Geopolitical thread

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.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Philip »

So much for EU membership.The Ukranian people should read this and shudder!

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... an-eu-flag
Ukrainians, take it from a Bosnian: the EU flag is just a rag in the wind

If it's anything like Bosnia, Ukrainians will find the world lining up to help, but they could be paying back the debt for many years
Jorge Luis Borges once said that a true gentleman is interested in lost causes only. If you're looking for a decent contemporary lost cause, you will surely find it in Ukraine, since if it comes to war, no matter who wins, most of the ordinary people will be losers.

We, the citizens of Bosnia, can tell you a thing or two about being losers. It was April 1992, during the start of Sarajevo's siege. I was a long-haired teenager, dressed in blue jeans and a shirt with the famous black and white "Unknown Pleasures" print. From the window of my suburban flat, I was watching the Yugoslav People Army's cannons, located in the Lukavica army camp, firing projectiles on Sarajevo. That army was controlled by Slobodan Milošević, the president of Serbia.

The National Radio was broadcasting Bosnian president Alija Izetbegović's discussion with Yugoslav army general Milutin Kukanjac. Izetbegovic asked the army to stop the bombing. Kukanjac claimed that not a single shot was fired from his army positions. I remember like it was yesterday that my glass of milk was jumping on the table to the rhythm of cannonballs "not fired" on Sarajevo.

When common people find themselves in the middle of a geopolitical storm – as the citizens of Ukraine do now, or my family back then in Bosnia – the dilemma "is this glass half empty or half full?" is irrelevant: soon, it will be broken.

The people in Bosnia were so full of optimism during the first days, even months, of war. Neighbours were saying that the west would never allow it to happen because "we are Europe". My aunt went to Belgrade, but refused to take her money from a Sarajevo bank. It will be over in a week; we'll be back soon, she said. President Izetbegovic, in his TV address to the people, said: "Sleep peacefully: there will be no war."

Well, we woke up after a four-year nightmare.

Now, the events in Ukraine seem to us Bosnians like a terrifying deja vu. The parallels between Ukraine now and Bosnia in 1992 are obvious. The Russian army acted aggressively towards Ukraine, as Milošević's army did in Bosnia. Putin had strong support in parts of Ukraine, as Milošević had in large parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Now Kiev has the support of the EU and the US, as Sarajevo did. We even had Bono and Pavarotti singing about Miss Sarajevo. Yet all the musical telegrams of support from the free world didn't stop the ethnic cleansing in eastern Bosnia, close to the Serbian border.

Behind the bloody curtain of Bosnian and other Balkan wars, the transition from the Yugoslav version of socialism to capitalism took place, managed by the EU troika. Behind the ballet of masses on Kiev squares and Russian army manoeuvres, there is a clear economic logic. Brussels asked Kiev to sign a free-trade pact with the EU. That was a good deal for EU, but clearly not for Ukraine. Then, Moscow offered Kiev a helping hand, with all the strings in the world attached: £9bn of aid, a reduction of gas prices by 30% and major business deals for the Ukrainian industry. Then Viktor Yanukovych declined the European offer. And the Euro-Maidan movement rose...

As the economist Michael Roberts notes, "the people of Ukraine are left with Hobson's choice: either go with KGB-led crony capitalism from Russia or go with equally corrupt pro-European 'democrats'".

Roberts predicts that Ukraine's foreign debt is about to double, "as it takes on new debt from the IMF and the cost of existing dollar and euro-debt jumps as the hryvnia is devalued". It hardly comes as a surprise to us in former Yugoslavia. At the beginning of its dissolution, the Yugoslav foreign debt was £9.5bn; today, after all the "help" we got from the troika, it's more than £107bn.

In their struggle to overcome Russian occupation and survive all the Trojan horses from the institutions of global capitalism, it is to be hoped that people in Ukraine learned a thing from the war in Bosnia – that a deus ex machina from the west will never land, solving the situation and leading them into the promised land of the EU.

Bosnia today is a poor and divided country, even more so than it was back in 1992. Former soldiers, hungry and sick, are gathering and protesting. "While we were bleeding, they were stealing," says one. In the past, they were ready to die for their nation and its bright future. Some Bosnians saw their future under the Bosnian and EU flag, others under the Croatian and EU flag, and others still under the flag of The Great Serbia. Lots of flags, but only one poverty for all.

Now they know: the flag is just a rag in the wind. And yes, the only true gentlemen are always the losers.
Christopher Sidor
BRFite
Posts: 1435
Joined: 13 Jul 2010 11:02

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Christopher Sidor »

^^^^
It is ironic that after what Greece was forced to undergo there are countries planning on joining EU and the Euro zone. Is there a scientific term for this euro-madness?
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60273
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by ramana »

March of the lemmings?
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14222
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by svinayak »

High end social engineering
abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by abhishek_sharma »

Imaginary Jews

Book Review:
Anti-Judaism: The Western Tradition
by David Nirenberg
Norton, 610 pp., $35.00
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Philip »

Ramana asked a very pertinent Q,"march of the lemmings?"

In the aftermath of the Crimean vote,overwhelmingly to rejoin Mother Russia,the fault lines all across the Euro-Peon union are beginning to tremble.The historic city state Serenissima Venezia has already voted for a return to its status as a a former independent Republic,which was captured by Napoleon Bonaparte and then joined Italy.Italy in present form is itself a young nation,became a republic "after a referendum" in 1946!
How short are the memories of the Yanquis and their fellow travellers!
Italy became a republic after a referendum[68] held on 2 June 1946, a day celebrated since as Republic Day. This was also the first time that Italian women were entitled to vote.[69] Victor Emmanuel III's son, Umberto II, was forced to abdicate and exiled. The Republican Constitution was approved on 1 January 1948. Under the Treaty of Peace with Italy of 1947, most of Julian March was lost to Yugoslavia and, later, the Free Territory of Trieste was divided between the two states. Italy also lost all its colonial possessions, formally ending the Italian Empire.
The Venetians now want a return to their independent status and given the chaotic state of the Italian economy,a breakaway is certainly not an impossibility.We know that come September,Scotland will also cast its vote in another historic referendum to rule itself,free of perfidious Albion! In Spain,the Catalans are chafing at the bit to assert their own independence from the "Spanish inquisition",and all the Baltic states are a trembling as the aftershocks of the political earthquake in the Crimea are felt far and wide all over the EU.

The hypocrisy of the West is so obvious as it is OK for Scotland to hold a referendum that is legal,but a similar one in the Crimea isn't.Such shallow statesmanship represents a new low in Euro-Peon diplomacy.With most of the EU members in acute difficulty,the fissiparious tendencies that lie just beneath the surface in Europe,whose boundaries have changed during the last century as often as the vagaries of the weather,are growing in strength with the cracks being seen across the EU. Conversely,some of the the former republics of the USSR ,those seduced by the EU,may now want to return to Mother Russia as their economies suffer under the diktat of the babus of Brussels. History repeating itself as a farce this time round?
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60273
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by ramana »

Philip try to read up one how city states emerged from the ruins of the Holy Roman Empire after the Euro-peon Dark Ages.
Muppalla
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7115
Joined: 12 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Muppalla »

Christopher Sidor wrote:^^^^
It is ironic that after what Greece was forced to undergo there are countries planning on joining EU and the Euro zone. Is there a scientific term for this euro-madness?
This is psyche issue. Every illness self-inflicted or created by someone, a villain is created as punch bag and every thing is pointed to same villain. I visited on a consulting assignment in 1995 to Moscow. They are fresh from the fall of soviet union. It is very easy to see the loss of pride for the Russians while they all hated the soviet era. There are several Ukranians I worked with. They are married to Russians. Even after coming to Massa I have met few Ukranians and to my surprise again I met those who married to a Russian. The Russian girl said to me don't even say infront of her husband that Russians and Ukranians are same.

Once a villain is established, they start creating stories of how ethnically they are different from Russians. They go to length of creating genetic theories, kingdoms and what not. For an outsider you will really get amazed because they are for several centuries in the same kingdom and so mixed up but were really separate for only few decades.

Once you create delineation you have to be different in every aspect. If the perceived villain does something then we have to do exactly opposite. This is the reason for Ukraine to think they have to be part of western Europe. It is just an false-ego based emotion and west off course will exploit it.

A very similar thing our Pakis did too to prove they are actually from arab where they are no different from their dirty SDRE neighbors.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Philip »

Ramana,most interestingly,the EU is based upon the agreement signed decades ago when the ECM was given birth ,called the "Treaty of Rome".
No guesses as to the motives of the founders,to create a20th century neo-Roman Empire,more accurately ,another "Holy Roman Empire",comprising both Catholic and Protestant countries.Gradually power in degrees was transferred to Brussels from the parliaments of the member states.A common currency was introduced,the Zero...oops! Euro,Financial control was thus transferred to the banks who came under the governance of the ECB (European Central Bank) .

However,national characteristics and interests prevailed over the diktat of the Euro high command,the EU parliament,a much watered down version of the Roman Senate. The actual power lay with those who held the financial reins and the hardworking Germans rose rapidly to the top,eclipsing the rest. Monarchist Britain reluctant to dissolve in the flux of EU integration,with one eye always open to the US,relishing its "special relationship" and the "5 eyes" clique of Anglo-Saxon nations,have retained the pound,thus weakening the financial edifice further,already groaning under the weight of debts from non-productive EU members. When the "Centre" is weak and fails,the bonds uniting the ethnic constituents loosen and nationalism is resurgent.

The Euro edifice is now in danger of crumbling,at the very least financial collapse.Some have even called for a category of 1st,2nd and turd class EU currencies to save the situ and the richer members,fed up of propping up the poorer and lazier ones.The E-Peons are also in thrall to Russia for energy requirements and in no shape to counter Putin and Russia militarily.Putin just has to apply the pressure relentlessly and watch the fruit fall off the branch on its own,just like the Crimea,whose historic vote is going to snowball,first with more eastern regions of Ukraine seceding and then EU entities following suit. Europe is living in "interesting times",as the watching gleeful Chinese say!
Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3801
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Paul »

Visions of Victory: the hopes of eight world war ii leaders


Worth reading on what these leaders thought of Asia.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25382
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by SSridhar »

Via Ukraine, a broader struggle for influence - David M Herzsenhorn, NYT
With a single diesel-electric submarine and a hodgepodge of other aging vessels, Russia’s rickety Black Sea Fleet would be no match for the United States’ 6th Fleet, based in Italy, which boasts the latest in seaborne military technology and has been running drills in the Black Sea.

Still, the legendary Russian fleet, whose headquarters have been here since 1783, is within a day’s sailing of the Mediterranean and remains crucial to the Kremlin’s ability to exert strategic influence in West Asia and beyond.

Deep interests

Safeguarding this maritime muscle may well have been one reason President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia sent armed forces to seize Crimea. But is it possible that the Sevastopol base is just the most concrete manifestation of Russia’s deep interests in Ukraine that the U.S. and its NATO allies either ignored or forgot as they tried to bind it more tightly with the West?

For years, Mr. Putin has complained about the West moving unilaterally to reorder the Continental balance of power — promoting Western capitalism and democracy — with little indication anyone was heeding his concerns. Its courting of Ukraine, apparently, was a step too far, prompting Mr. Putin to risk sanctions and the worst conflict since the Cold War to make clear that Washington and its friends do not call all of the shots anymore.

The accession here, and the Russian troops still massed on the border of eastern Ukraine, seem a clear and sharp message from Mr. Putin that the future of Ukraine and the broader region, especially Moldova and Georgia, which are also being courted by Europe, will not be decided by the West alone.

“For 23 years after 1991, Russia has been treated consciously or subconsciously as defeated in the Cold War,” said Dmitry Kosyrev, a writer and political commentator with the RIA Novosti news agency in Moscow. “Russia has not accepted this mentality. We have something to say. We have not only interest, but experience. We are not a defeated country in the Cold War; we are something separate like India, like China.”

Mr. Kosyrev added, “Not talking to us, not accepting our point of view, that’s exactly what brought Europe and the United States to the crisis in Ukraine.”

The Obama administration and European leaders, of course, insist that it is Russia and Mr. Putin who acted aggressively and unilaterally, refusing to hear the view of Ukrainian citizens who took to the streets of Kiev in November after the President at the time, Viktor F. Yanukovych, broke his promise to sign political and trade accords with the European Union (EU).

NATO’s deception

The contest for influence in Ukraine, long torn between Russia and the West, stretches back much farther than last autumn. It is part of a wider tug-of-war that the West had dominated since the fall of the Soviet Union, drawing into Europe’s fold not just former Eastern bloc nations like Poland and Bulgaria, but the ex-Soviet republics — Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia — in the Baltics.

Mr. Putin and many Russians believe that the Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev had received assurances that the NATO alliance would not extend beyond a reunited Germany. They consider it a betrayal that NATO now includes the Baltics, reaching Russia’s borders — a point that Mr. Putin stressed in his speech announcing the annexation of Crimea.

“They have lied to us many times, made decisions behind our backs, placed us before an accomplished fact,” Mr. Putin said. “This happened with NATO’s expansion to the East, as well as the deployment of military infrastructure at our borders. They kept telling us the same thing: ‘Well, this does not concern you.’ That’s easy to say.”

Mr. Putin has been manoeuvring for some time to thwart what he views as U.S. unilateralism in global affairs, especially after what he has said were serious mistakes in Iraq, Libya, Egypt and Syria. But only in the Syria case, Mr. Putin’s supporters say, did Russia gain footing, outmanoeuvring President Barack Obama with a proposal to disarm President Bashar Al-Assad’s chemical weapons.

In the case of Ukraine, Mr. Putin had been waging a battle for months to prevent Mr. Yanukovych from signing accords with the EU, wielding a mix of threatened trade sanctions and the enticements of fiscal aid — precisely the economic tools that the West views as the preferred way to conduct geopolitical combat in the 21st century.

After protests broke out in Kiev in late November, and Western leaders moved aggressively to revive the political and trade agreements, Mr. Putin once again reached into his economic arsenal, offering Ukraine $15 billion in credit assistance along with discounts on Russian natural gas. By his view, the West had refused to accept Russia’s fair victory.

In his speech last week, Mr. Putin suggested that Russia had been kicked around one too many times. “There is a limit to everything,” he said. “And with Ukraine, our Western partners have crossed the line, playing the bear and acting irresponsibly and unprofessionally.” — New York Times News Service
fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4583
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by fanne »

Is there method in the Madness of Arvind Kejriwal - Why he is doing a referendum for everything, should he form the government, should he resign, should he fight from Varanasi etc. Is he a prop from outside? Suppose Namo does not win or worse he wins and fails, and then the great hope AK comes to power, will he do a referendum and give JK to Pak or maybe have it independent (so that other great powers can have base there and dominate the whole central Asia including China)? Is he being fed information, (remember there are many surveys in India on what makes us tick, many we do not hear, maybe he is being fed the right info, to what to say and what not) so that he gets maximum band for the buck. Is he willingly doing this or he is himself unaware? Is this the great plot?
rgds,
fanne
Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3801
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Paul »

Russia's bombast in taking Crimea back is however covering the decline of Russian influence or soft power in other parts of the world. West is correct in thinking Putin is covering his weakness in the
Crimea crisis.

Crimea, Georgia etc. and other recent hotspots in eastern europe and Causcasus are closer to the Russian homeland and they have a good chance of giving a good account of themselves west of urals.

However the west is mistakenly thinking that it will fill in the space vacated by Russia in Central Asia, Siberia and the Caucasus.

This space will be taken up to a large extent by the true winner of the cold war i.e. China and to a lesser extent Turkey as it comes out of its shell. China may angle for a replay of Khalkin Gol - II in die course of time and try for Siberia as Russia becomes weaker over time in the far east. They is no way another Marshal Zhukov can drive out the Chinese in 30-40 years time should a confrontation between the two powers take place. Demographics are not in their favor!

I further hold that it is not a bad sign for India, the opportunity is there for India to claim it;s near abroad. Also Sino-Chinese jostling with Japan and Korea in NE Asia will force China's attention northwards for the Rich harvest that can glean off at low costs and risks thus opening opportunities for India in it;s neighbourhood. But for this to happen NoKo has to first start unravelling.

Russia and England were the two great imperial power in the 19th century. One ruled the Hinterland and the other ruled the high seas. It is time their influence recedes for other powers to take their place. India lost influence due to both of them. China could march into Turkestan in 1948 due to Stalin's blessings. In the closing days of WWII Soviet forces launched a major campaign driving Japanese out of Manchuria and left it open for Chinese to march in. Wish someone could do this for us in Kashmir!!! :(( Then in the third phase of their expansion, they went marching into Tibet in 1950.

http://www.ozy.com/fast-forward/forgett ... m=referral
RUSSIA'S PULL IN CENTRAL ASIA

SOURCE: CORBIS

NYET

The Decline of Mother Russia's Mother Tongue
January 07, 2014. By Lorena O'Neil

How do you say “help” in Russian? Hint: Don’t ask a young Turkmenistani.

In the 23 years since the fall of the USSR, Russia has lost its magnetic pull on Central Asia countries like Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan and nowhere is this shift more dramatic than in what language people speak.

The decline of Russian is an obvious change in Central Asia – one that has Putin worried.

Knowing Russian used to be a key to success in Central Asia, but now it’s is taking a backburner to English and other languages. Why? The answer involves a sharp decline in ethnic Russians in the region, a pivot on education, energy independence and a war of words. Does it really matter? Actually, yes. The de-Russification of Central Asia could allow the region to dust off quite a bit of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s influence and thus impact his global pull.

In Central Asia, the younger generation sees Russian as one of many languages to learn as opposed to the language to learn. A recent study showed 82 percent of Turkmenistanis lack any Russian language knowledge, as do 87 percent of Tajikistanis, 59 percent of Uzbekistanis, 50 percent of Kyrgyzstanis and 16 percent of the residents of Kazakhstan. While many Kazakhstanis still know Russian, they have followed the trend of most Central Asian countries in reducing the number of Russian-language school pupils. Between 1990-1991 and 2010-2011 Kazakhstan reduced the number of pupils by 69 percent. Kyrgyzstan was the only country with a rise.

…the total of Russian language speakers will fall from 300 million in 1990 to 150 million by 2025.

The decline of the use of Russian language is a significant and obvious change in Central Asia, one that has Putin worried. In fact, he said that the decline of Russian being spoken as a native language around the world is “ruining the country” and “creating problems,” and even called for a Council of the Russian language, created by the Ministry of Education. Rough estimates claim the total of Russian language speakers will fall from 300 million in 1990 to 150 million by 2025.

Putin with both arms up and 2 flags behind him as he speaks standing

SOURCE: GETTY

Russian President Vladimir Putin delivers a speech at the Kremlin, 2012
“In Soviet Times, people were encouraged to speak Russian, you couldn’t go very far in life if you didn’t. Now that support has gone away mostly,” says Paul Goble, blogger of Window on Eurasia. “What happens when you wake up and you have fourteen countries around you who do not have Russia as their second language?”

The decline in the number of ethnic Russians in Central Asia is a significant contributing factor, but it is far from being the only one. The hours of Russian instruction in schools in Central Asia are being reduced, and many students are choosing to learn other languages like English, German, French or Chinese Mandarin in place of Russian. Native languages are linked with each country’s sense of identity and are gaining importance with requests to use state language versus Russian in official documents.

For the elite generation in Central Asia, Russia has become ”almost an irrelevancy.”

“The younger generation now sees Russia in a totally different way, they see it as just one country,” says Martha Olcott, a senior associate with the Russia and Eurasia program at the Carnegie Endowment in Washington D.C. She explains that while working class people in Central Asia might be attempting to learn Russian in search of potential jobs, for the elite generation Russia has become ”almost an irrelevancy.”

She says those who can afford Western education now set their sights on that, and the white-collar world might choose to go Turkey or Iran over Russia. China is also coming in as a major power player, offering thousands of dollars in scholarships to study in China.

Goble concurs. “Why study in Moscow when the energy and resources and intellectual excitement is somewhere else?”

The energy independence of countries like Kazakhstan are also giving many in the Central Asia region a chance to distance themselves from Russia, and China has been quick to jump in. “In terms of commercial and business ties, China has far eclipsed Russia already,” says Fred Starr, Chairman of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute. He says Putin is fighting back very hard by building free trade zones but that most of the countries in this region feel it is more a political project than an economic one.

Aerial view during the day of oilfield in blue green water

SOURCE: CORBIS

Artificial islands on Kashagan offshore oil field in the Caspian sea, western Kazakhstan, April 2013
What does this mean for Russia’s future in the world in Central Asia? As countries in the region shift slowly away from Russia, they are by no means turning their back on the country entirely. But countries that were traditionally bound to Russia by language, culture, energy and ethnicity are starting to gain independence, and relationships with other countries like China are increasing. Meanwhile, Putin wants to remain an influence.

Goble suggests that Putin will continue to engage in bombast with his neighbors because he’s playing an extremely weak hand that is getting weaker. “In a sense, the thuggishness that Putin is using (on) his neighbors is a product of the weakening of Russia’s cultural influence. You have to give $15 billion to the Ukraine. You have to play games with military forces. You have to play games with supplying oil and gas. Why? Because you’ve lost the resource of unquestioned influence.”
| OZY
As time goes by and the Russian trained strongmen in the stans retire from their perches, wait for central asian superpowers like Kazakhstan and Uzebkistan to start spreading their influence in Central Asia.
abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by abhishek_sharma »

abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by abhishek_sharma »

A Captivating Mind

How Georgi Markov became the truth-teller of Bulgaria’s communist era, and paid for it with his life.
abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by abhishek_sharma »

johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by johneeG »

Anantha wrote:These are last days of raj. We need to be vigilant. The British also left behind a huge mess. The Congi Raj also may do some thing like this before they leave

Mughal period 1526-1857
British period 1857-1947
Nehru dynasty period 1947-2014
devesh wrote:Mughal period: 1526-1707
subhamoy.das wrote:All these were dynastry period including the British dynasty rule of Elizabeth and gang. Interseting to see that dynasty rules pitter out in 200-300 years ( 4-5 genererations ) and that the length of the dynasty rules are progressively coming down.

Mughal Dynasty : 300 y
Briish Dynasty : 200 y
Nehru dynasty : 50 y ( 1947 - 1990 and 2010 - 2014 ) . In between there was NDA and PVNR and Communist rule

I was working on something similar for my own reference. Note that the following are not about the dynasties/kingdoms but about empires. And its a round-off and approx.
  • Empire: Start-End ->Period
    American: 1900-2000 ->100 yrs
    British: 1650-1950 ->300 yrs
    Mughals(Central Asians): 1550(Akbar)-1720 -> 170 yrs
    Maraata: 1700-1800 >100 yrs
    Spanish: 1500(Columbus)-1650 ->150 yrs
    Dilli Sultanate: 1300-1345 ->50 yrs
    Vijayanagara: 1350-1565 ->200 yrs
    Bahmani: 1450-1480 ->30 yrs
    Kakathiya: 1250-1300 ->50 yrs
    Chola: 1000-1170 ->170 yrs
    Paala: 800-850 ->50 yrs
    Raashtrakuta: 750-950 ->200 yrs
    Tsars of Muscovy(Russia): 1550(Ivan, the terrible)-1700 ->150 yrs
    Tsars of Russia: 1700(Peter, the great)-1860 ->150 yrs
    Ottoman: 1350-1850 ->500 yrs
Its still a work in progress, others can add to it...

Even though Amercian and British have been listen separately, one could club them together as Anglo-Saxon. Then, it would be
Anglo-Saxon: 1650-2000 ->350 yrs.
Similarly, Tsars of Muscovry and Tsars of Russia can be clubbed together. Then, it would be
Tsars: 1550-1860 -> 300yrs.

These empires spread their own culture in the place of their reign. Some times, some empires even resort to genocide.
devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5129
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by devesh »

important to keep in mind that the Nehru dynasty was cut short by the very sponsors. lesson in hindsight for all in the future and present who think there is glory in Nehru model of dynasty: your foreign backers will destroy you if you stray from their interests.
johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by johneeG »

vic wrote:Roman Empire was 2000 years
Yep, Roman and Chinese empires were not included(among many other).

It seems
Roman Empire: 40 BCE-400CE -> 450 yrs.
Eastern Roman Empire(Byzantium Empire): 400-620 -> 220 yrs.

If both are clubbed together:
Roman Empire: 40BCE-620CE -> 660yrs.

Before 40 BCE, it seems Rome was more of a kingdom than empire, of course, the categorizations of empire/kingdom are subjective and can vary from person to person.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25382
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by SSridhar »

The Game that Changed Diplomacy - The Hindu Book Review
Table tennis was a forgotten sport in America. The team that represented the U.S. at the World Table Tennis Championships in 1971 had to beg and borrow its way to Nagoya, as the U.S. Table Tennis Association was too poor to sponsor the players. The team itself was a motley bunch of amateurs. Among them was Glenn Cowan, a callow hippie kid who combined a passion for table tennis and drugs. During the tournament, Cowan stumbled onto a bus and found himself among the Chinese team. After the initial consternation at having a “foreign devil” in their midst, who they had been indoctrinated to shun, Zhuang Zedong, the reigning world champion, walked over to Cowan, shook his hand and handed him a Mao pin. Photographs of the two beaming men alighting from the bus made headlines across the world; and, within days, the American players were on their way to China — the first U.S. delegation to visit that country since the Communists came to power.

What followed is now well-known: a secret — even from the US State Department — visit to Beijing by National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger to prepare the ground, followed by the momentous tour of President Nixon which forced a realignment of global forces that permanently changed the world.

In his fascinating book, Nicholas Griffin builds the case that far from being a serendipitous encounter between the Chinese Ping-Pong team and a shaggy-haired hippie, nor a spontaneous gesture by Zhuang to reach out to the Americans, this meeting was the result of meticulous machination and exquisite diplomacy. While both Mao Zedong and Nixon dreamt of détente, albeit for very different purposes, they had to be wary of internal lobbies that would resist any outreach. Griffin sees the breakthrough as “the justification of Ivor Montagu’s belief in Ping-Pong as a form of diplomacy”.

Taking the game to China

At the time of the ground-breaking Nagoya championship, Ivor Montagu had relinquished the stewardship of the International Table Tennis Federation (ITTF), which he had piloted for more than four decades. An uncompromising communist, he was committed to spreading his credo through the sport. Manoeuvring its path to China in the early ‘fifties, Montagu introduced Ping-Pong into Mao’s diplomatic arsenal. Griffin’s story recounts “how Montagu moulded the game, and how the Chinese came to embrace it and then shaped it into a subtle instrument of foreign policy.” Chairman Mao was fond of the axiom ‘Let foreign things serve China’. Griffin declares: “Little has served China as effectively as Montagu’s very British game of table tennis.”

Born into privilege, the young Ivor would gambol in the grounds of 10 Downing Street while his father hobnobbed with the Prime Minister. Prodigiously intelligent, even as a young teenager Montagu took to socialism — influenced by Shaw’s ‘Socialism for Millionaires’ — and constructed the rest of his life around it. Bespectacled and unathletic, the one sport he could play was table tennis, which he saw as a game for the working class. He organised his first tournament while in Cambridge and went on to draft a code of rules for the game, promote national and European championships, and to found the ITTF, of which he became the president when he was not yet 22. The world men’s table tennis trophy — the Swaythling Cup, which was picked from his grandfather’s silver collection — bears Montagu’s family name to this day.

Montagu used his exceptional organising talents to found the Film Society — mainly to serve as a conduit to import Soviet films — that brought him into contact with film-makers of a similar socialist bent, among them Alfred Hitchcock with whom he produced several memorable films. He visited the Soviet Union under various pretexts and became a propagandist, and then a spy, for the regime — activities he persisted with through World War II, but for which he was never formally charged although the facts were widely known. Perhaps it was Montagu’s background and seeming eccentricity that protected him; but all his life he was an unabashed defender of Stalin and Mao, and an exponent of international communism. His ultimate mission was to take table tennis to China and to enable the Communists to use it as a diplomatic tool.

The larger part of Ping-Pong Diplomacy describes how the game made inroads first into Japan and then China where it became a national obsession. Vignettes of a charming cast of players and others take the reader through the evolution of table tennis: tales of grit and tenacity, manipulation and deception. Mao referred to the game as his “spiritual nuclear weapon”. When China won the world championship in 1961 it was regarded as a manifestation — like Japan’s some years before — of the country’s re-emergence; equally, it was a cover up of the disastrous Great Leap Forward. Ping-Pong hit its nadir when Chinese players were accused of reactionary “trophyism” and forced to recant, hounded into exile and even driven to suicide, during the Cultural Revolution. But Mao, who in the words of his admiring chronicler Edgar Snow, “never gambled — except with four aces”, and the pragmatic Zhou Enlai, deftly brought the game around to deliver the prize of détente with the West.

In his deeply-researched and fast-paced narrative, reading in parts almost like fiction, Griffin brings to life the redoubtable Ivor Montagu and others who transformed the innocuous game with the little bouncy white ball into a potent instrument of international politics.

PING-PONG DIPLOMACY — Ivor Montagu and the Astonishing Story Behind the Game that Changed the World:
Nicholas Griffin;
Simon & Schuster India, 2316, Tower A, The Corenthum, A-41, Sector 62, Noida-201301.
Rs. 599.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Philip »

The truth behind UN Sec-Gen Dag Hammarskjold's assassination outs!
The independent minded Sec-Gen was allegedly assassinated by pro-colonial operatives including the CIA,
Dag Hammarskjöld's plane may have been shot down, ambassador warned
Newly declassified 1961 cable called for grounding of Belgian mercenary hours after UN secretary general crashed in Africa
Julian Borger
theguardian.com, Friday 4 April 2014

Dag Hammarskjöld in New York in 1956: a panel of retired judges called last year for a fresh inquiry into the crash. Photograph: Bettmann/Corbis

Hours after a plane carrying the UN secretary general, Dag Hammarskjöld, crashed over central Africa in September 1961, the US ambassador to Congo sent a cable to Washington claiming that the aircraft could have been shot down by a Belgian mercenary pilot.

In the newly declassified document, the ambassador, Ed Gullion, does not directly implicate the Belgian or Rhodesian governments in what he calls "this operation", but calls for US pressure on them to ground the mercenary, adding it was "obviously [a] matter of highest importance". He said the pilot had been hampering UN operations and warned that if not stopped "he may paralyse air-rescue operations".

The document was released after an international panel of retired judges called last year for a fresh inquiry into the Hammarskjöld crash, saying that new evidence "undoubtedly" existed. The UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, decided in February to put the panel's findings on the agenda of the UN general assembly.

The Gullion cable was not seen by previous official inquiries. A commission formed by the Rhodesian colonial authorities blamed the crash on pilot error, while a later UN investigation recorded an open verdict.
Dag Hammarskjöld plane wreckage The wreckage of the plane carrying Dag Hammarskjöld in a forest near Ndola in what is now Zambia. Photograph: Ap

A Guardian investigation in 2011 found surviving witnesses near the crash site outside Ndola, in what is now Zambia, saying they saw a second plane shooting at the DC-6 aeroplane carrying Hammarskjöld and his aides. A book published later that year, Who Killed Hammarskjöld? by Susan Williams, a University of London researcher, found further evidence of foul play.

Williams's book pointed to the existence of US National Security Agency (NSA) radio intercepts of warplanes in the area, which are still top secret after 52 years. Hammarskjöld's death came at the height of a conflict between the UN-backed Congolese government in Leopoldville, now Kinshasa, and secessionists from the mineral-rich province of Katanga, supported by Belgian colonialists.

The US and British were angry at an abortive UN military operation that the secretary general had ordered days before his death on behalf of the Congolese government against the rebellion in Katanga, which was backed by western mining companies and mercenaries.

The Hammarskjöld commission, chaired by a former British court of appeal judge, Sir Stephen Sedley, called for the NSA intercepts to be released.

The commission highlighted several key pieces of evidence, including the testimony of two policemen of seeing sparks and a flash in the sky, and the account of a local official who said he saw a smaller aeroplane flying above and then alongside the DC-6, known as the Albertina.

In his cable, sent at 11am on 18 September, Gullion correctly identifies the Ndola area as the crash site. He also names the suspected Belgian pilot as "Vak Riesseghel", almost certainly a mis-spelling of Jan van Risseghem, who had served in the South African and Rhodesian air forces, and commanded the small Katanga air force.

In another cable sent two days before the crash, Gullion passed on a commercial pilot's report that the Belgian mercenary, flying a Katangese jet, "flew wing to wing" with him – a highly dangerous manoeuvre.

Gullion's two telegrams call into question Van Risseghem's insistence that he had not been in Katanga in September 1961. Van Risseghem was never questioned by any of the official inquiries.

"The telegram reveals that on the morning after the crash, the ambassador thought it credible that the plane had been shot down by a mercenary pilot – so credible, in fact, as to justify asking US diplomats in Brussels and Salisbury [now Harare] to put pressure on the Belgian and Rhodesian governments to ground the pilot," said Williams, a senior researcher at the University of London's Institute of Commonwealth Studies.

In her book, Williams provides the account of an American naval pilot, Commander Charles Southall, who was working at the NSA listening station in Cyprus in 1961. Shortly after midnight on the night of the crash, Southall and other officers heard an intercept of a pilot's commentary in the air over Ndola – 3,000 miles away.

Southall recalled the pilot saying: "I see a transport plane coming low. All the lights are on. I'm going down to make a run on it. Yes, it is the Transair DC-6. It's the plane," adding that his voice was "cool and professional". Then he heard the sound of gunfire and the pilot exclaiming: "I've hit it. There are flames! It's going down. It's crashing!"

Williams said: "We need to know if the US state department holds the raw intelligence that led Gullion to think [the plane could have been shot down] and … if there is other intelligence, notably in the form of intercepts, that is held by the NSA in relation to Hammarskjöld's flight on the night of 17-18 September 1961.

"This newly released document reinforces the argument that the UN general assembly should ask US agencies, including the NSA, to produce the evidence they hold."
More info here:
http://consortiumnews.com/2013/09/16/th ... a-un-hero/
The Mysterious Death of a UN Hero
September 16, 2013

Exclusive: More than a half-century ago – at a pivotal moment in the emergence of independent African states – UN Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold was brokering peace in a divisive civil war in Congo when he died in a plane crash, leaving behind an enduring Cold War mystery, as Lisa Pease reports.

By Lisa Pease

Fifty-two years ago, just after midnight on Sept. 18, 1961, the plane carrying UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld and 15 others went down in a plane crash over Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia). All 16 died, but the facts of the crash were provocatively mysterious.

There have been three investigations into the crash: an initial civil aviation Board of Inquiry, a Rhodesian Commission of Inquiry, and a UN Commission in 1962. Not one of them could definitively answer why the plane crashed or whether a deliberate act had been responsible.

United Nations Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold.

While a few authors have looked into and written about the strange facts of the crash in the years since the last official inquiry in 1962, none did a more thorough reinvestigation than Dr. Susan Williams, a Senior Fellow at the Institute of Commonwealth Studies at the University of London, whose book Who Killed Hammarskjöld? was released in 2011, 50 years after the crash.

Her presentation of the evidence was so powerful it launched a new UN commission to determine whether the UN should reopen its initial investigation. “It is a fact,” the current Commission wrote in its report, “that none of these inquiries was conducted to the standard to which a modern inquiry into a fatal event would be conducted….”

The Commission was formed by Lord Lea of Crondall, who assembled a group of volunteer jurists, solicitors and others from the Netherlands, South Africa, Sweden and elsewhere to tabulate and review the evidence the Commission collected from past investigations, Williams’s book, and independent witnesses, such as myself.

I was one of the 28 witnesses (and one of only three Americans) who provided testimony to the Commission, based on information gathered in the course of my research into the assassinations of the Sixties.

“It is legitimate to ask whether an inquiry such as this, a full half-century after the events with which it is concerned, can achieve anything except possibly to feed speculation and conspiracy theories surrounding the crash,” the most recent Commission wrote in its report.

“Our answer, and the reason why we have been willing to give our time and effort to the task, is first that knowledge is always better than ignorance, and secondly that the passage of time, far from obscuring facts, can sometimes bring them to light.”

The Congo Crisis

The report summarized the historical situation Hammarskjöld was faced with in 1961. In June of 1960, under pressure from forces in the Congo as well as from the United Nations, Belgium had relinquished its claim to the Congo, a move which brought Patrice Lumumba to power.

Lumumba faced a near civil war in his country immediately. The military mutinied, the Belgians stepped back in to protect Belgian settlers, and local leader Moise Tshombe declared Katanga, a mineral-rich province, an independent state.

As the Commission’s report noted, “Katanga contained the majority of the Congo’s known mineral resources. These included the world’s richest uranium and four fifths of the West’s cobalt supply. Katanga’s minerals were mined principally by a Belgian company, the Union Minière du Haut Katanga, which immediately recognised and began paying royalties to the secessionist government in Elisabethville. One result of this was that Moise Tshombe’s regime was well funded. Another was that, so long as Katanga remained independent of the Congo, there was no risk that the assets of Union Minière would be expropriated.”

The U.S. government feared that Katanga’s rich uranium reserves would fall under Soviet control if the nationalist movement that brought Lumumba to power succeeded in unifying the country. Indeed, rebuffed by Western interests, Lumumba did reach out to the Soviets for help, a move that caused CIA Director Allen Dulles to initiate CIA plans for Lumumba’s assassination. Lumumba was ultimately captured and killed by forces of Joseph Mobutu, whom Andrew Tully called “the CIA’s man” in the Congo just days before President Kennedy’s inauguration.

On the southern border of Katanga lay Northern Rhodesia, where Hammarskjöld’s plane would eventually go down, Sir Roy Welensky, a British politician, ruled as prime minister. Welensky, too, pushed for an independent Katanga. Along with the resources, there was also the fear that an integrated Congo and Katanga could lead to the end of apartheid in Rhodesia which might spread to its larger and more prosperous neighbor South Africa.

The British situation was divided, with the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Lord Landsdowne, backing the UN’s efforts at preserving a unified Congo, while the British High Commissioner to the Rhodesian Foundation, Lord Alport, was upset with the UN’s meddling, saying African issues were “better left to Europeans with experience in that part of the world.”

Similarly, U.S. policy appeared split in 1961. Allen Dulles and possibly President Dwight D. Eisenhower had worked to kill Lumumba just before President John F. Kennedy took office. But President Kennedy had been a supporter of Lumumba and fully backed the UN’s efforts in the Congo.

As the report notes, “There is evidence … of a cleft in policy between the US Administration and the US Central Intelligence Agency. While the policy of the Administration was to support the UN, the CIA may have been providing materiel to Katanga.”

So British, Belgian and American interests that weren’t always representative of their official heads of state had designs on Katanga, its politics and its resources. What stood in their way? The UN, under the firm leadership of Dag Hammarskjöld.

The UN forces had been unsuccessful in unifying the Congo, so Hammarskjöld and his team flew to Leopoldville on Sept. 13, 1961. Hammarskjöld planned to meet Tshombe to discuss aid, contingent on a ceasefire, and the two decided to meet on Sept. 18 in Ndola in Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia).

On Sept. 17, the last day of Hammarskjöld’s life, Neil Ritchie, an MI6 officer, went to pick up Tshombe and the British consul in Katanga, Denzil Dunnett. He found them in the company of a high-level Union Minière employee.

That night, Hammarskjöld embarked on the Albertina, a DC6 plane, and flew from Leopoldville to Ndola, where he was to arrive shortly after midnight. Lord Landsdowne, the British leader opposing a unified Congo, flew separately, although the report goes out of its way to say there was nothing sinister in them flying in separate planes and that this was “diplomatically and politically appropriate.”

A large group of diplomats, Africans, journalists and at least three mercenaries waited for Hammarskjöld’s plane at the Ndola airport. The Commission found the presence of mercenaries there strange as a police inspector was on duty specifically “to ensure nobody was at the airport who had no good reason to be there.”

The Crash

Hammarskjöld’s plane deliberately circumvented Katanga, fearing interception. The pilot radioed Ndola 25 minutes before midnight with an estimate that they plane was about 45 minutes from landing. At 12:10 a.m., the pilot notified the Ndola airport “Your lights in sight” and requested confirmation of the air pressure reading (QNH). “Roger QNH 1021mb, report reaching 6000 feet,” the airport replied. “Roger 1021,” the Albertina responded. That was the last communication received from Hammarskjöld’s plane. It crashed within minutes.

The Commission found the airport gave the plane correct information, that there was no indication the plane’s altimeter had been tampered with, that the landing gear had been lowered into the proper position and locked, and that the wing flaps had been correctly set. In other words, pilot error — the verdict of the initial Rhodesian inquiry into Dag Hammarskjöld’s death in 1962 — did not seem to be the likely cause.

At the crash site, several of the crash victims had bullets in their bodies. In addition, the Commission found “evidence from more than one source…that holes resembling bullet-holes were observed in the burnt-out fuselage.”

The Commission’s two aviation experts concluded the most likely cause of the crash seemed to be a “controlled flight into terrain,” meaning, no in-air explosion. This suggests someone deliberately or mistakenly drove the plane right into the ground. However, the report notes, this does not rule out some form of sabotage that could have distracted or injured the pilots, preventing a successful landing.

And the Commission noted contradictory evidence from a few eyewitnesses who claimed they saw the plane explode in mid-air. Another eyewitness, a member of the flight crew, found alive but badly burned, told a police inspector that the plane “blew up” and that “There was a lot of small explosions all around.”

The Commission interviewed African eyewitnesses who had feared coming forward years ago. One of them described seeing the plane on fire before it hit the ground. Another described seeing a “ball of fire coming on top of the plane.” Still another described a “flame … on top of the plane … like a ball of fire.”

Several witnesses saw a second plane near the one that crashed. One witness saw a second, smaller plane following a larger one, and told the Commission, “I saw that the fire came from the small plane…” And another witness also recalled seeing two planes in the sky with the larger one on fire. A third witness noted that he saw a flash of flame from one plane strike another. Several witnesses reported two smaller planes following a larger one just before the larger one caught fire.

A Swedish flight instructor described in 1994 how he had heard dialog via a short-wave radio the night of the crash. He recalled hearing the following from an airport control tower at the time of the crash: “He’s approaching the airport. He’s turning. He’s leveling. Another plane is approaching from behind — what is that?”

In one of the more bizarre elements of the case, Hammarskjöld’s body was not burnt, yet the other victims of the crash were severely burnt. The Commission concluded the most likely explanation, though not the sole one, was that Hammarskjöld’s body had been thrown from the plane before it caught fire.

And even more strangely, the commission found the evidence “strongly suggests” that someone moved Hammarskjöld’s body after the crash and stuck a playing card in his collar before the photographs of his body were taken. (The card “or something like it” was plainly visible “in the photographs taken of the body on a stretcher at the site.”)

Given the proximity of the plane to the airport, the Commission had a hard time explaining the nine-hour
delay between the time of the crash and the Rhodesian authorities’ acknowledgement of its discovery of the wreckage.

While the Commission found a “substantial amount of evidence” that Hammarskjöld’s body had been “found and tampered with well before the afternoon of 18 September and possibly very shortly after the crash,” they also stated the evidence was “no more consistent with hostile persons assuring themselves that he was dead than with bystanders, or possibly looters, examining his body.” But the Commission also noted that “The failure to summon or send help, however, remains an issue.”

The Commission tried very hard to find the autopsy X-rays, as there were reports that a bullet hole had been found in Hammarskjöld’s head. But the X-rays appear lost forever.

Was Hammarskjöld deliberately assassinated?

Former President Harry S. Truman was convinced Hammarskjöld had been murdered. A Sept. 20, 1961 New York Times article quoted Truman as having told reporters, “Dag Hammarskjöld was on the point of getting something done when they killed him. Notice that I said ‘When they killed him.’”

Years later, when the CIA was revealed to have been engaged in assassination plots, reporter Daniel Schorr speculated that the CIA may have been involved in Hammarskjöld’s death.

The report references the report of David Doyle, the chief of the CIA’s Elizabethville base in Katanga who wrote in a memoir how three armed Fouga planes were being delivered to Katanga “in direct violation” of U.S. policy. Doyle doubted this was an official CIA operation, since he had not been notified of the delivery.

Bronson Tweedy, the head of the CIA’s Africa division, questioned Doyle about the possibility of a CIA operation to interfere with Hammarskjöld’s plane. The report notes that this could indicate a lack of CIA involvement in Hammarskjöld’s death, “unless, conceivably, Tweedy was simply trying to find out how much Doyle knew.”

It is the essence of CIA operations that they are highly compartmentalized and often kept secret between
people even within the Agency itself. Meaning, Allen Dulles or someone high up the chain could easily have ordered a single operator to take out Hammarskjöld’s plane without using any official CIA channels. Indeed, that is what one would expect were so sensitive an operation as the assassination of a UN head contemplated.

After Lumumba’s death, in early 1961, the UN passed resolution 161, which urged the immediate removal of Belgian forces and “other foreign military and paramilitary personnel and political advisors not under the United Nations Command, and mercenaries” from the Congo.

Confession from a CIA operative

When I heard such a commission was forming, I reached out to Lord Lea of Crondall to offer some evidence of my own. John Armstrong, a fellow researcher into the JFK assassination, had forwarded me a series of Church Committee files and correspondence to and from a CIA operative named Roland “Bud” Culligan.

Culligan claimed the CIA had set him up on a phony bank fraud charge, and his way out of jail appears to have been to offer the Church Committee information on CIA assassinations (which he called “executive actions” or “E.A.’s”). Culligan was asked to list some “E.A.’s” that he had been involved in. Culligan mentioned, among high-profile others, Dag Hammarskjöld.

“Damn it, I did not want the job,” Culligan wrote to his legal adviser at Yale Law School. Culligan described the plane and the route, he named his CIA handler and his contact on the ground in Libya, and he described how he shot Hammarskjöld’s plane, which subsequently crashed.


As I testified, and as the Commission quoted in its report: “You will see from the correspondence that Culligan’s material was referred to an Attorney General, a Senator, and ultimately, the Senate investigation of the CIA’s activities at home and abroad that became known as the Church Committee after its leader, Senator Frank Church. Clearly, others in high places had reasons to believe Culligan’s assertions were worthy of further investigation.”

Culligan’s claims fit neatly with a broadcast allegedly heard by Navy Cmdr. Charles Southall, another Commission witness. The morning before the crash, Charles Southall, a naval pilot and intelligence officer, was stationed at the NSA’s facility in Cyprus.

At about 9 p.m. that night, Southall reported he was called at home by the communications watch officer and told to get down to the listening post because “something interesting” was going to happen that night. Southall described hearing a recording shortly after midnight in which a cool pilot’s voice said, “I see a transport plane coming low. All the lights are on. I’m going to make a run on it. Yes, it’s the Transair DC6. It’s the plane.”

Southall heard what sounded like cannon fire, then: “I’ve hit it. There are flames. It’s going down. It’s crashing.” Given that Cyprus was in the same time zone as Ndola, the Commission concluded it was possible that Southall had indeed heard a recording from Ndola. Southall was certain that what he heard indicated a deliberate act.

Bullets

Several witnesses described seeing bullet holes in the plane before it burnt. The report described one witness’s account that the fuselage was “’riddled with bullet-holes’ which appeared to have been made by a machine-gun.”

This account was disputed by AP journalist Errol Friedmann, however, who claimed no bullet holes were present. However, bullets were definitely found embedded in the bodies of several of the plane crash victims, which tends to give the former claim more credence.

The same journalist Friedmann also noted to a fellow journalist that the day after the crash, in a hotel, he had heard a couple of Belgian pilots who had perhaps had too much to drink discussing the crash. One of the pilots claimed he had been in contact with Hammarskjöld’s plane and had “buzzed” it, forcing the pilot of the Albertina to take evasive action. When the pilot buzzed the plane a second time, he forced it towards the ground.

A third-party account allegedly from a Belgian pilot named Beukels was investigated with some skepticism by the Commission. Beukels allegedly gave an account to a French Diplomat named Claude de Kemoularia, who evidently first relayed Beukels’s account to UN diplomat George Ivan Smith in 1980 (not long after Culligan’s 1975 account, I would note).

Smith’s source, however, appeared to be a transcript, about which the Commission noted “the literary quality of the narrative suggests an editorial hand, probably that of one or both of the two intermediaries.” Allegedly, Beukels fired what he meant to be warning shots which then hit the tail of the plane.

While Beukels’s alleged narrative matched several known facts, the Commission wisely noted, “there was little in Beukels’s narrative, as reported, that could not have been ascertained from press coverage and the three inquiries, elaborated by his experience as a pilot.” The Commission wrote of other elements which invited skepticism of this account, but did concede it’s possible this account was self-serving, designed to excuse a deliberate shooting down by Beukels.

The Commission’s recommendation

While the Commission had no desire to place blame for the crash, the report states: “There is persuasive evidence that the aircraft was subjected to some form of attack or threat as it circled to land at Ndola, which was by then widely known to be its destination,” adding “we … consider that the possibility that the plane was in fact forced into its descent by some form of hostile action is supported by sufficient evidence to merit further inquiry.”

The key evidence that the Commission thinks could prove or disprove a deliberate act would be the Ndola airport’s radio traffic that night. The Commission reported “it is highly likely that the entirety of the local and regional Ndola radio traffic on the night of 17-18 September 1961 was tracked and recorded by the NSA, and possibly also by the CIA.”

The Commission filed a Freedom of Information request for any such evidence with the National Archives but did not appear hopeful that such records would be released unless pressure was brought to bear.

In its discussion of Culligan, the Commission felt there were no leads there that could be pursued. But if any of Culligan’s many conversations with his legal adviser was captured on tape, and if tapes of the radio traffic cited above could be obtained, a voice match could be sought.

Based on its year-long investigation, the Commission stated that the UN “would be justified” in reopening its initial 1962 inquiry in light of the new evidence “about an event of global significance with deserves the attention both of history and of justice.”
[Regarding President Eisenhower’s possibly role in ordering the assassination of Lumumba, Robert Johnson, a National Security Council staff member, told the Church Committee he heard Eisenhower give an order that Lumumba be killed. He remembered being shocked to hear this. Under questioning, however, Johnson allowed that may have been a mistaken impression, that perhaps Eisenhower was referring to Lumumba’s political, not physical, removal.]

Lisa Pease is a writer who has examined issues ranging from the Kennedy assassination to voting irregularities in recent U.S. elections.
Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3801
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Paul »

Hi ShauryaT,

One of the key reasons for confrontation between Russia and the west over Ukraine is that the west (neo-cons ) see their victory in the Cold war as incomplete. Altgough they have gained access to Oil in Baku region but they have still not been able to gain hold of the vast Oil, metal, timber and other natural resources of Siberia and Arctic region yet. They made some progress when Russia was ruled by Yeltsin. They humiliated Russia in the Balkans too but this was not enough. This is why they were mad with the Clintons as Bill Clinton in their view did not press home the advantage of the Russian retreat in eastern Europe. Then in Bush's time 9/11 happened and the focus shifted to the mid east as the opportunity from 9/11 was too difficult to pass up. It was the Neo cons who let Pakistan off the hook after 9/11. They were able to gain some control over the Oil coming from Iraq and Halliburton and Exxon made windfall profits there. Now that the Iraq withdrawal has taken place and US has withdrawn from Saudi Arabia there are no conflict points with the Wahabis (Afghanistan is also winding down) they want to go back to confront Russia with possibly Wahabi support . This is where we stand now and a clear and present danger. A hypothetical alliance between the Wahabis and the US again.

Syria in neo con view is another front in their battle with Russia and they are willing to deal with devil (Al Qaida) to confront their other nemesis Iran and by extension the Russia-Iran axis. After 9/11 US has withdrawn from Saudi Arabia and this may help reach an agreement with Al-Qaida and confront a common enemy (Iran-Russia). Remember Osama went Bhagoda primarily because US troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia during GW I. Even here Obama is going easy on Iran and this frustrates the the Saudis to no end. After 2016 if a republican becomes president this irritant may be removed. Furthermore Iraq has become Shia dominant. Iran becoming a more powerful state is not good for Pakistan as they will compete more intensely in their near abroad.

What is all this leading to. First of all the neo con intervention in Iraq led the war in Afghanistan being outsourced to Pakistan. Pakistani sensitivities in Afghanistan were given prime importance in the war as the US was busy with Iraq. This led to Karzai being given secondary importance and Taliban was handled with kid gloves and there were tactical ceasefires between the US forces and Taliban. It is only after the withdrawal from Iraq that the focus shifted to the good war (afghanistan - as Obama put it). This focus Afghanistan has led to an alternate and independent viewpoint which is not anti-India and is not pro-US (Read Karzai's anti US rant on dialogue with Taliban). At the same time Karzai is standing up to US by not signing the agreement to station US troops post 2014. As per reports he is also maintaining channels with Taliban. The US is outmaneuvered as it does not know what the next president will do. This independent thinking in Afghanistan is good for Indian interests and is partly the result of Obama's focus on Afghanistan. Remember the US presence in Afghanistan is not only to prevent another 9/11 but also to preserve status quo - preserve integrity of Afghanistan. A taliban resurgence in Afghanistan will result in fracturing of Afghanistan along ethnic lines and also a corresponding resurgence of TTP in Pakistan. There is no difference between TTP and Quetta Shura regardless of BBC calling them Bad and good Taliban (recall TTP Maulana saying they are in touch with Mullah Omar) respectively mirroring Pakistani thinking. Until US forces are there in Afghanistan a Taliban resurgence cannot happen and in a perverse way I think is not in India's interest. However can Pakistan make headway in Afghanistan's pashtun areas after 2014 remains to be seen.

Again the Neo cons do not see the pivot to Asia shift as a priority as they do not want a war with China in the short term. They want to go back to Cold war II and break Russia apart. s I said earlier Clinton was on the job but not as aggressive as they would have liked. They think they can work with China and accommodate China at the high table as they have done so in the past. China in Deng-Reagan time was their ally and helped them defeat Russia. Nixon brokered the opening with China. Obama's focus on China will increase the pressure on China's eastern borders and force China to come to terms with India. If it heats up further, they may even have to come to a understanding with India on Pakistan. OTOH If confrontation between Russia and the west heats up further then it will give more breathing space to China and this is not good for it's neighbours (Read India).

That is why I think
a. Obamas' focus on the good war (Afghanistan)/getting out of Iraq in the past
b. Going easy on Iran (increasing differences with their Wahabi allies) and
c. Pivot to Asia will help India in the long term.
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21234
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Prem »

The Geopolitics Of Energy

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stratfor/20 ... of-energy/
Mohan Malik, a professor at the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies in Honolulu, has for years been studying the geopolitics of energy. He has drawn, in conceptual terms, a new world map dominated by a growing consumer market for energy in Asia and a growing market for production in the United States.
“Asia has become ‘ground zero’ for growth” as far as the consumption of energy is concerned, writes Malik. His research shows that over the next 20 years, 85 percent of the growth in energy consumption will come from the Indo-Pacific region. Already, at least a quarter of the world’s liquid hydrocarbons are consumed by China, India, Japan and South Korea. According to the World Energy Outlook, published by the International Energy Agency, China will account for 40 percent of the growing consumption until 2025, after which India will emerge as “the biggest single source of increasing demand,” in Malik’s words. The rate of energy consumption growth for India will increase to 132 percent; in China and Brazil demand will grow by 71 percent, and in Russia by 21 percent. Malik explains that the increase in demand for gas will overtake that for oil and coal combined. Part of the story here is that the Indo-Pacific region will become increasingly reliant on the Middle East for its oil: By 2030, 80 percent of China’s oil will come from the Middle East, and 90 percent in the case of India. (Japan and South Korea remain 100 percent dependent on oil imports.) China’s reliance on the Middle East will be buttressed by its concomitant and growing dependence on former Soviet Central Asia for energy.While the Indo-Pacific region is becoming more energy dependent on the Middle East, in the other hemisphere the United States is emerging as a global energy producing giant in its own right. Malik reports that U.S. shale oil production will more than triple between 2010 and 2020. And were the United States to open up its Atlantic and Pacific coastlines to drilling, he says oil production in the United States and Canada could eventually equal the consumption in both countries. Already, within a decade, shale gas has risen from 2 percent to 37 percent of U.S. natural gas production. The United States has now overtaken Russia as the world’s biggest natural gas producer. Some estimates put the United States as overtaking Saudi Arabia as the world’s largest oil producer by the end of the current decade, though this is unlikely.Malik observes that this would mark a return to the pre-1973 Yom Kippur War period of American energy dominance. When combined with Canadian oil sands and Brazil’s oil lying beneath salt beds, these shifts have the potential to make the Americas into the “new Middle East” of the 21st century, though we need to remember that U.S. oil production may be in decline after 2020.
At the same time, Russia is increasingly shifting its focus of energy exports to East Asia. China is on track to perhaps become Russia’s biggest export market for oil before the end of the decade, even as Russian energy firms are now developing a closer relationship with Japan in order to hedge against their growing emphasis on China.We are thus seeing before our eyes all energy routes leading to the Indo-Pacific region. The Middle East will be exporting more and more hydrocarbons there. Russia is exporting more and more hydrocarbons to the East Asian realm of the area. And North America will soon be looking more and more to the Indo-Pacific region to export its own energy, especially natural gas.As the Indo-Pacific waters — that is, the Greater Indian Ocean and the South China Sea — become the world’s energy interstate, maritime tensions are rising in the South China Sea and in the adjacent East China Sea. The territorial tensions over which country owns what geographical feature in those waters is not only being driven by potential energy reserves and fish stocks in the vicinity, but also by the very fact that these sea lanes and choke points are of growing geopolitical importance because of the changing world energy market.
Europe, because of its aging population, will probably not grow in relative importance in world energy markets, while the Indo-Pacific region of course will. Though northeast Asia, like Europe, is home to aging populations, that is not the case — or at least is less the case — in the Indian Ocean world.Economic importance often leads over time to cultural and political importance. Thus, the current tension between an economically and demographically stagnant European Union and a troubled, autocratic Russia — energy rich, but less so in comparative terms going forward — may actually expose the decline of Greater Europe, while North America and the Indian Ocean world become the new pulsating centers of commerce. At the same time, however, we may see, at least in the short term, an alliance of sorts between Russia and China, undergirded by a growing energy relationship, as these two massive Eurasian states come into conflict and competition with the democratic West.Power in Eurasia would, therefore, move to more southerly latitudes, while the United States would have its own power reinvigorated by an even closer economic relationship with Canada and Mexico (which is also energy rich). The Europe-centric world of the past millennium may finally be passing as North America and the Greater Indian Ocean take center stage.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Philip »

Ebola virus out of control?
The outbreak of Ebola is now threatening to spread all over Africa as 3 nations now have been afflicted with the incurable disease.

Panic as deadly Ebola virus spreads across West Africa
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 41155.html
When everyone is an apparent threat, a potential carrier of the deadly Ebola virus, panic inevitably rises. Yesterday, as rumours spread that Ebola could be caught by breathing the same air as the victims, that fear turned into violence.

Since the outbreak of the deadly strain of Zaire Ebola in Guinea in February, around 90 people have died as the disease has travelled to neighbouring Sierra Leone, Liberia and Mali. The outbreak has sent shock waves through communities who know little of the disease or how it is transmitted. The cases in Mali have added to fears that it is spreading through West Africa.

A spokesman for the medical charity Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) said yesterday that a treatment centre where patients were isolated in Macenta, 265 miles south-east of Guinea's capital, Conakry, had come under attack from an "angry crowd" who accused health workers of bringing the disease to the town, where at least 14 people have died from Ebola.

"We have evacuated all our staff and closed the treatment centre," the MSF spokesman Sam Taylor said. "We're working with the authorities to try and resolve this problem as quickly as possible so we can start treating people again." He later told Bloomberg: "We fully understand that the outbreak of Ebola is alarming for the local population, but it is essential in the fight against the disease that patients remain in the treatment centre."

Bushmeat on sale . It was not clear how many people had been injured in the incident. A government statement said the support of aid groups such as MSF and the British Red Cross was essential. It called for "calm and serenity to enable our partners to support us to eradicate this epidemic" and added: "Only the recognition of the existence of the disease will help in the fight against it."

There is no cure for Ebola, which causes fever and severe bleeding. Aid workers have described the outbreak in West Africa as an "unprecedented epidemic".

Trust in the authorities in Conakry reached a low ebb on Friday, with many residents blaming the government for not immediately quarantining an individual who was said to have carried the virus to the capital from the remote and heavily-forested south, where the bulk of the cases are concentrated. Sixteen cases have been reported in Conakry, of which five people have died, a World Health Organisation spokesman said.

"How can we trust them now? We have to look after ourselves," Dede Diallo, a Conakry resident who stopped working and has kept her children at home since the outbreak, told the Associated Press.

Dr Adinoyi Ben Adeiza, from the International Federation of the Red Cross, was part of the team tasked with tackling Ebola when it broke out in Uganda in 2012. Dr Adeiza told The Independent on Sunday: "The only thing that can be done is to prevent it spreading."

He added: "This is a major challenge for countries such as Guinea which have weak health systems, mainly because [they don't have] adequate resources... to set up isolation centres for affected people."

In London, the Foreign Office warned Britons travelling to Guinea to maintain strict standards of hygiene and avoid eating bushmeat.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60273
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by ramana »

Paul good thinking. How does the elections in Afghanistan impact overall scene. Both candidates say the will sign the sofa agreement. Means US troops will be there.
Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3801
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Paul »

Given the Greener than green thinking that pervades the street, it will give the Taliban a stick to beat the govt with.

US troop presence may slow down the fragmentation of Afghanistan but not stop it. Will take at least couple of decades to play out.

I think the so called differences between the Saudis and US under Obama are a one off thing. Will go away once Obama leaves in 2016. This alliance is very strong and has withstood several challenges.
vijaykarthik
BRFite
Posts: 1169
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by vijaykarthik »

@Paul -- 2 things:
a. "Until US forces are there in Afghanistan a Taliban resurgence cannot happen and in a perverse way I think is not in India's interest. However can Pakistan make headway in Afghanistan's pashtun areas after 2014 remains to be seen. " -- I don't get it. If you have the time, could you pl elaborate: Are you saying its a good sign or a bad sign, from the Indian perspective.

b. Even if West-Russia hots up, why will China have to come hard against India in the near term? IMHO, I am thinking they are looking more at the seas - the SCS, ECS, Spratly, Zhongye, Ieodo, Diaoyo [Senkaku] are vastly more important currently as they are pushing for a naval presence and get into a dominance on the ECS, SCS and get a stranglehold on the regions in the 9-dash line. Is that not true and more important for them in terms of priority.

territorial bickering with India is important to keep the fight alive but IMO, the important activity is on the high-seas. And I hope the Andaman command does something to ensure that they can hold the IOT region. that's about as important too.
Last edited by vijaykarthik on 07 Apr 2014 06:46, edited 1 time in total.
vijaykarthik
BRFite
Posts: 1169
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by vijaykarthik »

@ramana - aren't there 3 strong candidates? You mention only two... or is it that you are confident that only one amongst the 2 will win. Will anyone be able to stick their neck out and predict who the winner will be?

I still cant make out who will be better from an Indian standpoint. And the US consciously has kept out of meddling this time around : including not funding opinion polls, announcing a preference, help candidates with their election process etc.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5405
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by ShauryaT »

Paul: Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I will share my feedback as time permits.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60273
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by ramana »

Easy Abdullah Abdullah would be best from Indian POV. However can live with Karzai backed candidate Rasool as he would not be encumbered by Karzai legacy and would seek to consolidate and thus has to take on Taliban. But he is in his 70s.

I dont know the third one.

Also I don't get your usage of "or is it that you are confident that only one amongst the 2 will win."
You have 4 posts and want to attribute motives to me!

learn some manners.
vijaykarthik
BRFite
Posts: 1169
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by vijaykarthik »

Learn manners and 4 posts old doesn't seem a very nice way of linking up things and putting it across.

I personally don't see anything wrong in the usage while asking "or is it that you are confident that only one amongst the 2 will win" unless one feels very motivated to assume that I am attributing motives against them.

If you assumed that I was attributing a motive, I apologize. However, when we look at language and a question and when in doubt, lets look at the question and not at the intent. You seem to have just made a fundamental attribution error.

I was only interested in knowing if you felt that there were just 2 front runners and you were confident that there were just two. Anything more to that was just assumed and I didn't mean anything more beyond just the question.

As I mentioned in the earlier msg in a different forum, I am forecasting these realtime geopolitical questions for a different mission and looking for good information to base my rates on. And since I saw that you mentioned just 2 as opposed to 3 I am tracking, I put that qn to figure how confident you were regarding your statement [and confidence is a good thing. If you had said that you were confident that there were just two contenders, I will have taken that as a possibility without judgment and make my own independent judgment, after searching for more information, based on your new feedback]

So, lets not link 4 posts with being rude and having 10k+ posts as being a veteran. We are all dead in the long run. Lets not keep our egos in the front and lose nice talks and discussions.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60273
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by ramana »

Anyway who is the third person? And where were you tracking three candidates? And what is your mission if one may ask?
vijaykarthik
BRFite
Posts: 1169
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by vijaykarthik »

Ghani [Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai] is the 3rd person. He is an ex-WB guy and I am thinking the US is discreetly rooting for him to become the President [my personal thought: possibly because he is indoctrinated in the US methods by his WB stint and might lean closer with US thinking?].

There is a nice link that Kati / Anmol posted in the other thread [not forum as I mentioned mistakenly in my earlier post]. I am part of that tournament as a superforecaster too and try to predict geopolitical outcomes. Its funded by the IARPA and its pretty interesting.

Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashraf_Ghani_Ahmadzai
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Afgha ... l_election

What makes the tournament interesting is that it uses only open source resources... and the reports / results are pretty telling.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014 ... -cia-agent
There are lots of reports on various other papers too lately.

Its open for season 4 if anyone is interested. [And as I mentioned, I came across this site when I was doing research for a different qn and stumbled upon bharat rakshak. Seems like a good site with good people and opinions. Plan to spend more time on this going forward. That's the sad thing with life: everything is readily available if one only attempts to *look* out for it. Takes time to get the right amount of looking though]
Post Reply