Geopolitical thread

[ramana]

The Critique of Robert Kagan

VP of CATO writes.

Must be very ticked off!!!

[KrishnaK]

^^^ How successful were we??

That the asian giants will keep increasing their influence to the point where they end up at the top is a very safe prediction. beyond that, in terms of the timeframe, is just sticking a finger in the wind.

[member_23626]

^^^ How successful were we??

That the asian giants will keep increasing their influence to the point where they end up at the top is a very safe prediction. beyond that, in terms of the timeframe, is just sticking a finger in the wind.

I think we haven't become a colossal that we should have been by now. It seems most of the political problems that we used to have in the 80s (when this article was written) has only degraded, so has quality of life and relationship between the people. Infact, I would say, in the name of modernism, we even lost out what we used to have in the 80s. I don't really care about Asia's rise, but India's (or Bharat as I would like to call it). It's my dream to have a people that are staunch culturalists (like japanese) as well as socially disciplined (again like japs) with the hardwork and intelligence of of a bharatiya. I only see the problem becoming worse as each day passes. Sorry to be bitter, but I sincerely worry about these issues regarding desh.

[abhishek_sharma]

Dark Soldiers of the New Order: The Soviet Union's spies haven't disappeared, they're just wearing new clothes. An exclusive excerpt from Edward Lucas's new book, Deception.

[abhishek_sharma]

After all it was Serbia's reluctance to extradite Duke Ferdinand's murderers to Austria that started the Great War that unraveled the European social order.

Serbians were seriously scared and were ready to extradite the murderers. They were about to accept all Austrian demands. But then the Russians asked them to stand strong and ignore Austria/Germany. Once they got the Russian support, Serbia went back to its unreasonable Paki-type behavior.

---

In this book, the author writes about the barbaric behavior of Russian peasants which was entirely inconsistent with the utopian ideals of nice-innocent-hard-working peasants. Maxim Gorky was severely beaten by some peasants when he tried to save a woman from being punished. He wrote some bitter essays on this issue.

[abhishek_sharma]

50th anniversary of the Cuban missile crisis

The Era of Oil Abundance: Meet the winners and losers of the coming age of plenty.

Bad news for balancing in Asia

[abhishek_sharma]

The story of the Norway massacre, as told by the survivors.

Greg Ousley Is Sorry for Killing His Parents. Is That Enough?

[svinayak]

Secretary Clinton pushes 'Smart Power' doctrine

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton outlined the Obama administration's foreign policy philosophy in a 2,700-word essay entitled "The Art of Smart Power" in the New Statesman on Wednesday. The article also appears to be a summary of Clinton's legacy in some ways, as she nears the end of her term as America's top diplomat.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies provides a succinct definition of Smart Power: "...an approach that underscores the necessity of a strong military, but also invests heavily in alliances, partnerships, and institutions of all levels to expand American influence and establish legitimacy of American action."

Many experts see Obama's strategy of "leading from behind" in Libya as the quintessential example of smartly combining soft and hard power, for the U.S. applied force by tomahawking Tripoli while it leveraged the NATO alliance to unseat Gaddafi.

In her piece Clinton stresses that the world is a much different place than it was during the Cold War. Hence, the U.S. must "fundamentally change the way we do business" in order to deal with an emerging international system in which power is more distributed and countries are more interconnected like never before.

It is no longer enough to be strong, she asserts – great powers must also be persuasive and “savvy”. Critics will argue that the U.S. hasn’t been very persuasive with the likes of Russia and China on issues such as Syria, Iran and exchange rates.

[nvishal]

^From Acharya's link
Secretary Clinton pushes 'Smart Power' doctrine

The Center for Strategic and International Studies provides a succinct definition of Smart Power: "...an approach that underscores the necessity of a strong military, but also invests heavily in alliances, partnerships, and institutions of all levels to expand American influence and establish legitimacy of American action."

"legitimacy" meaning "consensus"; get the world to rally behind the sheriff.

[svinayak]

After Iraq war there is a severe crisis of "legitimacy of American action."

[abhishek_sharma]

Russia’s Top Cyber Sleuth Foils US Spies, Helps Kremlin Pals

Who is full of hot air on climate change?

The Ghost of Abu Yahya: The memory of the al Qaeda commander known as "the next Osama" lives on in a remote Libyan village.

The Fog of Civil War: What's really going on in Syria is too complicated to fit in a headline.

[Philip]

Russina Navy returns to Cold War basing plans.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/eur ... story.html

Navy chief: Russia talking to Cuba, Vietnam and Seychelles about naval bases
Xcpt:

By Associated Press, Published: July 27

MOSCOW — Russia is talking to Cuba, Vietnam and the Indian Ocean island country of Seychelles about housing Russian navy ships, the nation’s navy chief said in remarks reported Friday.

Vice Admiral Viktor Chirkov told the state RIA Novosti news agency that Russia is in talks about setting up maintenance and supply facilities for Russian ships in those countries but wouldn’t give any further details.

Russia’s only existing naval base outside the Soviet Union is located in the Syrian port of Tartus. A squadron of Russian navy ships, including several assault ships carrying marines, is currently heading to Tartus in a show of support for a longtime ally whom Moscow protected from international sanctions and continued to supply with weapons.

Chirkov’s statement marked a sharp about-face for Russia, which closed a Soviet-era naval base at Vietnam’s Cam Ranh Bay and a spy base in Lourdes on Cuba in the early 2000s during President Vladimir Putin’s first term.

http://en.ria.ru/world/20120727/174804220.html

Xcpt:

Vietnam will allow Russia to set up a ship maintenance base at its port of Cam Ranh, Vietnamese President Truong Tan Sang said on Friday.
Sang, speaking to the Voice of Russia radio station ahead of a meeting with President Vladimir Putin, stressed that the port would not be a Russian military base. But he also said that Cam Ranh would be used to help develop “military co-operation” between the two former Cold War allies.
Sang also said Hanoi was planning to develop the capacity to provide maintenance services to any foreign ship docking at Cam Ranh, a former Soviet naval base.
Russia currently has only one foreign military base outside the former Soviet Union – in Tartus, Syria. But officials say the base is little more than a re-fuelling stop for Russian warships.
Russia’s naval chief, Vice Admiral Viktor Chirkov, confirmed on Friday that Russia was in talks on obtaining naval bases in Cuba, Vietnam and in the Seychelles.
“We are indeed continuing work to ensure the stationing of Russian Navy forces outside the Russian Federation,” he said in an interview with RIA Novosti. “As part of this work at the international level, we are discussing issues related to the creation of [ship] maintenance stations in Cuba, in the Seychelles and in Vietnam.”
The Russian Navy saw that it badly needed foreign bases after 2008, when Russian warships joined international anti-piracy efforts in the Gulf of Aden. Russia has also discussed the possibility of using ports in Djibouti for its warships in the past.

PS:What has happened to the IN's plans?

[brihaspati]

Russina Navy returns to Cold War basing plans.
PS:What has happened to the IN's plans?

Hindi Chini bhai bhai. Chini bhai was displeased. But you should check with those who have the inner ear of our master strategists : it could also be a case of long previous difficulties in infratsructural problems from the vietnamese side, or the INA base actually already exists, but cannot be seen - since it is under 24/7 secrecy protection, out of tactical considerations.

[nakul]

Just to add to what has been said above, there have been noise about the transfer of Brahmos to Vietnam for years. Is this just to show that India is willing to help Vietnam or has such a sale actually happened?

[Roperia]

There is a new book by Lora Saalman - China India Nuclear Crossroads

This is probably the first comprehensive work on the Indo-China nuclear balance (or imbalance).

[Aditya_V]

WTF! how nations have exclusive rights to particular seabed.

South Korea wins right to mine under Indian Ocean

[Philip]

Fine piece by our former For.Sec.KC Singh.

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/columnis ... on-aligned

The challenge of being non-aligned

August 13, 2012

On July 18, 2012, a blast in Damascus took the lives, among others, of President Bashar al-Assad’s brother-in-law Gen. Aseef Shawkat, the Defence Chief of Staff, as well as that of the defence minister. Coincidently or otherwise a similar explosion at the intelligence headquarters in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, killed the deputy head and allegedly its newly appointed head Prince Bandar bin Sultan, for long the Saudi ambassador to the United States. The Saudis have released Bandar’s picture at a Majlis, which, however, cannot be dated.

Both incidents indicated that the no-holds-barred struggle between the rival alliances of Saudi Arabia-Turkey, blessed by the US and its allies and Iran, under Russian and Chinese benediction, had now expanded. Syria was employing air power and armour, shelling even its historic cities like Aleppo, and the arms supplies to the Syrian Free Army based in Turkey and its affiliates were getting enhanced. US secretary of state Hillary Clinton visiting Turkey mulled the imposition of a no-fly zone over parts of Syria, reminiscent of Western intervention in Libya that turned the tide against Muammar Gaddafi.

Indian policymakers may prefer the philosophical sophistry of non-aligned posturing; as non-permanent members of the United Nations Security Council till end 2012 they were being compelled to take positions. South Block sources when quizzed advocate a secular Syria but in reality either abstain at the UN or support resolutions facing veto by the Russia-China axis. Remaining on the sidelines may not safeguard Indian interests in an evolving scenario.

Firstly, the Saudi-Iranian rivalry is now welding the two regions of the Gulf and West Asia into one theatre. Unseen but critical actors are the US and Israel. Because the Shia-Sunni rivalry is playing out in Syria, Bahrain and Yemen, loss of Iranian influence in Syria is bound to shift Iranian pressure to the other two countries bringing the fight to the Gulf and thus closer to where the Indian interests are directly involved in energy, Indian diaspora and trade.

Secondly, Syria is a multi-ethnic lynchpin of the post-Ottoman division of political power amongst itself, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq, created artificially with boundaries leaving ethnic groups divided and stranded across five countries, including the erstwhile overlord Turkey. Thus its implosion is bound to rewrite boundaries, coalesce separated minorities or even create new nations, like after the collapse of Soviet Union.

Take Turkey itself. It is a Nato ally, moderately Islamist, pivoting away from Europe towards its southern and historic areas of influence. Syria, however, presents it many paradoxes. It supports the Sunni majority in Syria but is worried about the revival of militancy amongst its Kurdish minority as the PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party), the militant face of Kurdish defiance of Turkish authority, has traditionally had refuge in and support from Syria. This had diminished after the death of Hafez al-Assad but stands resurrected today in response to the Turkish support to the Syrian Free Army. Turkey also hosts 15-20 million Alevis, a Shia offshoot akin to the ruling Alawites of Syria although they have evolved independently. Can Turkey live with disaffection amongst both these minorities, who could constitute almost half the population?

The Kurds of Iraq sit atop huge oil reserves but are landlocked though a pipeline through Turkey carries the Kirkuk oil to the Mediterranean. That puts them in the Turkish corner but only so long as their Kurdish brethren in western Turkey to their North and the Syrian Kurds to their West do not reshape new loyalties. The irony would be if the uprising in post-Ottoman West Asia ends up destabilising Turkey itself, reopening what was settled at the end of World War I.

The dangers of the Saudi-Iran rivalry may be dawning on both Riyadh and Tehran. Two upcoming conferences provide the avenue for cogitation. A special session of the Organisation of Islamic Conference meets at Mecca on August 15-16. King Abdullah has wisely invited President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. It is followed by the Non-Aligned Summit on August 29-30 in Tehran. The first meeting addresses the Syrian question. Is it possible for the Annan Plan or its replacement to still draw Syria back from the abyss?

The second meeting provides Iran a stage for either articulating a new vision of cooperation and accommodation or grandstanding when the Western sanctions are stifling its economy. It can either throw the whole region into chaos, Syria being a mere flicker of what may follow if the US and Israel are sucked in, or it can begin a calibrated climb down dressed as statesmanship.

Thus, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in Tehran must do plain speaking bilaterally, urging Iran to choose the wiser path of accommodation.

It is true that for India, Iran is vital for providing access to Central Asia, oil and gas and a counterweight to Pakistan in Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia by deporting Abu Jundal signalled that it, too, could meet at least two of those imperatives, that is energy and Pakistan.

Thus India is not without choices. At the NAM Summit India must rise above the tendency to brush difficult issues under the carpet or simply allow the chair to guide the debate. India is and shall always be non-aligned, if that means strategic independence. But India must oppose or even disassociate from NAM resolutions that divide.

On Syria, let Dr Singh suggest a NAM initiative, that may include volunteering peacekeepers if necessary, supplemented by other NAM nations to begin implementing the eminently reasonable Annan Plan. Let the NAM show it can achieve what the UN Security Council could not and Dr Singh disprove the Time Magazine moniker of “underachiever”.

The writer is a former secretary in the external affairs ministry.

[Philip]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religio ... shift.html

Pope's historic decision that using condoms "to save life" is acceptable.

By Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Religious Affairs Correspondent

8:45PM GMT 20 Nov 2010

Comments200 Comments

After decades of fierce opposition to the use of all contraception, the Pontiff has ended the Church’s absolute ban on the use of condoms.

He said it was acceptable to use a prophylactic when the sole intention was to “reduce the risk of infection” from Aids.

While he restated the Catholic Church’s staunch objections to contraception because it believes that it interferes with the creation of life, he argued that using a condom to preserve life and avoid death could be a responsible act – even outside marriage.

Asked whether “the Catholic Church is not fundamentally against the use of condoms,” he replied: “It of course does not see it as a real and moral solution. In certain cases, where the intention is to reduce the risk of infection, it can nevertheless be a first step on the way to another, more humane sexuality.”

He stressed that abstinence was the best policy in fighting the disease but in some circumstances it was better for a condom to be used if it protected human life.
Related Articles

Confusion over Pope's condom views
21 Nov 2010

The Pope in his own words
20 Nov 2010

Growing theological consensus that the Pope is morally justified
20 Nov 2010

Pope Benedict reveals his charity and common sense
20 Nov 2010

Contraception 'still forbidden' by Church
21 Nov 2010

Swiss Catholics divided over condom distribution
26 Oct 2010

“There may be justified individual cases, for example when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be … a first bit of responsibility, to redevelop the understanding that not everything is permitted and that one may not do everything one wishes.

“But it is not the proper way to deal with the horror of HIV infection.”

The announcement is in a book to be published by the Vatican this week based on the first face-to-face interview given by a pope.

In the interview, he admits he was stunned by the sex abuse scandal that has engulfed the Catholic Church and raises the possibility of the circumstances under which he would consider resigning. The 83-year-old Pontiff says in passages published exclusively in The Sunday Telegraph today that he is aware his “forces are diminishing”.

However, he appears determined to fight for the place of faith in the public domain.

His language in attacking the use of recreational drugs in the West and its impact on the rest of the world is particularly striking.

He describes drug trafficking as an “evil monster” that stems from the “boredom and the false freedom of the Western world”. Most significant, however, are his comments on condoms, which represent the first official relaxation in the Church’s attitude on the issue after rising calls for the Vatican to adopt a more practical approach to stopping the spread of HIV.

The Pope’s ruling is aimed specifically at stopping people infecting their partners, particularly in Africa where the disease is most prevalent.

However, it will inevitably be seized upon by liberal Catholics in Britain who oppose the Church’s stance against contraception.

[abhishek_sharma]

Tokyo's Hawkish Governor Stirs the Pot

Japan headed to World Court over dispute with Korea?

[SSridhar]

Japan headed to World Court over dispute with Korea?

This may be a precursor for the claimants of South China Sea to take a similar route.

[Philip]

Julian Assange case: Ecuador pushes for neighbours' support

Quito insists embassy is inviolable as Hague says WikiLeaks founder will not be allowed safe passage out of country

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/au ... or-support

Julian Assange case: Ecuador pushes for neighbours' support

Quito insists embassy is inviolable as Hague says WikiLeaks founder will not be allowed safe passage out of countr
Peter Beaumont
guardian.co.uk, Saturday 18 August 2012

Julian Assange extradition
A pro-Julian Assange protest outside the embassy of Ecuador, in Knightsbridge, central London. Photograph: Dominic Lipinski/PA

The international diplomatic row over WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange – who is avoiding extradition to Sweden by taking refuge in the Ecuadorean embassy in London – was escalating as Ecuador continued to push for the support of its South American neighbours.

Having secured an emergency meeting of the Organisation of American States over what Ecuador says is Britain's threat to invade its embassy in London to arrest Assange, the Ecuadoreans are pushing for similar meetings of the Union of South American Nations, the left-leaning Alba association of Bolivarian states and the UN.

On the agenda for the OAS meeting will be both Ecuador's claims that the UK has threatened the principle of "inviolable" status of its embassy in the UK and demands that the UK grant "safe passage" for Assange out of the UK.

As Assange prepared to give a statement on his situation – reportedly outside the embassy, where he could face arrest for breach of his bail conditions – the row over Britain's veiled threat that it could enter the embassy to arrest him appeared to escalate.

On Friday the OAS voted to hold a meeting next Friday following Ecuador's decision to grant political asylum to Assange. Assange has described the move as a "historic victory" but the foreign secretary, William Hague, made it clear that the Australian would not be allowed safe passage out of the country.

The latest developments came as the Australian government released redacted logs under a Freedom of Information request detailing its deliberations over the Assange case. Included in the documents is the Australian government's legal view that any US attempt to prosecute Assange under the Espionage Act – which Assange says he fears – would face "serious obstacles".

The released cables also appear to directly contradict Assange's claims that he had sought asylum with Ecuador because Australia had "abandoned" him by refusing to intervene in his planned extradition.

Officials claim he has been contacted eight times by consular officials while in the embassy. The sources added that far from refusing Assange help, it was Assange who had declined Australian assistance.

Assange has been in the embassy for two months after facing extradition to Sweden to be questioned on claims of sexual assault. He denies the claims and says he fears being sent to the US if he goes to Sweden.

The decision by the OAS to debate the affair follows a letter from the Foreign Office to Ecuadorean authorities, warning it believed it had a legal basis to arrest Assange in the embassy, interpreted by Ecuador as a threat to raid the building – although this has been denied by the UK which says it prefers a "negotiated outcome".

The US, Canada and Trinidad and Tobago opposed the resolution, but 23 members voted in favour of the meeting. There were five abstentions and three members were absent. OAS secretary general José Miguel Insulza said the meeting would be about "the problem posed by the threat or warning made to Ecuador by the possibility of an intervention into its embassy".

He added: "What is being proposed is that the foreign ministers of our organisation address this subject and not the subject of asylum nor whether it should be granted to Mr Julian Assange. That will be discussed between Great Britain and Ecuador. The issue that concerns us is the inviolability of diplomatic missions of all members of this organisation."

Ecuador's president, Rafael Correa, said in a radio interview on Friday that his nation was not trying to undermine Sweden's attempts to question Assange. He said: "The main reason why Julian Assange was given diplomatic asylum was because his extradition to a third country was not guaranteed; in no way was it done to interrupt the investigations of Swedish justice over an alleged crime. In no way."

Hague has said that diplomatic immunity should not be used to harbour alleged criminals. He said it is a "matter of regret" that the Ecuadorean government granted the WikiLeaks founder political asylum but warned that it "does not change the fundamentals" of the case.

The case could go on for some "considerable" time, Hague said, adding: "We will not allow Mr Assange safe passage out of the United Kingdom, nor is there any legal basis for us to do so."

Ecuadorean ministers have accused the UK of threatening to attack the embassy to seize Assange, after it emerged that the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987 could allow revocation of a building's diplomatic status if the foreign power occupying it "ceases to use land for the purposes of its mission or exclusively for the purposes of a consular post".

But Hague said: "There is no threat here to storm an embassy. We are talking about an Act of Parliament in this country which stresses that it must be used in full conformity with international law."

The Swedish foreign ministry said that it had summoned Ecuador's ambassador over the Latin American country's "unacceptable" decision to grant asylum to Assange.

PD:The British threat to storm the embassy has created a huge backlash internationally.Behaving like a "gangsta regime",more akin to Uncle Sam's Wild West and Dodge City,rather than the country that gave the world the Magna Carta,illustrates the mendacity of some of minds in the British establishment today.Some of these Foreign Office mandarins have had an overdose of being brainwashed about the servile "special realtionship" with the US,and the gangsta/outlaw acts that the Blair regime in particular displayed in the invasion of Iraq based upon a lie.

[Samudragupta]

It will be a huge disaster if they actually do this because that will create precedence for British embassies in Iran and Pakistan

[Fidel Guevara]

Rafael Correa, President of Ecuador, interviewed by Julian Assange.

Correa seems to be a feisty and eloquent leader. My observations:

1) Highly educated (Masters and PhD in Economics from the US and Belgium),
2) Long-term planner - he spent a year in the mountains with the indigeneous people of Ecuador, teaching kindergarten kids, to develop fluency in the language of the indigeneous people, unlike most other Spanish-speaking politicians. That helped him in his electoral wins.
3) Brave - He renegotiated 60% decrease in foreign debt interest, and declared the previous debt to be "Odious Debt", and illegal to pay back.
4) Brave - he shut down a US Air Force base and kicked out all Khans. Unlike some people to our west, who only threaten to do this.

This guy clearly symbolizes the Latin "machismo" concept, and it is unlikely such a fellow will back off just because a big nation like the UK tries to bully him.

UK would be better off to pay an embassy employee to poison Assange, rather than take on this Correa fellow.

Interesting days ahead.

[shyam]

It will be a huge disaster if they actually do this because that will create precedence for British embassies in Iran and Pakistan

All the people wanted by other countries take asylum in Britain. Why is that a person wanted by Sweden, for silly accusations, can't take asylum in another country, if not Britain?

[Fidel Guevara]

It will be a huge disaster if they actually do this because that will create precedence for British embassies in Iran and Pakistan

All the people wanted by other countries take asylum in Britain. Why is that a person wanted by Sweden, for silly accusations, can't take asylum in another country, if not Britain?

The long arm of Khan has planned for Assange to be eventually interrogated at Guantanamo Bay. Then nobody can accuse the US of being anti-Muslim.

"Look, we have a Christian White guy, an AUSTRALIAN citizen, receiving the same torture as the Al-Qaida suspects. In fact we almost killed him by waterboarding and electric shocks 17 times, and we almost killed Mohammad Khalid only 8 times. Don't accuse us of being anti-Muslim."

[Philip]

The latest crisis in the Indo-China Sea,bringing into conflict China and Japan.The manner in which the greedy Chinese lust after the maritime territories of the other Asian/ASEAN nations and their unabated arrogance and aggro ,is bound to bring together those nations who feel threatened into some sort of politico/military alliance in the coming future.

Furthermore,this will spur on Japanese hardliners who want Japan to further militarise and even go nuclear to meet the Chinese threat.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ation.html

Anti-Japan protests erupt in China following island demonstration
Fierce anti-Japan protests erupted in more than a dozen Chinese cities after a group of Japanese activists landed on islands at the centre of an increasingly acrimonious territorial dispute.

By Julian Ryall, Tokyo and Malcolm Moore in Beijing

2:57PM BST 19 Aug 2012

The most serious protests appeared to be in Chengdu, where the mob overturned a Japanese-made police car, and in the southern city of Shenzhen, where rioters smashed the windows of Japanese restaurants and businesses.

In one image posted on Sina Weibo, China's version of Twitter, the crowd in Chengdu appeared to be tens of thousands strong. One banner said: "Even if China is covered with graves, we must kill all Japanese."

In another demonstration, an estimated 1,000 people chanted anti-Japanese slogans in the city of Hangzhou and caused damage to Japanese cars and restaurants.

Other disturbances were reported in Guangzhou, Shanghai, Shenyang, Harbin and Qingdao.

The demonstrations were sparked after a group of Japanese nationalists landed on Uotsuri island, part of an uninhabited archipelago that is claimed by both nations.
Related Articles

Japan to deport Chinese island activists in attempt to defuse row
17 Aug 2012

China renews demand Japan release activists
16 Aug 2012

China provokes Japan as activists land on disputed island chain
15 Aug 2012

Both China and Taiwan lodged diplomatic protests with Japan after the activists landed on the islands.

The 10 Japanese swam from a flotilla carrying about 150 people anchored off Uotsuri, the largest land mass in an archipelago of islets and reefs that are marked on Japanese maps as the Senkaku islands. Once ashore – in defiance of a Japanese government directive that only permits government officials and the private owners of the islands to land – the protesters raised Japanese flags.

China, which calls the chain the Diaoyu Islands, announced later in the day that it had issued a "strong protest" with the Japanese Embassy in Beijing.

"Japanese right-wingers illegally violated China's territorial sovereignty," Qin Gang, a spokesman for the Chinese foreign ministry, said in a statement on the ministry's website.

"The foreign ministry has already lodged solemn representations and expressed a strong protest to the Japanese embassy in China and urged Japan to stop actions which harm China's territorial sovereignty," the statement added.

Taiwan's foreign ministry described the incident as a "provocative act" that had dramatically escalated tensions in the region. In

Timothy Yang, the Taiwanese foreign minister, added that the isles – which Taiwan knows as the Tiaoyutai islands – are part of Taiwan in terms of history, geography, geology and under international law.

The Japanese activists landed on the islands just days after seven Hong Kong Chinese leapt from a boat and swam to Uotsuri to underline their claim to the territory.

More than a dozen Chinese nationals were taken into custody by the Japan Coast Guard. Tokyo moved quickly to try to defuse the situation by extraditing them back to China, which claimed the arrests were "illegal".

There have been no mass protests in Japan to underline the nation's claim to the islands, which were incorporated into the territory of Okinawa in 1895.

And while China has stated that the islands were part of its territory in ancient times, Tokyo insists that Beijing and Taipei only laid claim to the islands and the water that surrounds them after significant deposits of oil and natural gas were found nearby in the early 1970s.

The simmering dispute has boiled over into a major territorial row with none of the governments involved showing any signs of backing down.

In Japan, the government is coming under increasing pressure to better protect the territory and there are suggestions that Tokyo will station military personnel on the islands, a move that is likely to escalate the situation further.

Chinese authorities have allowed anti-Japanese protests in the past, to let people blow off steam and to spur national pride. On Sunday, some observers noted that several protesters in Shenzhen were wearing matching T-shirts, a sign that they had been organised from above.

Generally the protests are brought swiftly back under control, in case the attention of the mob switches back to the Chinese government.

[ramana]

US was quie short sighted when they allows TSP to test in 1998 after the Indian tests. They thoguht they could brinng about nuke parity with India but they forgot geopolitics for TSP is an extension of Mid East. By allowing this tests, the West has linked the nuclear question to the future of Mid East.
From Israel to North Korea, Asia is nuke linked.

We now have Israel, TSP, India, Russia, China and Noko. In between we have KSA and Iran on the threshold if not already over the barrier.

[Philip]

Well if the BR commissars feel that the issue of freedom of speech and exposing the hypocrisy of great powers and incarcerating the victms in latter-day concentration camps and flouting international diplomatic norms doesn't deserve a separate thread then so be it.I wish that some other multiple issue threads are also similarly condensed .

Post subject: Asylum for Assange
Posted: 19 Aug 2012

BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970
Posts: 6652
Location: India
The heroic act by the pres. of Ecuador in granting asylum to Julian Assange,of Wikileaks fame,where he exposed the secret machinations of nations and their utter hypocrisy in global affairs,has enraged the neo-fascist Western world led by the USA ,who want to make an example out of Assange by incarcerating him in one of the US's concentration camps like Camp Gitmo.Poodle Britain conspiring with Sweden,who have Assange charged with rape,ready for deportation and later to be "packaged" for the US,are furious at their plans being scuppered with the Ecuadorean act.Threats to storm the embassy has enraged the free world who are horrified at Britain's scant contempt for international laws that govern diplomacy.Assange's fate is yet to be determined,but the act by the Ecuadorean pres. is a most courageous one and deserves to be congratulated.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... itain.html

Julian Assange: How a cosy chat with the president of Ecuador turned into a diplomatic headache for Britain
Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, was this week granted asylum by the government of Ecuador. But, as Harriet Alexander writes, the decision from Quito has sparked an unfortunate diplomatic tussle with South America.


Quote:

By Harriet Alexander, Philip Sherwell in New York and Hugo Carro in Quito

7:00AM BST 19 Aug 2012

Comments258 Comments

One was an Australian computer hacker; the other a head of state. They did not speak each other’s language; and their first encounter was a videolink conversation across 6,000 miles.

And yet when Julian Assange’s eyes met those of the President of Ecuador, Rafael Correa, it was clear that there was an instant meeting of minds.

“Welcome to the club of the persecuted!” a beaming Mr Correa told the grinning Australian. During a half-hour interview on Mr Assange’s Russian television chat show in May, the Ecuadorean discussed at great length his resentment of American “imperialism”, and his vehement dislike of big business, media barons and “elites”.

“My dear Julian,” he said. “Please, let the world know about what happens in Latin America. The governments trying to do something for the majority of the people are persecuted by journalists, who think that by having a pen and a microphone they can direct even their resentment against you. They often insult and slander out of sheer dislike. These are mass media serving someone’s private interests.”

Mr Assange nodded knowingly. A self-styled crusader for freedom, who delights in irritating the United States, the rich and the powerful, he claimed during the interview to be “on a quest for revolutionary ideas that can change the world tomorrow.” The two men laughed and joked as they congratulated each other on their pariah status.
Related Articles

Assange: US must end WikiLeaks witchhunt
19 Aug 2012

Hague: 'no threat' to storm embassy
16 Aug 2012

No end in sight over Assange row
18 Aug 2012

American countries to meet over Ecuador's UK complaint
18 Aug 2012

US dismisses calls for 'diplomatic asylum' for Julian Assange
17 Aug 2012

Swedish minister: Ecuador living in 'fantasy world'
17 Aug 2012

Last week, however, the mutual appreciation morphed into something far more significant.

On Thursday, Mr Correa’s government announced a decision to grant Mr Assange diplomatic asylum. The WikiLeaks founder, who is wanted in Sweden as part of an investigation into sexual assault, had fled to the Ecuadorean embassy in London on June 19 – claiming that extradition to Sweden would, in turn, lead to extradition to the United States, where he feared being put on trial for WikiLeaks’ publication of top-secret diplomatic cables.

Kintto Lucas, the former deputy foreign minister, told The Sunday Telegraph that he had first contacted Mr Assange in December 2010 to show his country’s support and offer residency.

“We wanted to talk to him more about WikiLeaks, and invite him to our country,” he said.

“Assange is a modern communicator: a person who has managed to understand politics, and have a huge impact in many countries. He is a stone in the shoe of powerful nations.”

Since June, the authorities in the Ecuadorean capital, Quito, had been weighing up how to deal with their London lodger.

Should they risk infuriating Britain – which under international law is compelled to extradite Mr Assange to Sweden – and kick open a diplomatic hornet’s nest? Or should they seize the opportunity to rile “arrogant” Britain, and, by association, their nemesis, the US?

In the end, the temptation was too great. Ricardo Patiño, the foreign minister, announced during a lengthy defence of his country’s position that “the Ecuador government, loyal to its tradition of protecting those who seek refuge with us at our diplomatic missions, has decided to grant diplomatic asylum to Mr Assange.”

The news was greeted with fury in London, where diplomats had held seven formal meetings in two months to try and persuade Ecuador to hand over Mr Assange.

“It is a matter of regret that instead of continuing these discussions they have instead decided to make today’s announcement,” said William Hague, the Foreign Secretary.

“We will not allow Mr Assange safe passage out of the UK, nor is there any legal basis for us to do so. Moreover, it is well established that, even for those countries which do recognise diplomatic asylum, it should not be used for the purposes of escaping the regular processes of the courts. And in this case that is clearly what is happening.”

In Sweden, Carl Bildt, the foreign minister, described his Ecuadorean counterpart’s speech as “very politically twisted, very strange.”

“We must reject some of the rather gross accusations against the Swedish legal system that Ecuador made today. We have an independent legal system that guarantees the rights for each and everyone. Nobody stands above that law,” he said on Swedish television, adding that there was no extradition request from the US anyway.

“This seems to be ideas taken from a fantasy world,” he added.

Hours after Ecuador announced their decision, their ambassador to Sweden was summoned to the foreign ministry in Stockholm, for what Mr Bildt’s adviser told The Sunday Telegraph was “a very stern” rebuke.

And yet Ecuador’s decision was greeted with glee among many of its South American allies. “The underdogs have won one at last,” said one diplomat, after Friday night’s emergency meeting of the Organisation of American States (OAS) in Washington. The OAS resolved to reconvene this week to discuss the matter further.

What really seems to have riled Ecuador was a note sent from Britain’s Charge d’affairs in Quito to the government, urging them to continue with the discussions; not make any rash decision; and – crucially – reminding them that Britain retained the right to enter a diplomatic building if it was not being used correctly.

“You should be aware that there is a legal basis in the UK – the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act – which would allow us to take action to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the embassy,” the letter stated. Britain passed the law in 1987, after a deadly shooting in 1984 in which a Libyan diplomat opened fire on demonstrators from within his country’s London embassy, killing a British police officer.

But Ecuador exploded with outrage at the note, claiming that the UK was planning to storm their embassy in London, and adding they would not be intimidated by Britain’s “threat”.

“No one is going to terrorise us!” proclaimed President Correa on Twitter.

Unsurprisingly, the Left-wing leader received vociferous backing from his ideological allies – Venezuela, Cuba, and Bolivia all being ruled by like-minded leaders.

Venezuela’s representative to the OAS, Roy Chaderton, told The Sunday Telegraph after Friday’s meeting: “This whole business with Ecuador has been handled in a very rough manner by London. Of course it will harm the UK in Latin America, but the British political leaders don’t give a damn about that.”

And he added that the spat was similar to Britain’s disagreement with Argentina over the Falklands – or Las Malvinas, in Spanish.

“This is a reminder for us about the Malvinas. We must think about the Malvinas. In both cases the British political leadership thinks it can walk all over us.”

Late on Saturday night the Left-wing political block ALBA, the Bolivarian Alliance for the People of our Americas, was due to hold an emergency summit in the main Ecuadorean port of Guayaquil. Prior to the meeting, ALBA issued a statement condemning “another belligerent stance” by the British government, and warned of “the serious and irreversible consequences the execution of this threat would have on the political, economic and cultural relations of our countries.”

On Sunday foreign ministers from UNASUR, the Union of South American Nations, will also meet in Guayaquil for an emergency meeting, amid Ecuador’s determination to raise the issue at the United Nations Security Council.

The diplomatic hysteria seems to have caught the Foreign Office off guard – even though it seems bizarre that they failed to realise that “mentioning” the option of withdrawing diplomatic status would be a red rag to a bull.

Diplomats across the Americas have told The Sunday Telegraph that they have been attempting to calm the situation, assuring countries there was no “threat” to invade the embassy, but merely bilateral advice about the legal situation.

There has been some success. Chile, a strong ally of the UK, has been more measured in its response, with government spokesman Andrés Chadwick saying that the issue was a bilateral problem to be resolved by Britain and Ecuador – without the need for UN or regional hyperbole.

And the British succeeded in watering down the phrasing of the OAS statement on Friday, with the group dropping the word “threat” from their resolution, and instead referring to the “situation”.

Yet David Cameron and Nick Clegg, both on holiday, were said to be so concerned at the South American fury that their offices called William Hague to appeal for calm. So was it an error to send out the note? Some senior diplomats certainly think so.

“It was a big mistake,” said Oliver Miles, a former British ambassador who worked in the Foreign Office for almost 40 years. “It puts the British government in the position of asking for something illegitimate.

“If I tell you, 'I’m not threatening you but I DO have a very large stick here,’ it’s a question of semantics,” he said.

Sir Tony Brenton, a former ambassador to Russia, told the BBC that “the Foreign Office have slightly overreached themselves here, for both practical and legal reasons.”

But others maintain that the Foreign Office was right to remind Ecuador that they should not harbour a wanted man.

“The note itself was extremely mild, without any threat at all, and Britain was perfectly correct to remind Ecuador of the problems associated with giving Julian Assange asylum,” said Sir Christopher Meyer, a former ambassador to the United States.

“Of course they knew Latin America would react in this way. But that doesn’t mean we should give in. Sometimes it is right to clearly state our position, and leave no doubt about the consequences of their actions.”

He also pointed out that Mr Assange was wanted in Sweden as part of a criminal investigation, and not for his WikiLeaks work.

“From what I hear, his conditions inside the embassy are pretty squalid. I’d imagine that a cell in Sweden may even be preferable to a single, windowless room in London.”

Outside that room in London, a sprawling circus has sprung up. Dozens of police guard the building, prepared to arrest Mr Assange as soon as he steps outside the embassy. He has promised to address his supporters from the embassy on Sunday – probably from a window or balcony – which will certainly cause yet more disruption for the residents of the building, next door to Harrods.

The dozen or so protesters, many wearing the white face masks of computer hackers Anonymous, sit on the pavements opposite the embassy, occasionally ranting at the police through loud hailers. They are vastly outnumbered, however, by bored-looking television crews, waiting for something to happen.

At one point a cool box is carried out of the embassy, to much hilarity from the handful of Mr Assange’s supporters. “Bye bye Julian! Safe trip!” one yelled, to shrieks of laughter.

Sleeping bags lie in doorways. Empty pizza boxes litter the ground, as the protesters amble about drinking cider. Placards proclaiming “We are all Assange”, “The youth of Tennessee supports Assange” and, bizarrely, “UK social services steal kids for adoption” decorate the metal barricades erected to help traffic navigate the camp.

“I look at myself as a freedom fighter, and we should all get behind Assange,” said one masked 28-year-old health care worker, who gave his name as “Anonymous”.

Martin Matthews, a 45-year-old plumber, said: “I just know in my heart that it’s wrong. He has committed no crime here in the UK, and it’s only hearsay that something was wrong abroad. I have to work tomorrow, but I’m going to keep coming back for as long as it takes.”

But isn’t it ironic that Mr Assange, who styles himself as a champion of freedom of expression, has sought asylum in a country known for persecuting journalists?

Mr Correa told Mr Assange in their chat: “Let’s stop portraying this image of poor and courageous journalists, saint-like media trying to tell the truth; and tyrants, autocrats and dictators trying to hinder that. It isn’t true.”

Cuban blogger Yoani Sanchez, who in an interview with The Sunday Telegraph in January detailed the hounding of journalists in Cuba, Venezuela and Ecuador, said it was like “Robin Hood seeking shelter in the castle of the Sheriff of Nottingham.”

“That’s a good point actually,” said 'Anonymous’. “But I’m sure Julian knows what he is doing.”

Whether Ecuador knows what it is doing is another thing entirely. The stage could well be set for a long diplomatic stand-off; Mr Correa said on Friday that Mr Assange could stay in the embassy indefinitely. Irish bookmakers Paddy Power put the odds of him tunnelling his way out at 25 to 1. Exit by hot air balloon or jet pack was rated at 100 to 1.

“What we want now is an assurance in writing that Britain recognises the sovereignty of our embassy and that it will not storm our diplomatic buildings,” said Maria Isabel Salvador, Ecuador’s representative to the OAS. “This is a very delicate issue. It does not make us feel good about the UK.”

Given the diplomatic firestorm that Ecuador has ignited, it is probably fair to bet that feeling is mutual.

Additional reporting: William Lowther in Washington and Stephan Kueffner in Quito

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 61322.html

[Philip]

The west's hypocrisy over Pussy Riot is breathtaking.
Our courts now jail at the drop of a headline – for stealing water or abuse sent on Twitter. So who are we to condemn Russia?

Comment is free
The west's hypocrisy over Pussy Riot is breathtakingOur courts now jail at the drop of a headline – for stealing water or abuse sent on Twitter. So who are we to condemn Russia?

Simon Jenkins
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 21 August 2012 20.30 BST Jump to comments (327)
Illustration by Belle Mellor
Anyone in England and Wales with a dog out of control can now be jailed for six months. If the dog causes injury, the maximum term is to be two years. I have no sympathy for such people. Keeping these beasts is weird, and those who do it probably need treatment. But the Defra minister, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, complained in May that fewer than 20 people were in jail for dangerous dog offences. The sentencing council has duly told courts to raise the threshold to two years, "to send a message".

The same sentiment a year ago motivated magistrates to play to the gallery by jailing 1,292 people for stealing bottles of water or trainers or sending idiot incitements during the dispersed rampage dubbed "urban riots". Hysterical ministers raced home from holiday to tell judges to send messages. Judges duly ruined the lives of hundreds of young people, at great public expense and to no advantage to their victims. I have no sympathy for these people either, but again the politicised response to crime was disproportionate.

A month before, a London court jailed a stoned Charlie Gilmour after he swung on a union flag from the Cenotaph and tossed a bin at a police car, thus causing widespread outrage in the offices of the Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail. The judge sent him down for 18 months to send a message carefully designed to wreck his university career. Yet again we need have no sympathy for Gilmour. But there is no such thing as a rap over the knuckles in jail. Judges know that any term in prison is a sentence for life.

How can British politicians, whose statements clearly seek to influence pliable judges, criticise other sovereign states for doing likewise? Last week the Foreign Office professed itself "deeply concerned" at the fate of Russia's Pussy Riot three, jailed for two years for "hooliganism" in Moscow's Christ the Saviour Cathedral. They had staged what, by all accounts, was an obscene publicity stunt, videoing an anti-Putin song defamatory of the Virgin Mary in front of pious worshippers.

Good for free speech, we might all say. That the act outraged public decency is an understatement. In a Levada poll of Russian public opinion, just 5% thought the girls should go unpunished and 65% wanted them in prison, 29% with hard labour. Artists round the globe may plead free speech, but to treat the Pussy Riot gesture as a glorious stand for artistic liberty is like praising Johnny Rotten, who did similar things, as the Voltaire of our day. There can be disproportionate apologias as well as disproportionate sentences.

Artists can look after their own. For the British and US governments to get on high horses about Russian sentencing is hypocrisy. America and Britain damned the "disproportionate" Pussy Riot terms. In America's case this was from a nation that jails drug offenders for 20, 30 or 40 years, holds terrorism "suspects" incommunicado indefinitely and imprisons for life even trivial "three strikes" offenders. Last week alone a US military court declared that reporting the Guantánamo Bay trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be censored. Any mention of his torture in prison was banned as "reasonably expected to damage national security". This has no apparent connection to proportionate punishment or freedom of speech.

The British security establishment during the Tony Blair-Gordon Brown regime tried to censor history books for possible "terrorist" incitement. It introduced control orders, restricted courts and long-period detention without trial. It made unlicensed demonstrating an offence and has since sought prosecution of Twitter and Facebook abuse. British ministers and courts are craven to what passes for public opinion. The idea that, whenever a crime or antisocial action hits the headlines, "the courts must send a message" is politicised justice. At times, especially in tragic cases involving children, it gets near to a lynch mob. Again the only message sent is to the media. If Britain's draconian sentencing were effective, British jails would not be bursting at the seams.

There is of course a difference between the liberties enjoyed in most western democracies and the cruder jurisprudence of modern Russia, China and much of the Muslim world. It would be silly to pretend otherwise. But the difference is not so great as to merit the barrage of megaphone comment from west to east. Pussy Riot may have attacked no one physically, but no society, certainly not Britain, legislates on the basis that "words can never hurt". If a rock group invaded Westminster Abbey and gravely insulted a religious or ethnic minority before the high altar, we all know that ministers would howl for "exemplary punishment" and judges would oblige.

Commenting on the social mores of other countries may offer an offshore outlet for the righteous indignation of politicians and editorialists. It has no noticeable effect. Western comments on the treatment of women in Muslim states, dissidents in China or drug offenders in south-east Asia are dismissed as imperial interference. But then how would we feel if Moscow or Singapore or Tehran condemned the treatment of Cenotaph protesters?

British courts jail at the drop of a headline. One of the few cabinet ministers in recent years to show a sincere desire to relate punishment to crime and imprisonment to consequence is the justice secretary, Kenneth Clarke. He is now being bad-mouthed out of his job by Downing Street's dark arts, frightened not of Clarke but of the rightwing press. Clarke is, with Iain Duncan Smith, a rare minister intellectually engaged with his job and eager courageously to see it through. Why are the Lib Dems not defending him? For David Cameron to sack Clarke would indeed send a message. Of the worst sort.

[D Roy]

Not to mention the plunder and rape of millions worldwide.

Any half decent gora should realize that given his country's phenomenal track record in the last 300 years, he should hang his head in shame rather than do moral soul keeping on any other part of the world.

[gunjur]

Kim Jong-un expected to embark on state visit to Iran
Do NoKo leaders visit any country other than china?? Seems the new kid is breaking old conventions.

---------------------------------------------------------
Again on side note, as per the link around 40 countries(many of these countries maybe plain inconsequential entities) have confirmed their participation to the NAM summit in iran. But the more the number attending the more embarrassing for west (atleast in PR), as to how effective are the sanctions imposed on iran.

[ramana]

http://www.kforcegov.com/Services/IS/Ni ... 00162.aspx

Iran: Clarification and update. Iran will host 30 leaders at the Non-Aligned Movement summit from 26 to 31 August, including Egyptian President Mohammed Mursi; Cuban President General Raul Castro; Lebanese President Michel Suleiman and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

North Korea's Kim Yong-nam, president of the Presidium of the Supreme People's Assembly, will also attend. Reuters reported that UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon would attend, a spokesman for Iran's UN mission said. Israeli and U.S. officials previously made statements encouraging Ban not to attend.

Comment: Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, NAM meetings have had slight significance. The timing of this meeting coincides with the emergence of a new aggregation of state and non-state interests against those of the US. The so-called Arab spring has been the mid-wife of this new arrangement of state powers. The NAM summit has a rare opportunity to crystalize the power shifts and reinvigorate its shopworn credo.

It is important to note that none of the Arab spring countries or other non-aligned countries is hostile to US investment or to Americans. Theirs is a reaction to a unipolar global system, dominated by the US, in which they are minor powers. The system of nation states appears to be moving in the direction of multi-polarity, led by Iran as the point-man, fronting for China.

They see PRC everywhere without understanding that nature hates unipoles. There is bound to be a dual pole if not a multi-polar world.
Even their dogma/creed/religion is based on duality yet they seek monopoles!
Its like iron particles that seek to agglomerate at either magentic pole.

But this is fake system for PRC is a hand in glove with the West. It serves a bad guy for the West to accumulate the others.

Panchatantra story of the "Old Man, Young wife and Thief" is the correct description of this fake multipolar world.

[satya]

FiveBooks Interviews >
Norman Davies on Europe’s Vanished States

[ramana]

US says its pivot in Asia went too far

Ben Potter AFR correspondent Washington

The top US diplomat for the Asia-­Pacific region has conceded that the Obama administration’s decision last year to focus more on Asia had unnerved traditional allies around the world and overemphasised military ties, particularly with Australia.

The Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian Affairs, Kurt Campbell, said the Asian “pivot” had the “unintended consequence” of causing America’s European allies to think that Washington’s refocusing towards Asia implied a move away from traditional allies.

But Dr Campbell rejected the idea that America was a declining power on a futile mission to contain China, and that Australia would have to choose between the two giants.

He told The Australian Financial Review that the US had been and would remain a “strong and dynamic” power in the region for many years, and its role in fostering peace, stability and rising prosperity was “recognised by all the players in the region”.

The US was seeking to “intensify and deepen” its relationship with China and the idea that its renewed focus on the region – including upgraded military ties with Australia – was designed to exclude or contain China was “patently false”, he said.

Rather than try to force regional partners such as Australia to choose between their growing relations with China and some “contrary path” with the US – which he said would be “foolhardy” – Washington counted on productive relations between ­Canberra and Beijing.

But a Chinese strategic commentator, Ruan Zongze, said during a visit to Sydney yesterday that the time would come when Australia would have to make choices between its economic partner in China and its security partner in the US.

“The US likes to keep a certain tension in the region. It’s good for them,” he said in an indication of strategic rivalry between the two countries.

Dr Campbell said the US had turned to Australia “time and time again” on regional matters and “more recently directly on how to think about China, how to work with China, how to engage with China”.

He disagreed with academic Hugh White, who argues in his recent book The China Choice: Why America should share power that America must be prepared to share power in the region with China for the sake of stability, and that Australia would have to choose between them.

“We think some of this debate is both inaccurate and overwrought,” he said, while stressing his professional respect for Professor White.

Referring to the way the pivot to the Asia-Pacific region had been presented and misinterpreted during President Barack Obama’s tour of the region that included Australia last November, Dr Campbell said the US had addressed these concerns by bringing “our European friends much more into the dialogue with Asia” to make it clear the US “is not leaving Europe behind”.

In Asia it had put to rest the concerns about growing US-Australian military ties by explaining its strategy not just to China but to all the players in the region, and the problem had not been raised recently “in extensive dialogues” with China.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had also toured the region to highlight the “diversity of our engagement” in economic and personal relationships.

Mr Obama used speeches in federal Parliament and to soldiers in Darwin during the tour to announce that US Marines would be rotated through Darwin for training, and to warn China that the US was back in Asia.

Dr Campbell’s remarks show how Washington and Beijing are having to grapple with economic and strategic relationships of unprecedented complexity, in particular avoiding the traps of so-called “great power transitions” or challenges.

In the Obama administration and “in bipartisan circles in the US there is a very strong desire to see not only a better relationship between the US and Australia, but Australia having a firmly fixed relationship with Asia as well, including a strong and dynamic relationship between Canberra and Beijing”, he said. “This should not be the subject of false and unnecessary choices.”

He said the Washington and Beijing leaderships had the benefit of learning from history – in particular the consequences of Germany’s isolation before World War 1 and World War II – and were not destined to repeat those mistakes.

Dr Campbell said that in Beijing and Washington and surrounding strategic circles “quite an inordinate amount of time and attention” was being devoted “to the whole hegemonic riddle of the rise and fall of great powers”. He said he would “reject out of hand” the idea that the US was a declining power.

“People have lost a lot of money betting against the US. The US is going to be a dynamic and powerful player in Asia for many decades,” Dr Campbell said.

He did not question the rise of China but said governments were putting effort into new ways of great-power engagement to avoid some of the traps of “hegemonic transitions”.

Dr Campbell said the key to avoiding conflict was to make it clear it would be “utterly unproductive and destabilising” not only for the US and China but also for the surrounding region and the globe.

“I think there’s a very broad recognition [of this] in the leaderships in the US and China.”

Dr Campbell dismissed the suggestion by former prime minister Paul Keating that America should allow China more “strategic space” as a “19th century colonial division”.

In the 21st century the key issue was the role that emerging countries like China were encouraged to play in multilateral organisations, in the global economy and “across the spectrum of issues” such as Iran, Syria, North Korea and nuclear non-proliferation.

{The idea is to give the Chinese some space to play in areas run by US. Note in all those areas the PRC has been playing the role of the thief in my example posted above. Its PRC that proliferates and US ruwrings their hands! Now PRC mfg capacity is being used to drive the others into US arms.]

“There are ample opportunities for China to play a larger role in global politics,” Dr Campbell said. He said no country had done more than the US in seeking to boost China’s role in international governance.

“We have if anything sought to give China more responsibility” than they are comfortable with, he said.

The US had also sought to “embed the relationship in a larger multilateral context” of institutions such as the East Asia Summit and military-maritime and military-to-military arrangements “which seek to prevent misunderstandings from getting out of hand”. “That doesn’t mean we don’t believe this relationship is challenging. It’ll be one of the most challenging relationship we ever have and it’s inevitable there’ll be both co-operation and tensions, as there are today,” he admitted.

One area where China has not taken on the level of responsibility sought by the US and other countries in the region is the disputed Paracel Islands in the South China Sea. Beijing last month established Sansha City as the islands’ administrative centre, drawing protests from Vietnam and the Philippines, which lay claim to some of the islands, as well as Washington.

Dr Campbell welcomed signs that the Association of South-East Asian Nations had reached a consensus on how it would like the competing claims to be dealt with, and that some progress was being made towards a code of conduct for resolving the issue.

I love it when there is ample evidence provided just right after my post on the Panchatantra story to describe the US, PRC and the world relationship!

[svinayak]

Its PRC that proliferates and US ruwrings their hands! Now PRC mfg capacity is being used to drive the others into US arms.

See how they could create this facade right in front of the world and Indians.
India is not even mentioned in the article.

[RamaY]

^^
Rji

That means that USA's initial assessment on economic melting is not accurate and the reality is worse than expected. Initially they thought they could contain PRC but now they realized they do not have the wherewithal to sustain the asian pivot. So they are backtracking.

That means PRC is going to extract more blood and flesh from the goras. We need to see where and when.

From Indian perspective, it could be a +ve development depending on how you see. It could mean there is less likely hood of a new viceroy system in desh.

On the otherside the PRC demands may make gora-mama inimical to indic interests...

-2 naya paisa...

[ramana]

You need Indians who think like Indians and not like colonists.


The game in Panchatantra terms has become like this.

The thief who was being used to make the young wife go into the old man's arms has realised the old man is getting old. He wants to now have the young wife too. The old man is now in a quandry.

[V_Raman]

if india is the young wife, then theif and young wife are reaching an agreement? if that is case, the old man's goose is cooked.

[ramana]

FiveBooks Interviews >
Norman Davies on Europe’s Vanished States

Same Norman Davies says on 23 August 2012

Britain has lost its identity

Hay Festival - Norman Davies: Britain has lost its identity
Leading historian Norman Davies says Britain is losing its common sense of identity and there is a danger of the United Kingdom dissolving.

History lessons: the UK could break up says Norman Davies


Professor Davies, one of the keynote speakers at the Hay Festival Winter Weekend, said: "There is a real danger of the United Kingdom breaking up.

There is a loss of common identity.

"At present, there is a worrying English nationalistic attitude towards our non-English people of 'Us and Them' and it is going to end up driving out the Scots and Welsh. The Euro Sceptics are the English National Party in disguise and they have poor old David Cameron over a barrel.

"They are not looking at what effect this could have on the United Kingdom. We could have a situation as early as 2014 where Scotland breaks away, followed by Northern Ireland and finally Wales in due course.

"Some of the old Labour Scots, people like John Smith, saw the danger years ago. Gordon Brown was aware of the problem but did not have a clue what to do about it, even if there is such a thing as a quick remedy. But we are in a situation where the divide is getting worse because London is becoming a monster in the southeast and dominating England, which itself is dominating the British countries."

Davies, a leading English historian of Welsh descent, added: "Devolution was supposed to be the answer but it has worked in the opposite way as intended and Scotland's First Minister Alex Sammond is the beneficiary."

"The Scottish National Party know this. They are very Europhile. They know that if the European Union survives there could be a reasonable future for smaller countries like Scotland. Every austerity measure that Cameron and George Osborne make is being presented in Scotland as the English starving us. And the Euro Sceptics, these dinosaurs, these ostriches with their heads in the sand, are nearly all English. You don't get any Euro Sceptics in Scotland."

He said that most Euro sceptics were boosted by the "illusion that we are still a great power and won the war. They simply have a multi-layered delusionary world view".

Davies said that a proper examination of the Second World War showed that it was Stalin's Red Army that smashed to pieces the Germans, with latest estimates suggesting that the British Army was responsible for only around five per cent of German losses in all.

Davies, whose new book Vanished Kingdoms: The History of Half-Forgotten Europe is already in its fourth re-print only five weeks into publication, said knowledge of Britishness and the evolution of the United Kingdom is as low as ever. He added: "It's unimaginable to meet a Pole or a German who does not know about the history of their country. But lots of English people don't know the difference between Britain and England. Take the recent row over wearing the Poppy symbol on football shirts."

"The poppy isn't the English national symbol of war. The Poppy is the symbol of the British Legion. Saying otherwise offends all the non-English people. It's why you get to a situation where teams don't even know what to sing - hence the English rugby fans taking up the song 'Swing Low Sweet Chariot' It is the same with the Queen who is routinely just referred to as the Queen of England."

"All other countries teach their children the origins of the state in which they live. There is no common history syllabus that teaches the history of the United Kingdom. That's one of the reasons the UK does not have a coherent sense of identity. Many of the pillars of Britishness have simply gone. Take the Royal Navy. That was once a great British institution. Now its disappeared and is decrepit. There are more admirals than ships now."

[SSridhar]

if india is the young wife, then theif and young wife are reaching an agreement? if that is case, the old man's goose is cooked.

V_Raman, but, the young wife's situation would not be any better. We don't care about the old man or the thief.