 2007 22:53
Location: Deep in the badlands of BRFATA

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread - June 2015

Post by Dilbu »

Why Does the G7 Need India?
First, with a GDP of $2.66 trillion, India’s economy is larger than three member countries of the G-7 – France, Italy, and Canada. According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), India is one of the fastest growing economies in the world and is expected to grow at 5.9 percent in 2023-2024. India is also the fastest growing economy in Asia. The World Bank has said that India’s growth rate is the highest among the seven largest emerging-market and developing economies.

India’s economic growth is in contrast with that of Western countries, most of which are facing stagnant growth prospects. Anne-Marie Gulde-Wolf, deputy director for the Asia and Pacific department of the IMF, said that India could be a key economic engine capable of driving global growth through consumption, investment, and trade. As an outlier among world’s major economies, India remains an attractive investment destination due to factors such as market potential, low manufacturing costs, business reforms, and a favorable industrial climate.

Recently India surpassed China as the most populous country in the world. With 68 percent of the population of working age (15-64 years) and 65 percent of the population under the age of 35, India offers a young and abundant skilled and semi-skilled work force.
Second, along with the United States and Japan, the European countries are formulating their policies to engage more with the Indo-Pacific region. In the past few years, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany – G-7 members from Europe – have formulated their own Indo-Pacific strategies. Italy too has shown inclination recently to engage with the Indo-Pacific region.

With the global geopolitical and economic epicenter shifting to the Indo-Pacific, European countries are keen to benefit from the economic opportunities that the region offers. However, the Indo-Pacific has its own challenges with a belligerent China expanding its strategic and economic footprint. For the Western countries, India has emerged as a major strategic partner to contain China, particularly in the Indian Ocean component of the Indo-Pacific region. Of the G-7 members, India has strategic partnerships with the U.S., the U.K., France, Germany, and Japan. India’s relations with Italy are rapidly expanding in the strategic domain.
Third, India has unexpectedly become a transit country to resolve the European energy crisis caused by the Russia-Ukraine war. Before the war started, Europe secured around 40 percent of its oil and gas supply from Russia. European countries plunged into an energy crisis as they reduced energy purchases from Russia over the course of the past year.

For its part, Russia offered its oil to India at discounted prices to compensate for the loss incurred due to European countries reducing their oil imports from Russia. As a result of securing energy supplies at discounted prices, India has increased its oil purchases from Russia. Russia has become India’s top supplier of oil.
Fourth, India is one of the few countries in the world to have cordial ties with both Russia and the West. The war in Ukraine has dragged on for more than one year with no end in sight. The situation at present could be best described as heading toward a stalemate.

As Western countries continue supplying arms to Ukraine, Moscow has also been intensifying attacks on Kyiv. The war has already disrupted economies and supply chains for many Western countries. India could, through direct or indirect mediation, offer a face-saving option to both the warring sides in near future. India’s approach of balancing ties with Russia and the West could assume importance in case of any possibility of dialogue and diplomacy to end the war.
Whether or not the G-7 expands to a G-8 again, this time to accommodate India, remains to be seen. However India’s engagements with the G-7 are imperative to address the challenges the grouping is facing.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread - June 2015

Post by ramana »

Thanks, Dilbu for posting the great article.
One correction.
India passed $3.5T in 2022.
Dilbu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8272
Joined: 07 Nov 2007 22:53
Location: Deep in the badlands of BRFATA

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread - June 2015

Post by Dilbu »

European council on foreign relations
Here be dragons: India-China relations and their consequences for Europe
India’s and China’s dispute along the border is illustrative of the growing rivalry between the two countries, which is shaping the security landscape and strategic environment of South Asia. China is gaining power and influence in the Indo-Pacific – where India has long been the dominant power – and using it as yet another arena for its strategic rivalry with the United States. Given Europe’s trade with the region and the complex interplay of relations between China, the US, India, Russia, and the European Union, this dynamic will have severe consequences not just for the region, but for Europe as well.

Beijing has tightened its grip over the entire Indian Ocean region in the past two decades. It has created a network of military and commercial facilities – the so-called string of pearls – and strengthened its economic relations with countries of the region. In 2022, Sri Lankan debt obligations to China rose to $7 billion, while the Maldives owes some 40 per cent of its GDP to China. These economic dependencies have eroded India’s influence in its immediate neighbourhood. New Delhi had built up strong diplomatic ties with other countries in the region through its “island diplomacy” and initiatives such as the Security and Growth for all in the Region maritime cooperation. China’s investment in the region has now pushed New Delhi into an economic competition which it may ultimately have difficulties sustaining.
Beijing is concerned about India’s growing military ties with the US and tends to consider India’s intentions through the lens of its own rivalry with the US. India’s inability to push back China at the border also further diminishes New Delhi’s influence over the smaller regional states, namely Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, and even the Maldives, by absorbing the financial, military, and administrative resources that could be spent on expanding India’s footprint in the region. It also poses questions about India’s relative power and its ability to protect smaller neighbouring countries from Chinese coercion. This leaves New Delhi even more isolated in the region that includes its arch-rival Pakistan.
Both India and China insist that they want to rebuild trust but they cannot agree on the process. Because it currently has the upper hand, China would like trust building to remain a strictly bilateral matter and does not want organisations such as the G20 and the SCO, the other three BRICS states – Brazil, Russia, and South Africa – or even the ASEAN-led institutions to play any role in the so far hypothetical normalisation process. In doing so, China challenges India’s multilateral aspirations and de facto reduces New Delhi’s capacity to manage collectively the consequences of China’s rise for itself and the region. The war in Ukraine makes this even easier as Russia, traditionally on India’s side in multilateral regional arrangements, seems distracted and neutralised by its new, albeit uneasy, proximity to China.
The escalating tensions and aggression since 2013 are therefore no coincidence. Beijing’s coercion on the border and naval build-up in the Indian Ocean force India into a costly arms race and warn it against what Beijing considers excessive proximity to the US. In the ongoing great power competition between China and the US, every issue becomes a zero-sum game. This makes it harder for India to solve its border conflict with China and at the same time manage China’s rise and growing assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific region in a peaceful manner.
The Indo-Pacific region accounts for 40 per cent of the bloc’s extra-EU imports and 27 per cent of its total exports, most of which are sea-borne. As such, the Indian Ocean is Europe’s primary gateway to the Indo-Pacific region. China and India may be slowly but effectively moving towards a new phase of antagonistic rivalry. While the prospect of open confrontation remains only a distant possibility, further polarisation of India-China relations in the Indian Ocean is a problem not only for India, but also for Europe.
ricky_v
BRFite
Posts: 1144
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread - June 2015

Post by ricky_v »

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/2 ... a-00096781
The Biden administration has been trying to bury the free-trade era for months.

U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai drove a nail into its coffin in January, telling the world’s one percent at Davos that the Biden administration would try to shape a “new economic world order” around protecting workers. And National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan sought to deliver last rites in April, promising the White House would forge a “new Washington consensus” to replace the one that had governed the globe for over a generation.


“I remain convinced that through all of this disruption we’re moving towards a new economic order,” Tai told POLITICO in an interview. “I’d really like to fill that gap with a positive vision that we will be prepared for it.”


The goal is to replace the old paradigms of globalization — free trade and a reliance on markets — with a “worker-centered” trade policy that raises wages not just for Americans, but around the world.
Biden’s team is moving slowly to transform a paralyzed World Trade Organization, once the premier facilitator of globalization, into a new-look economic club that reflects its progressive values. As those efforts crawl along, Biden has sought to forge new economic partnerships in Asia and Latin America, but the nascent efforts pale in comparison to China’s trillion-dollar infrastructure program for developing nations and risk replicating the corporate-friendly trade policies of the old system.

“In the end, the way that we are going to build an international economic architecture is not going to be with kind of Parthenon-style, clear pillars as we did after the Second World War,” Sullivan said, “but something that feels a little bit more like a Frank Gehry — a mix of structures and substances.”
In 1990, on the eve of the first Iraq War, President George H.W. Bush used almost the same words to tell Congress the U.S. would pursue a “new world order” based on commonly held democratic and capitalist values.

Rubio’s monologue was a remarkable admittance for a senior Republican lawmaker: that the last 50 years of U.S. economic policy and foreign policy, inaugurated by Richard Nixon’s visit to China and exemplified by Ronald Reagan and Bush winning the Cold War, has ultimately failed — or at least run its course.

And in that room, Rubio’s comments registered as common knowledge, even with veterans of the U.S. foreign policy establishment on Biden’s team.

“We all hoped for that vision,” said Sherman, with an air of nostalgic regret. “But what changed is that the [Chinese leader] Xi Jinping of today is not the Xi of the 1990s that we all thought we knew.”

The exchange was a striking point of agreement between Biden’s team and Rubio, who had labeled the president’s diplomatic appointees “polite and orderly caretakers of America’s decline” at the start of the administration. But it was just one example of a broad reappraisal of the legacy of an economic model that scholars call neoliberalism — a broad belief in free trade, global democratization, and low levels of regulations, taxes and social services in domestic policy.

Once the mainstream position in Washington, spanning from the presidencies of Nixon to Obama, such “neoliberal” economic policies are now assailed by left and right alike.

“The promise that was made is that globalization is going to make corporations rich, but it’s also going to lift people out of poverty,” Duss said. “And it turns out that leads to massive growth in inequality, and powers corruption and authoritarianism and environmental disruption.”

“The U.S. passed NAFTA, it granted most favored nations treatment to China and then everything went to hell for 20 years,” said Lighthizer. “We lost jobs, we had communities break up, we had opioid addiction, and maybe the worst part of it was — we had the rich here get very rich and the middle class and lower middle class get screwed. So it was a disaster.”
Tai and Biden’s answer to both neoliberalism and right-wing populism is their oft-cited worker-centered trade policy. In a phrase, it seeks to flip globalization on its head.

For decades, as Tai tells it, global trade has been a “race to the bottom”: corporations seeking greater profits by moving to nations with lower wages and fewer regulations. While many workers — particularly in China, with state support — moved out of poverty under this model, Tai argues it contributed more to inequality and environmental degradation. That, in turn, has fed the populist backlashes to the neoliberal era that led to Brexit, Trump’s election, and the rising tide of populism seen around the world.

Tai and Sullivan frame their task as reversing that dynamic. Instead of allowing corporations to decamp to countries with lower wages and regulations, they envision forming a club of nations that adhere to higher standards for workers’ rights and environmental protection. If trade is facilitated between high-standard nations, and discouraged with nations that do not abide by them, the U.S. can encourage a “race to the top,” Tai has said, in which economic activity that pays well and protects the environment is incentivized.

Put another way: If neoliberalism has been labeled globalist — or supporting the interests of a global elite — Tai and Biden’s policy could be described as internationalist — supporting the interests of workers, regardless of nationality, over the elites and business owners. It’s a decidedly left-wing economic perspective that progressive trade voices have pushed since the dawn of the neoliberal era, but it’s the first time that the leaders of the world’s largest economy have embraced it.
Instead, Biden has peddled a new type of economic “partnership” that aims to raise economic standards while avoiding the third rail of tariffs — the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Asia and the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity for the Western Hemisphere.

While they don’t include some key elements of usual trade partnerships — tariff reductions and enforceable standards — the administration and its allies have touted them as forums to develop new economic rules and standards that will guide trade among like-minded nations. If done right, Biden’s team envisions them as vehicles to negotiate the values they hope will guide the next chapter of the global economy.

“What we’re looking to form are open societies, open markets where you have confidence in a level playing field and the values that you’re trading under,” Tai told POLITICO, saying that would give other nations “a proposition for growth that is more inclusive, where it’s not just the bigs getting bigger, but that the littles have a chance, too — and that goes for corporations, countries, [and] economies.”


“We can’t wait for WTO reform,” Sullivan said. “We have to be pursuing a range of other strategies to deal with China as it actually is,” like the Indo-Pacific forum and recent U.S. efforts with Europe and Japan to promote trade in less-polluting steel production, which would cut out Chinese producers and have recently hit a pause.

Those efforts, Sullivan said, will aim for a “plurilateral approach” where the U.S. and allies can “collectively align our approaches to deal with certain non-market economic practices that are fundamentally harmful,” like those coming from China.
like i have maintained, nobody barring india is actually looking to preserve the rules based order as it is, us pays lip service while plotting changes in accordance with its domestic demographic /outlook, china uses it on a need-to-need basis, russia is miffed with the entire system altogether, while the eu plays pocket billiards...or at least discourses heavily on the proper legislation to play pocket billiards
drnayar
BRFite
Posts: 925
Joined: 29 Jan 2023 18:38

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread - June 2015

Post by drnayar »

Not to nitpick but isn't this in line with indias trade policies and visa agreements??!... India is no longer in favour of fta s .. its national policy and foreign policies are in favour of improving human capital..no ?
Cyrano
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5481
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread - June 2015

Post by Cyrano »

US is attempting to fix a problem at home by changing the world it seems. Bringing back jobs has proved a lot more difficult than they thought. The New Green Deal has produced nothing substantial that Biden touted in his campaign. The reason is rightly the wage and productivity differential thats hard to overcome due to the economic disadvantage its puts the west in. Not to mention decades of sending industries overseas and along with it, technologies and skills.

Now the attempt is to reduce the differential by imposing higher costs overseas in the name of worker's rights and environmental impact. Arguments the EU loves but has no means left to impose. But the US led west are no longer in a unipolar world to run their fiat. Asian economies and global south are in a far better position today to bypass western markets and trade among themselves, and progressively get rid of dollar dependency and western influence.

The west can make up all the rules they want, but the stadiums are emptying and games people play have changed.
sanman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2305
Joined: 22 Mar 2023 11:02

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread - June 2015

Post by sanman »

India to Push Back Against ‘agenda-Driven’ Global Ranking Firms: Modi Advisor

https://indianexpress.com/article/india ... s-8631578/
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread - June 2015

Post by ramana »

FT reports Jamie Dimon is organizing a US-China business conf in Shanghai and has Henry Kissinger in tow.

Shows they want to restore track II
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread - June 2015

Post by ramana »

sanman wrote:India to Push Back Against ‘agenda-Driven’ Global Ranking Firms: Modi Advisor

https://indianexpress.com/article/india ... s-8631578/
The dumb Sarkari IIMs should create their own global indices and not work for HBS seminars.
drnayar
BRFite
Posts: 925
Joined: 29 Jan 2023 18:38

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread - June 2015

Post by drnayar »




Calling it as it is
Cyrano
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5481
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread - June 2015

Post by Cyrano »

Sadhguru can be incisive and hilarious at the same time !
sanman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2305
Joined: 22 Mar 2023 11:02

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread - June 2015

Post by sanman »

ramana wrote:The dumb Sarkari IIMs should create their own global indices and not work for HBS seminars.
Time to leverage Global South for that too, in order to get our indices more market share.
sanman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2305
Joined: 22 Mar 2023 11:02

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread - June 2015

Post by sanman »

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32283
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread - June 2015

Post by chetak »

Image


https://youtu.be/udovSQVO7Tw



South Africa's ANC secretary-general questions western accountability in Iraq, Afghanistan



sanman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2305
Joined: 22 Mar 2023 11:02

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread - June 2015

Post by sanman »

chanakyaa
BRFite
Posts: 1723
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 00:09
Location: Hiding in Karakoram

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread - June 2015

Post by chanakyaa »

BRICS FMs Meet LIVE : South Africa Hosts Meeting of BRICS Foreign Ministers (Q&A with media)

ricky_v
BRFite
Posts: 1144
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread - June 2015

Post by ricky_v »

https://www.project-syndicate.org/comme ... os-2023-06

Jun 6, 2023
GEORGE SOROS

The polycrisis has many sources. In my opinion the main source of the polycrisis afflicting the world today is artificial intelligence. Climate change comes second, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine qualifies as the third. The list is much longer but I’ll focus on these three. That should help reduce the confusion.


We, human beings, are both participants and observers in the world in which we live. As participants we want to change the world in our favor; as observers we want to understand reality as it is. These two objectives interfere with each other. I regard this as an important insight which allows me to distinguish between right and wrong.
This made me almost instinctively opposed to AI and I wholeheartedly agree with the experts who argue that it needs to be regulated. But the regulations have to be globally enforceable because the incentive to cheat is too great; those who evade the regulations gain an unfair advantage.

Unfortunately, global regulations are unattainable because the world is dominated by a conflict between two systems of governance which are diametrically opposed to each other. They have radically different views on what needs to be regulated and why.

I refer to the two systems of governance as open and closed societies. I define the difference between the two as follows: in an open society, the role of the state is to defend the freedom of the individual; in a closed society, the role of the individual is to serve the interests of the rulers.
Post Reply