Geopolitical thread

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 15 Oct 2009 00:56

ramana wrote:One of these days even Hitler will turn out to be in cahoots with the Brits!

Is that related to this news: Italian dictator Mussolini worked for British intelligence in First World War ?

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 15 Oct 2009 06:50

You had the option to agree, disagree or ignore. You did not ignore, in fact liked it. There is no reason why an analogy can not be used to explain economics or any other subject, unless the analogy is invalid. So I request you to say why the analogy or parts of the analogy were invalid.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Oct 2009 10:38

American pre-eminence comes from their control and neutering of Germany and Japan. These two powers are to US what Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa were to Great Britain. More over Japan is second or third economy and Germany the fifth. Its this cohort that keeps US dominance. Its not Aunty who works always to undermine the financial strength of US.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Oct 2009 10:46

from Nigthwatch, 10/14/09

Afghanistan: NightWatch Recommends. This comment is a synthetic analysis based on reasoning from historic analogies, as taught in Neustadt and May, Chapter 3, Thinking in Time.

New analysts to the study of Afghanistan should read the documents posted by the National Security Archive on Soviet lessons learned.

Two major themes stand out sharply. Through 1979, Politburo members Gromyko, Kirilenko, Ponomarev and others agreed that the Soviet Union could not afford to lose Afghanistan to the Mujahedin, which they interpreted as a proxy for the US, China, Pakistan and Iran.

Through most of 1979, political and military leaders agreed on one point: Soviet military forces should never be committed to Afghanistan. All other aid should be rendered to enable Afghanistan to save itself.

Unanimity broke in September 1979 when the tyrant Hafizullah Amin overthrew the government and instituted a reign of terror. In Moscow, Communist Party political leaders, including Gromyko and Brezhnev, judged Amin needed to be punished and removed. Military leaders remained steadfastly opposed to the commitment of Soviet forces. Yuri Andropov’s KGB, pandering to the Party leaders, advocated intervention and that swayed the Politburo vote.

The 40th Army invaded on Christmas Day 1979. KGB combat forces assassinated Amin. Babrak Karmal was installed as the new leader of Afghanistan. The effort was so uncoordinated that the KGB colonel in charge of killing Amin was killed by friendly fire from the advancing 40th Army.

In the event, the world changed and the loss of Afghanistan was trivial compared to the collapse of the Soviet Union, which the Soviet expedition into Afghanistan accelerated.

The Soviet “empire” collapsed in part because of the Afghanistan drain on its last reserves. The KGB’s intelligence advice was mostly short term alarmist baloney. Russia survived and the Afghanistan problem endures, but is no longer a primary Russian concern. Russian Prime Minister Putin is mildly amused, to be sure.

The second theme is that Marshal Nikolai Ogarkov, Chief of the General Staff, and his staff officers unanimously agreed and recommended that Soviet forces should never be committed to Afghanistan because the war was too like the US involvement in Vietnam and was not winnable.

Interesting to NightWatch is that the Soviet military leaders, who had a half century tradition of involvement in Afghanistan since the 1920s, recommended against intervention by Soviet forces, even as late as November and early December 1979. The decision to invade was made on 12 December 1979, as documented by the National Security Archive documents.

The irony is that battle tested Soviet Marshals and Generals with long experience and a tradition of operations in central Asia wanted no part of another military action in Afghanistan. This matches British military conclusions from its historic fights in the frontier region. It contrasts sharply with the “can do” attitude of US generals who have no experience in Afghanistan, but have read lots of books.

The Soviet political leaders ignored the military advice and committed the 40th Army on Christmas 1979. Against expectations, the Soviets succeeded in gradually restoring a measure of stability to most of Afghanistan until the US introduced Stinger missiles to the Mujahedin which eliminated Soviet air superiority. The availability of Pakistan as a safe haven for the Mujahedin was the critical weakness in the Soviet position, the documents relate.

A third theme is that the Soviets insisted on working with the government they backed. They kept Soviet forces separate from Afghan forces. They demanded the Afghan government and Afghan forces step up to defend the government to which they swore an oath. Their approach succeeded, until the US intervened with the Stingers.

In this exercise in “reasoning from historic analogies”, the National Security Archive documents cover the year of deliberations by the Soviet Politburo about whether to escalate Soviet support. The decision to send Soviet troops was agonizing.

For NightWatch, the ideas, proposals and concepts are close matches to the debate in the US today about the same issue. The Soviets plowed the same ground only twenty years ago. It is important to take their experiences into account.

Among the differences is that Soviet political leaders were the first to be persuaded that the political situation in Kabul could only be save by Soviet forces. Soviet military leaders disagreed on military grounds.

The US debate appears structured precisely opposite. Political leaders doubt the military can do what its leaders claim.

The documents in the National Security Archive collectively are a cautionary tale and worth reading.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 16 Oct 2009 12:16

Plus the US-UK use of torture (posted here) as a legitimate weapon of intelligence has undoubtedly been of major assistance in the success of intel ops against the forces of AlQ and the Taliban.This goes against current ethics and etiquette of war,especially violating the Geneva Convention.The US-UK answer is that these terrorists do not abide by such rules and therefore they can be ignored.But this is what divides the civilised nations from the barbaric and brings both to the same level.Secret concentration camps smack of Nazi atrocities during WW2 and in this context,it is a international scandal and disgrace that the US has the balls to participate in commemorations at Auschwitz,etc. The reasons for why such groups emerge and indulge in attacks against the US,etc.,should be analysed.Much will be found due to abominable US foreign policies,supporting dictators in Musilm states,assassination of popular leaders,theft or control of national resources such as oil in Iraq,military adventurism and redrawing of the map to suit US whims and fancies (former Yugoslavia and the Balkans conflict).It brings with it the "opposite and equal reaction".

MI5 chief defends 'torture intelligence'Times Online

Spymaster Jonathan Evans

Jonathan Evans, the Director General of MI5, has issued a powerful defence of Britain's co-operation with intelligence agencies in America and other countries accused of the abuse and torture of detainees, saying they had stopped "many attacks" in the aftermath of the September 11 2001 strikes.

Speaking for the first time about charges of MI5 complicity in the abuse of suspects overseas, Mr Evans said Britain had had to get overseas help at the time as its own knowledge of al Qaeda was inadequate and al Qaeda might have hit again "imminently".

MI5 would have failed in its duty if it had not worked with its overseas connections to safeguard Britain, he said in a speech at Bristol University yesterday evening.

"Such intelligence was of the utmost importance to the safety and security of the UK," said Mr Evans. "It has saved British lives. Many attacks have been stopped as a result of effective international intelligence co-operation since 9/11," he said.

MI5 chief: we have got terrorists on the run

He acknowledged that contacts with agencies in countries with standards and practices "very far from our own" had posed "a real dilemma" for the service, but insisted he had "every confidence" in the way his officers dealt with them.

His comments come at a time when MI5 is facing a series of claims through civil courts that it colluded in the mistreatment of suspects held overseas, as well as an unprecedented investigation by the Metropolitan Police.

While he could not comment directly on the allegations, he said that it was "a very clear and long established principle" that MI5 did not collude in torture or solicit others to torture on its behalf.

However he said that events in the aftermath of the 9/11 had to been seen in the context of the times, when the UK and other Western countries were faced with a terrorist threat that was "indiscriminate, global and massive".

"Now, eight years on, we have a better understanding of the nature and scope of al Qaeda's capabilities but we did not have that understanding in the period immediately after 9/11," he said.

"We had seen nearly 3,000 people killed in the United States, 67 of them British. We were aware that 9/11 was not the summit of al Qaeda's ambitions. And there was a real possibility that similar attacks were being planned, possibly imminently.

"Our intelligence resources were not adequate to the situation we faced and the root of the terrorist problem was in parts of the world where the standards and practices of the local security apparatus were very far removed from our own."

The dilemma MI5 faced was whether to work with those security services which had experience of dealing with al Qaeda on their own territory, or risk cutting off a potentially vital source of information that could prevent attacks on the West.

"In my view we would have been derelict in our duty if we had not worked, circumspectly, with overseas liaisons who were in a position to provide intelligence that could safeguard this country from attack," Mr Evans said.

He stressed that it was not "just a theoretical issue" as al Qaeda had actually laid plans for further terrorist outrages in the wake of the attacks on the twin towers in New York.

"Details of some of these plans came to light through the interrogation of detainees by other countries, including the US, in the period after 9/11; subsequent investigation on the ground, including in the UK, substantiated these claims," he said.

Mr Evans stressed he was not defending the abuses which had come to light in the US - which have included the repeated "waterboarding" of suspects, among them the alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

He accepted the previous criticism by the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee that MI5 had been slow to detect the emerging pattern of practice in the US.

At the same time however, he stressed that it was important to remember the benefits that had come to Britain through its intelligence contacts with the US.

"It is important to recognise that we do not control what other countries do, that operational decisions have to be taken with the knowledge available, even if it is incomplete, and that when the emerging pattern of US policy was detected necessary improvements were made," he said.

"And we should recall that notwithstanding these serious issues, the UK has gained huge intelligence benefits from our co-operation with the US agencies in recent years, and the US agencies have been generous in sharing intelligence with us."

Y. Kanan · Post by **Y. Kanan** » 16 Oct 2009 22:35

SwamyG wrote:You had the option to agree, disagree or ignore. You did not ignore, in fact liked it. There is no reason why an analogy can not be used to explain economics or any other subject, unless the analogy is invalid. So I request you to say why the analogy or parts of the analogy were invalid.

The trouble with analogies is they're usually rubbish.

Fun, but rubbish.

We've seen nations compared to people, plants, animals, etc but to be honest they really aren't so simple.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 17 Oct 2009 00:12

Y. Kanan wrote:
SwamyG wrote:You had the option to agree, disagree or ignore. You did not ignore, in fact liked it. There is no reason why an analogy can not be used to explain economics or any other subject, unless the analogy is invalid. So I request you to say why the analogy or parts of the analogy were invalid.
The trouble with analogies is they're usually rubbish.

Fun, but rubbish.

We've seen nations compared to people, plants, animals, etc but to be honest they really aren't so simple.

A better answer would be to explain than dismiss something just as rubbish. Analogies are made to convey a point. If you disagree with the points, then explain why you disagree with the points.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 17 Oct 2009 00:24

ramana wrote
One of these days even Hitler will turn out to be in cahoots with the Brits!

Already in the market of CT's. The connection is sought for in the dramatic flight, capture and subsequent hiding of Hess away from press and royal family by Churchill.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 17 Oct 2009 01:42

brihaspati wrote: ramana wrote
One of these days even Hitler will turn out to be in cahoots with the Brits!
Already in the market of CT's. The connection is sought for in the dramatic flight, capture and subsequent hiding of Hess away from press and royal family by Churchill.

Find out who was the Head of German Treasury during the Nazi govt and his connection to the bankers in London and NY.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 17 Oct 2009 16:09

A better answer would be to explain than dismiss something just as rubbish. Analogies are made to convey a point. If you disagree with the points, then explain why you disagree with the points.

If one stretches an analogy beyond a point, obviously it will cease to work. In this case, its not clear the analogy was stretched beyond breaking point. Would be nice if the rubishers would spil light on where the discrepancies come up in.

More generally, imagine you're a global investor with a pot of money to invest around. You're being a pitch by the erstwhile G7 - a bunch of low-growth, high-cost, demographically deficient ekhanomies on the one side and by young n messy but high-growth, low-cost emergingers on the other. Where'll you bet your pile of capital on?

Of course you'll hedge and all but increasingly, as it becomes clear just how hopelessly broke, indebted, insolvent and pretentious the emerged tfta types are, odds are you'll be shifting ever greater amounts towards the unwashed but promising sdre types. Strictly IMVHO perhaps.

Anyways, happy diwali, all.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 18 Oct 2009 11:33

More trouser wetting from the diabolical Atlanticist lobby....

Russia’s Leaders See China as Template for Ruling

MOSCOW — Vladimir V. Putin’s party, United Russia, is examining how it can emulate China’s Communist Party.

Heh heh. And people everywhere will increasingly ask - who made the western system 'naturally' soup-e-rear onlee? Alternative systems can exist etc.
Recall a recent incident, 60 yrs of CCP and all that, when a beeb reporter, all smarting whiskers and bushy tail, asks the chini ambassador in London "When will PRC become a multiparty democracy?" types. She looks at him straight and asks "In other words, when will China become like you? Have you considered that maybe we do not *want* to be like you?" LOL only.
More and more the bhest will come to realize poor ole Yindia remains their best friend only. Wheels coming full circle or what?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 21 Oct 2009 00:47

Significant global trend which would change the global politics in the future

Vatican welcomes Anglicans into Catholic church
CNN International - ‎3 hours ago‎
ROME, Italy (CNN) -- The Vatican said Tuesday it has worked out a way for groups of Anglicans who are dissatisfied with their faith to join the Catholic Church.
Video: Pope creates ordinariates for Anglican dioceses Rome Reports
Rome rules on admitting Anglicans BBC News

http://news.google.com/news/more?pz=1&c ... cM&topic=h

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Oct 2009 01:16

Patriots are point defence systems as opposed to area defence systems which were delayed if not scrapped. Point defence makes sense if Poland was the target of those missiles from "Middle East". So its a H&D investment.

Also depend on it Pope Benedict has moved quite far on his agenda to unify the Church. First it was the Orthodox Church and now the Anglicans. BTW, Anglicans are Catholics except they acknowledge the English Monarch as the head of the Church instead of the Pope. All rituals etc are same. They are called Episcopals in US.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 21 Oct 2009 01:34

Okay, finally I have some answer that I have been searching for the question - why would China work to reduce the value of dollar. It is a common thought that as the dollar value goes down China's reserve values held in dollars would go down too. So why is China doing what it is doing.

Wake Up Washington! China Is Already Dumping the Dollar, Niall Ferguson Says

"The idea they don't have anywhere else to go or would shoot themselves in the foot if there were a steep decline in the dollar or appreciation of their currency reassures many people in Washington ‘we can relax'," he says. "An appreciation of the renminbi may reduce value of their international reserves but increases the value of every other asset the Chinese own," most notably the commodity assets they have been buying all over the world.

That is a really important aspect. Any gurus want to comment?

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 21 Oct 2009 01:39

Please also read/see: Niall Ferguson: U.S. Empire in Decline, on Collision Course with China

Putting a finer point on it, Ferguson says America today is comparable to Britain circa 1900: a dominant empire underestimating the rise of a new power. In Britain's case back then it was Germany; in America's case today, it's China.

Wow, he is finally saying what many at BRF have been saying. Kudos to BRF gurus.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Oct 2009 02:00

Please cross post here also:

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... &start=160

In the US-PRC-India thread as its more relevant.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Oct 2009 16:42

Acharaya,Martin Borman was the alleged treasurer of the Nazi party.It is alleged that he was not killed outside the bunker as thought of,but rescued in a covert op by a special British team/op that included Ian Fleming,so that in exchange for his freedom (S.America) ,he would hand over the Nazi loot stashed away in secret Swiss vaults.An elaborate operation was made to protect he truth.Bormann's body was later brought back to Germany after his death ,reburied at the spot of his last known sighting and "discovered" by "accident".The latest sensation that Hitler's believed remains are actually that of a woman indicates that a lot of WW2 truth remains hidden.

The Pope's latest gambit to allow a special "structure" for Anglicans within Catholicism,is a masterstroke.The Anglican church is rife with dissent from traditionalists who are against the ordination of women bishops and gay clergy.The Asian-African church especially are against gays in cassocks and becoming bishops unlike their US Episcopalian brethren.This schism almost rent the Anglican church into two at the last Lambeth conference.A stampede is very likely as the current head of the Anglican Church ,Dr.Rowan Williams,who is considered a wimp and indecisive attempting to sweep up the confusion under the carpet.

It is common to think of the Worldwide Anglican Communion as a Protestant form of the Catholic Church. Catholics have their HQ in Rome. Anglicans have theirs in Canterbury. Catholics have the Pope. Anglicans have the Archbishop of Canterbury... and so forth. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Anglican Communion is more like a confederation of contradictions than a communion of the saints. At one point Anglicans worldwide were united in their shared understanding of the historic Christian faith and their shared ancestry in English language and culture. As time has progressed like an ever rolling stream the Anglican Communion has become more and more disparate. Now there are Charismatic Anglicans, Traditionalist Anglicans, Catholic Anglicans and Protestant Anglicans and New Age Anglicans and Liberal Anglicans.

In the developing world native cultures and separate political development has meant that the African, American and Asian Anglican Churches are now more African, American and Asian than Anglican.The structure of the Anglican Communion is that each national church is an independent province. They look to Canterbury for a figurehead of unity, but the Archbishop of Canterbury has no more than symbolic power.

The Bishop of Fulham, the Right Rev John Broadhurst, chairman of Forward in Faith, which opposes women bishops, hailed it as a “decisive moment” and predicted that, based on his group’s membership, up to 1,000 Church of England clergy could go.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 883609.ece

While a large number of Anglican/Protestant churches and orders will not want to come under the Pope's wing,any major schism with part of the Anglican faith,especially the traditionalists returning would be a major religious victory for the Catholic Church and considerably increase its influence globally.Individuals like British ex-PM Tony Blair have become Catholics in recent times and this Pope sems determined despite his age to make his mark upon history,with a re-unification of the two Christian faiths his goal.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 21 Oct 2009 21:26

Kremlin cajoling Hatoyama While the Panda corners all the attention, the Bear continues to work hard behind the scenes.

Russia seems to be stepping up efforts to build closer ties with Japan through cracks in Tokyo's alliance with the United States, even as it tries to resolve the thorny Northern Territories issue on terms favorable to Moscow.

Japan is in danger of playing right into the hands of Russia unless the new government of Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama and his Democratic Party of Japan establish firm diplomatic policies toward the colossal neighbor.

Meanwhile Three Keys to Understanding Japan’s New Diplomacy from Brookings Institution.

There are at least three keys to help understand the diplomacy that the Hatoyama government will conduct: 1) Hatoyama's lofty “yuai” philosophy, 2) the influence of Hatoyama's colleague Ichiro Ozawa (the DPJ's new Secretary General), and 3) the influence of the DPJ's largest base of support, Rengo, or the Japanese Trade Union Confederation (JTUC).

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 21 Oct 2009 21:35

While China might not want to pull the rug anytime soon, but there is no reason why it should not look at long term. Having achieved a reasonable clout in the global order, it is its interest to gain as much control as possible.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 21 Oct 2009 21:41

virtually every economic guru with Harvard Ph.D. has been warning of China dumping the dollar. every time i hear this, i start scratching my head.

'em harvardis aren't exactly dumb. They're only playing dumb in this case. They're setting the stage for blame-gaming when the dollah eventually sputters some way down the line, IMHO. Am not saying it will happen tomorrow. There is danger of deflationary conditions taking hold in the near term, IMO but after that who knows?

let me make this clear: in China, stability is everything. the Chinese leadership is an insecure bunch that can't, shan't, won't risk instability (aka mass unemployment), which is inevitable if the Renminbi rises in value dramatically against the US Dollar.

Regardless of the reminbi peg, PRC is rife with overcapacity in practically every single sector one can think of. Demand from the emerged tfta world has evaporated, like overnight, and is not set to return anytime soon. We're looking at massive slumps in productive capacity, business cycles, financing institutions that made directed loans to these sectors and associated jobs across the board. With no social safety net to speak of and the average chini chang and chow supporting 2 sets of retired couples each, things won't sparkly anytime soon, IMO.

INTERNAL STABILITY is the PILLAR ON WHICH THE CHINESE LEADERSHIP STANDS and makes grand postures. without that stability, the CENTRAL GOVT's power erodes, and thus a gradual decline in unity between the different provinces (read Coastal vs. Interior). This is the ultimate nightmare for the Communist party and any Chinese nationalist worth his salt.

Unlike what many think, IMO, there is ZERO danger of internal instability in PRC. The PRC can and will kill by the 1000s, millions - systematically and remorselessly to keep itself afloat. Nothing in history will have seen anything like it and hence there is no way to say it will be unsustainable. We don't know yet. I think it is sustainable indefinitely if you can get away with murder and we know that in PRC, the CCP can.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 22 Oct 2009 02:22

Unlike what many think, IMO, there is ZERO danger of internal instability in PRC. The PRC can and will kill by the 1000s, millions - systematically and remorselessly to keep itself afloat. Nothing in history will have seen anything like it and hence there is no way to say it will be unsustainable. We don't know yet. I think it is sustainable indefinitely if you can get away with murder and we know that in PRC, the CCP can.

Don't confuse authoritarian with totalitarian. One party police states still need public legitimacy and support, and they stay in power as long as they give people what they want.

There is no one like Mao in China who has the stature, the wiles and the narcissistic ruthlessness to re-impose a totalitarian system. Comparing the current bunch in charge to Mao is like comparing Putin, or Brezhnev to Stalin. Both parties were decimated by those figures, and fought to prevent anyone like them from emerging again.

The CPC today operates on consensus; an internal consensus between and within the different party cliques (some regional, some ideological), and consensus between the party and the country.

The balancing competition between all of these means that no one figure is allowed to become too popular, and too powerful. The Party is not challenged as long as it brings prosperity and stability.

The CPC can crush the Tibetans and Uighurs because it has the full backing of the Han majority, which see those uprisings as threats to stability.

The working classes stood by when the PLA crushed Tiananmen Square because unlike Solidarity in Poland, the democracy movement did not link itself to ordinary people but instead was confined to the intellectual classes, dissident senior cadres and red princes (the children of party leaders).

The CPC has a lot of people it must keep happy today - the middle class, the metropolitan working class, etc. It must deliver growth and stability to them, or at the very least, ruling cliques within the CPC will find themselves displaced if failure hurts their support base in the general population. Somebody from the top, or near the top will have to be publicly sacrificed, and course changed. Otherwise, the party as a whole would face a major crisis of confidence that could severely damage the party's prestige and power. This is how public anger over Melamine and Avian flu scandals were handled.

The CPSU collapsed 1988-991 because the party lost its internal political consensus AND had failed to deliver the economic goods for some time. The CPC has avoided these mistakes so far, but it is not at all impossible for it to find itself in the same boat in a prolonged economic crisis. Would China become a liberal democracy? It is possible, but unlikely - much like Russia, someone will emerge who will use personal popularity, and lots of connections to the old party-state and to the economic movers and shakers to build a new political architecture.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Oct 2009 02:42

The Russian Orthodoxs adopted/adapted Marxism to force march their society from the pre-feudal to modern times and paid a very high price in the process. they discarded the Marxist dogma once they reached its limits. That is the simple explanation. Incidentally the Russian leaders sent emissaries to Western Europe to decided which system to adopt in an earlier era. And thats who they became Orthodox as that was the winning dogma during the Dark ages.

The CPC saw the lessons after mao's death and started their changes. They are still in transition.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 22 Oct 2009 04:21

Ramana,

If you want it really simplified then it goes something like this;

Gorbachev valued Marxism above the Party

Deng valued the Party above Marxism.

The CPSU could have survived the death of Marxism, but the Party destroyed itself over the question of how to change, and who was to lead that change.

Much of this I believe has to do with the pragmatic nature of Chinese nationalism which always underlay the official communist ideology.

The Soviet Union on the other hand attempted to pretend that it wasnt the Russian Empire, or a nation-state, but an ideological state.

The Chinese under Deng (who had always been supported by Chou En-Lai) began economic reforms gradually in the late 1970s, with a focus on encouraging private small-scale agriculture, and then decentralising control over production/pricing/marketing and strongly encouraging exports. The key to doing this was lowering the PLA's share of national resources (they were compensated with businesses, and the promise of access to foreign technology), which meant normalising relations with the rest of the world.

They did all of this while avoiding major changes in the political structure.

The CPSU in the 1980s could have followed the CPC example, but neither Gorbachev's supporters *nor* his opponents saw things clearly. Gorby genuinely believed ending the arms race and the cold war would be enough on its own to fix the problems of the Soviet economy, rather than one piece of the puzzle.

His opponents were even more deluded, failing to acknowledge the economic cliff ahead. Neither of them understood the need to begin fundamental, systematic restructuring of the economy, or the need to start early in order to avoid shocks and instability. Ultimately the political battle between Gorbachev and his opponents destroyed the CPSU, and with it the Soviet Union. Much like Yugoslavia.

The Vietnamese in the 1990s were smarter than that - they switched from the Soviet model to to the Chinese one.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 22 Oct 2009 06:49

IMO, the USSR was more interested in spreading the ideology while managing the affairs of the State came second while for the Chinese it was just the reverse.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 22 Oct 2009 07:11

Don't confuse authoritarian with totalitarian. One party police states still need public legitimacy and support, and they stay in power as long as they give people what they want.

There is no one like Mao in China who has the stature, the wiles and the narcissistic ruthlessness to re-impose a totalitarian system. Comparing the current bunch in charge to Mao is like comparing Putin, or Brezhnev to Stalin. Both parties were decimated by those figures, and fought to prevent anyone like them from emerging again.

Don't confuse the world till the 60s with that now. A million casualities localized to a given area would be untenable today thanks to the relentless spread of info and comm technology. But a few 100 souls disappearing every day/week in bits and pieces across the 1000s of chini cities and towns is a different matter altogether. Again info and comm tech to the rescue, of the CPC this time. They can and (from all accounts do) keep tabs on any and all dissident activity as far as feasible and act rapidly and without countervailing restraint to nip in the bud any hint of dissidence spotted early on. Hence the disappearences in bits and pieces here and there - the gulags and the profusion of state executions.

Sure, ethnic minorities like the tibeteans and the uighurs can and will be suppressed with visible and concentrated force in localized areas as and when need arises but dealing with potentially troublesome Han takes an invisible and non-concentrated operation the kind PRC runs pretty well, from all appearances.

2 cents and other std disclaimers, of course.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 22 Oct 2009 21:07

^ OK. Lez agree to dissagree then. ThanQ.

Read somewhere in the bestern press that there were some 80,000 mass protest incidents in PRC in 2007 alone. Dunno how much of it is wet=dreaming propagandu but if true, there's every reason for the CPC to go all out to protect itself and NOT allow these protests to link up.

Ergo, strict controls and filters on every form of comm access there is. Sure folks think they can beat controls with proxy servers and the like. And the CPC lets them, prolly. Chini drones trained in the art of subterfuge and subversion have infiltrated brf on a regular basis over the yrs, oldies here can testify. Drones swarm to FUD and obfuscate over every neg mention of PRC in the bestern press. Someone somewhere employs and coordinates this network amongst, lawd knows how many others. No?

There, in Fort meade, the NSA is reputed to have enough data-crunching power to record and analyze every single fone conversation in the khanate. CPC needs only a small fraction of that kinda snooping ability to effectively disappear 100s of folk every months from 100s of different towns and cities. No, it won't be as blatant as 100s going missing in 1 city in a week. One can at least read whats written before setting up strawmen to knock down. Or making presumptions about the state of my confusion.

Bottomline, am only saying that CPC isn't a goner yet. Its more likely they'll stick around for decades to come than get washed away. Dassall.

Umrao Das · Post by **Umrao Das** » 22 Oct 2009 21:23

Don't confuse between Ideology and Methodology Johann.

USSR leadership stuck to ideology at the expense of methodology
PRC took to methodology driven by geo politics
USA used methodology to beat ideology of USSR using PRC
Even after making via methodology PRC wont let go Ideology
Now you see the ideology of USA changing from captalism to socialism ask any GOP guy due to defective methodology..

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 22 Oct 2009 22:25

Point noted Spinster.

Hi Hari,

I agree - I also think the CPC has the capacity survive, but where we differ is its source of strength.

Surveillance and repression are important for the survival of authoritarian regimes, but they are never enough on their own. Force without clarity and unity at the top only generates more instability.

The KGB with its vast network and enormous powers was not able to prevent the CPSU's collapse, because the Party's response to the Soviet Union's prolonged crisis was to thrash around and tear itself apart from the inside. In a hierarchical authoritarian state there's not much the arms can do to defend themselves from a brain tumour.

So long as the CPC stays unified and realistic it will survive. Otherwise, it will go the way of the CPSU, no matter how many people it arrests, beats, executes or exiles. The CPC leadership has repeatedly said as much to delegates during every post-Tiananmen party convention.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 23 Oct 2009 07:39

johann

So long as the CPC stays unified and realistic it will survive.

Tks for making my point for me.

And that point is precisely that the CPC is 400% unified on the need to retain power and that the CPC is 400% realistic too - on the need to junk ideology in favor of whatever works towards the goal of maintaining the powerhold indefinitely.

None here, from what i see dispute the CPC's unity or the possibility, nay likelihood that the CPC will go to great lengths to keep power.

Sure, just because they are realistic today doesn't imply they'll be so tomorrow. But its not an assumption I would count on, like some here seemed to be doing talking grandly about an impending chini implosion, instability etc.

More likely, the CPC is pragmatic and realistic enough to have studied and learned from the CPSU's collapse, I reckon. And to that end, shall employ both carrot and stick - with varying emphasis at different times.

And yup, Stalin/Mao era excesses are tangential, nay counterproductive, confusing and diversionary, to this debate, IMO.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 23 Oct 2009 10:10

X-posting from media watch thread.

Found a history of how colonial policies have stoked much of the discontent we see today.

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2 ... 8_3612.pdf

http://wondersofpakistan.wordpress.com/ ... re-part-2/

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 24 Oct 2009 06:35

If we really want to look seriously at the future of the CPC we should look at who will be leading it, and the unwritten agreements that underlie its internal politics and structure.

Since Deng took power in 1978, each 'generation' of leadership is allowed a decade to rule, before turning over power to the next one. This orderly transfer of power is meant to moderate power struggles, and to maintain a balance between experienced and ossified leadership.

The 'fifth' generation should be taking power in 2012, and the sixth in 2022.

Potential sources of internal CPC instability:

- the emergence of figures or factions that break the unwritten rules

- fifth or sixth generation leaders who graduated from top tier universities, and have lost touch with the ordinary Chinese who lacks connections.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Oct 2009 07:45

Can you do that in the PRC political thread?

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 24 Oct 2009 23:52

Japan pushes for East Asia bloc
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091024/wl_ ... sia_summit
HUA HIN, Thailand (Reuters) – Japan's prime minister backed a U.S. role for a proposed EU-style Asian community on Saturday, telling Southeast Asian leaders Tokyo's alliance with Washington was at the heart of its diplomacy.
Making a case for an East Asian Community at a summit of Asian leaders in Thailand, Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama said there should be some U.S. involvement in the bloc, which faces stiff obstacles including Japan's historic rivalry with China.
It was unclear how a U.S. role would work. But the comment may help allay concern in some countries that such a body would ultimately fail by shutting out the world's biggest economy.
Hatoyama may also be trying to defuse U.S.-Japan tension over the long-planned reorganization of the American military presence in Japan, the first big test of ties between Washington and the new Japanese government.
"Japan places the U.S.-Japan alliance at the foundation of its diplomacy," Hatoyama said at the meeting, according to a Japanese government spokesman.

Japan's new government sees its influence bound to the East Asian Community, an idea inspired by the European Union that would account for nearly a quarter of global economic output.

It would encompass Japan, China, South Korea, India, Australia and New Zealand, along with ASEAN countries.

After meetings with China, Japan and South Korea, ASEAN holds talks on Sunday with India, Australia and New Zealand

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 25 Oct 2009 10:41

Japan must be miffed the US is devaluing its currency and passing on the loss to them.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 27 Oct 2009 20:19

Lost in translation - The subtle dealings between China and Japan
teaser

Unlike Western romance languages – which descended from the resconstructible Proto-Indo-European language family, and which are logically oriented – Chinese languages are commonly believed to have descended from the Proto-Sino-Tibetan family while Japanese is understood to have come from a context-driven lexical borrowing process in the region.

As a result, Western languages are frequently blunt and to the point, while both the Japanese and Chinese languages historically rely heavily on context and symbolism: In other words, the "real" meaning is not the words, but is instead found in the symbolism associated with those words.

And that’s not exactly something you can explain in a 10-second CNN sound bite, so most news stations don’t bother.

For instance, during their historic five-day Summit last month in Japan, Prime Minister Fukuda and China President Hu agreed to make 2008 a year for boosting their nation’s "mutually beneficial relationship."

I was sitting in Kyoto when I heard that, and I was stunned. I’ve spent two decades studying, living in and working in Asia, and in all that time I couldn’t recall any of the prior leaders of the two countries ever sharing a more-direct, more-powerful statement. And neither could the Chinese and Japanese I spoke with that day because the words represents the single most important thaw yet verbalized in the decades old animosity dating back to World War II.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 28 Oct 2009 08:38

Delhi to engage more actively with Shanghai Cooperation Organization

India on Tuesday promised enhanced interest in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), which had remained a low priority area for several years till Prime Minister Manmohan Singh led a delegation at its previous summit.

At a two-hour meeting of the Foreign Ministers of Russia, India and China here on Tuesday, External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna informed his two counterparts that New Delhi was keen on participating in several of the SCO’s sectoral deliberations, especially those on economic activities, counter-terrorism and Afghanistan.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 28 Oct 2009 18:55

Strategic Trends
http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedin ... RY_ID=2023

These examples are indicative of two strategic trends that will pose significant challenges to the United States and its allies:

First, barriers to entry for both state and non-state actors to develop and field capabilities that can pose challenges to U.S. and allied freedom of action will lower substantially over time. The proliferation of knowledge and technology will allow an increasing number of state and non-state actors to deploy anti-access capabilities and high-end asymmetric technologies that can put allied infrastructure at risk and hamper U.S. power projection.

Second, rising powers will not likely be content to simply acquiesce to America's role as uncontested guarantor of the global commons. Countries such as China, India, and Russia will demand a role in maintaining the international system in ways commensurate with their actual or perceived power and national interests. Such demands are already occurring, from declarations of interest in space capabilities, to indications that the Indian and Arctic oceans will become new global centers of gravity.11

While these trends are already apparent today, their enumeration should not be interpreted to mean that U.S. dominance in, for example, space-based capabilities or in blue-water naval power projection is being eroded at a precipitous pace. Far from it-America's military will remain without peer for some time in the ability to project and sustain substantial military power from the air and sea over large distances.

These trends are, however, harbingers of a future strategic environment in which America's role as an arbiter or guarantor of stability within the global commons will become increasingly complicated and contested. If this assessment is true, then a foundational assumption on which every post-Cold War national security strategy has rested—uncontested access to and stability within the global commons—will begin to erode. To assume away or leave these trends unaddressed as we formulate a new U.S. national security strategy and complete a Quadrennial Defense Review would be unwise, increasing the possibility of a future strategic surprise for which we would be unprepared.

Implications

The consequences of a shift in the international system that opens the global commons for other state and non-state actors to pursue their interests—and perhaps credibly threaten America's use of these domains—are likely to be profound, posing challenges to U.S. security strategy and defense planning. To address such challenges, we need to think hard about their operational and resource implications, particularly as QDR deliberations evolve.

Challenges to American interests in the global commons will have serious implications at the operational level. In the maritime domain, for example, a recent U.S. Joint Forces Command report concluded that, unlike in recent operations, the United States may not enjoy uncontested access to bases from which it can project military power:

Given the proliferation of sophisticated weapons in the world's arms markets-potential enemies—even relatively small powers will be able to possess and deploy an array of longer-range and more precise weapons. . . . Thus, the projection of military power could become hostage to the ability to counter long-range systems even as U.S. forces begin to move into a theater of operations and against an opponent. The battle for access may prove not only the most important, but the most difficult.12

Secretary Gates echoed this concern during his address to the Naval War College in April, stating that potential adversaries do not intend to contest us directly but rather invest "in weapons geared to neutralize our advantages—to deny the U.S. military freedom of movement and action while potentially threatening our primary means of projecting power: our bases, sea and air assets, and the networks that support them. . . . We ignore these developments at our peril."13

Any state or non-state actor wishing to oppose U.S. or allied forces will look for ways to deter, deny, or frustrate our ability to swiftly employ and sustain combat forces across a variety of scenarios. This is nothing new. What is relatively new is both the scale of the threat posed given the proliferation of advanced high-end systems, and the real potential for non-state actors to employ such technology, as evidenced by Hezbollah's use of advanced antiship and antiarmor weapons.14 While these dynamics are most clearly at play in the maritime domain, there are similar forces at work in other dimensions of the global commons.

These developments challenge us to think creatively about how DOD can best develop the strategy, concepts of operations, and capability mix needed to meet these challenges.

Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi (left), Indian Foreign Minister S M Krishna (center), and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov (right) hold a joint press conference in Bangalore, India. - Photo by AP.
MEDIA GALLERY
NEW DELHI: As debates raged in Washington about the arriving strategies of the US-led military campaign in Afghanistan, three major countries – India, China and Russia – jointly urged the international community not to let the focus slip from their mission in the strife-torn country.

Foreign ministers of the three countries, holding their ninth meeting in Bangalore on Tuesday, strongly condemned terrorism in all its forms and manifestations and reiterated that there could be no justification for any act of terrorism anywhere.

A joint communiqué at the end of the meeting ‘emphasised the necessity of the international community maintaining its commitment to render assistance to the government and people of Afghanistan in ensuring security and development, and restoring peace and stability and building a democratic, pluralistic and prosperous Afghanistan’.

They agreed that terrorism must be combated firmly by the international community and expressed concern at the continuing deterioration of the security situation there due to continued terrorist attacks. The recent terror attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul was condemned.

The ministers noted that Russia was a dominant supplier of oil and gas; India and China are energy deficit, but significant suppliers of manufactured products and services. ‘Trilateral relations can be further reinforced by establishing mutually advantageous relations in the energy sector,’ the statement said.

Emphasising the need for efforts by peaceful means to address the Iran nuclear issue, the ministers called for dialogue and negotiation as the way forward in which the IAEA should play an important role in resolving outstanding issues.

They noted that the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation was ‘steadily becoming an important factor of emerging architecture of security, economy, culture, people-to-people contacts and cooperation in Asia’.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 29 Oct 2009 08:49

The coming of age of the RIC triangle - Vladimir Radyuhin

India, Russia and China are yet to bridge their differences on the role of Pakistan and the Taliban. While for India and Russia a Taliban comeback would be unacceptable as creating grave security threats in Kashmir and Central Asia, China has been ambivalent on the issue given its stakes in Pakistan vis-À-vis India. However, this year’s large-scale violence in Tibet and Xingjian highlighted China’s own vulnerability to outside extremist influences. The Bangalore meeting indicated a shift in Beijing’s position. In their joint communiqué India, Russia and China stressed that “all concerned” must implement U.N. Security Council anti-terrorist resolutions, including Resolution 1267 related to the Jamaat-ud-Dawa, even as Pakistan was not mentioned.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Oct 2009 00:06

USC syllabus on FP and Intl relations.

Please read the pdf to get an idea on how to think on FP issues.

http://college.usc.edu/sir/pdf/341.pdf

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 30 Oct 2009 05:08

Indo-Oman Ties

On the evolving India-Oman ties as reflected in the first-ever joint air exercises in the Gulf country, the Ambassador credited the breakthrough to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Muscat less than a year ago.

During the visit, both countries agreed to accelerate defence cooperation by upgrading their naval exercises, Tamar-al-Tahir (benign fruit), and renaming them Naseem-al-Bahar (sea breeze). With the air dimension added to military-to-military ties which have a long standing component of training Oman defence personnel in India, Sheikh Humaid believes, both countries are on track to achieve the long-term vision of strategic ties. As he pointed out, Oman was the first Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) country with which India developed defence ties and its Foreign Minister, Yusuf Bin Alawai bin Abdullah, was the first from an Arab country to visit India as a mark of solidarity after the Mumbai terror attacks.

On the anti-piracy front, Oman has offered Indian naval ships berthing facilities. “Oman is keen to help the Indian Navy fight piracy. We have provided all the technology to assist the Indian Navy, bearing in mind our force limitation, to ensure that fighting piracy is our common goal,” the Ambassador observed.

As for business ties, Sheikh Humaid predicts a flurry of activity in the coming days, with both sides actively finalising the GCC-India Free Trade Agreement (FTA), New Delhi poised to sign a memorandum of understanding on tourism that will open the doors to hospitality majors, the Taj and the Oberoi, and Oman Oil about to announce its investment plans.

Besides, a consortium of Indian firms has been allocated Block 18 to prospect for oil and gas “but we want Indian companies to invest in a bigger way. I keep encouraging Indian businesses to use Oman as a hub to utilise our FTA with the U.S. We have created industrial zones and the port of Salana in the south handles container traffic which can be used to send goods to the U.S. and other destinations,” he pointed out.