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.
'Serious differences' still exist between London and Moscow, Hague admits
William Hague said there were "serious differences" between London and Moscow as he told the Kremlin that Britain would not back down in its campaign to extradite the man it believes murdered former Russian agent Alexander Litvinenko.
Xcpt:
The Foreign Secretary, on his first visit to Russia since he took office, admitted that Britain's relationship with Russia continued to be held back by the two countries' failure to see eye to eye on the Litvinenko affair.
"We have serious differences which we do not shy away from discussing," Mr Hague said. "We are not saying today that we have abolished all the differences between the governments of the United Kingdom and Russia."
Related Articles
Litvinenko suspect warns extradition efforts will further harm ties with Russia
Russia seeks oligarch's extradition from UK
Prisoner in spy swap deal urges Hague to take tough line with Moscow
relations between Britain and Russia have still not recovered from the 2006 Litvinenko affair. The former FSB security officer and arch Kremlin critic was poisoned after having his tea laced with radioactive polonium in a London hotel.
Britain has repeatedly demanded the extradition of the man it suspects killed him, former KGB bodyguard Alexander Lugovoi, now an ultranationalist Russian MP. But the Kremlin has angrily rejected the request, saying only that it might be willing to put Mr Lugovoi on trial in Russia if Britain provided sufficiently strong evidence.
Mr Hague said on Wednesday he was unwilling to compromise on the issue.
"Lugovoi's trial must take place in Britain," he told Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta. "We continue to insist that Mr Lugovoi must be brought before the British courts."
Sergey Lavrov, Mr Hague's Russian counterpart, said the Kremlin was equally unwilling to compromise.
"The position of Russia is well known to the British side," he said. "We are not going to give it up."
Mr Lugovoi himself insists he is innocent and on Wednesday urged Britain to "move on."
"The more the British dig in their heels over this problem, the worse it will be for our relations with them," he told the Interfax news agency. "If the British have any kind of evidence that proves I am guilty, let them present it to the public."
...Before his trip, the Foreign Secretary had said the "door was open" to better relations. "They have responded to that opening of a door," said one senior British official. "But there are plenty more windows we have to open."
PS:First,reg. Indo-Iranian matters,India has to underline its constant equation with Iran whatever the winds of global crises take,that is,an ancient vibrant relationship spanning milennia and one today which has energy security and trade routes/links as keystones of its multi-faceted engagement with Iran and Iranian society.Iran's international obligations on the N-issue,etc. are its own affair and any controversy between Iran and other nations should never impinge upon Indo-Iranian friendship.
No confirmation of reports that U.N. Representative Susan Rice instructed her team not to do anything to support Canada's failed bid for a seat on the U.N. Security Council. "Our votes are secret," Crowley said, not even addressing the issue of U.S. public or private support for Canada. "We love Canada. We support Canada -- except in the Gold Medal Game," he joked.
There is no mention of "south asia" which will be subject to sudden policy changes.
Rapid changes in the policy will upset the balance of power and it can create chaos in economy and market.
Rule II: Concentrate on the Elephants
The functional equivalents of elephants are Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East. These are three of the most important parts of the world, and in each the American military presence plays a constructive role.
In the first two, the US reassures each of these region’s countries that there will be no sudden change in the balance of power that will threaten them. In Europe, Germany can be confident that the US would help to contain an aggressive Russia, while Russia knows that Germany will remain tied to, and thus restrained by, the US. In East Asia, American air and naval forces provide a check on China, but also serve one of China’s strategic interests by keeping Japan from conducting an independent military policy. To keep the peace in both regions, a continuing US military presence of some kind will be needed. Complete American withdrawal could lead to suspicion, arms races, and, in the worst case, wars among the countries of Europe and Asia.
In the Middle East, the US confronts Iran. Nuclear weapons would make the threat all the more severe.
Put simply, Canada offended a lot of people. It lost African votes by redirecting foreign aid to Latin America; it annoyed China by criticizing the country's human rights record and delaying a high-level visit to Beijing for more than four years; and it irritated Middle Eastern governments by backing Israel more fervently and scaling back aid to Palestinian refugees. And on top of it all, Canada has scaled down its peacekeeping commitment in recent years.
In other words, not everyone thinks that Canada is the model U.N. citizen it once was.
An interesting article on the Great Game. This one trying to portray that the US hegemony will continue till the dollar remains the world currency and the oil prices drops $25 in 2013-2015. The Great Game by Charles Hugh Smith
abhischekcc wrote:South Asia is part of the ME for US foreign policy.
Precisely - the same Assistant Secretary of State has traditionally looked after both within the U.S. Department of State (DoS).
Military planning/operations/relations in Afghanistan and Pakistan are the responsibility of CENTCOM (DoD).
And of course the original interest in the Middle East were energy, although Israel's security (1960s /LBJ) and later counter-terrorism (2001/Bush) have now achieved almost equal status.
However China and India's rise is gradually changing the ME-oriented focus on South Asia.
Reconciling it all is going to be a messy, ugly, and inconsistent process.
Manishw wrote:There is nothing wrong in the suggestion as I see it.Give some concessions, get a SC seat then reverse the concessions.
That "seat" is earned. It has been earned by everyone on there by their national power to start or end a world war. It is never been given to anyone by trading his own territory. A nation that thinks it gets "prestige" by sitting on a seat after trading it's territory is a nation that is deluding itself. There is only so much respect such a nation will get.
IB4TL
Shiv Ji Though I do agree that the seat has to be earned but there is no point in shying away from some chankianness(badly abused the word might be) this is all part of geopolitics, the problem I reiterate is with our leadership that it should show clarity of purpose.Why the obsession with respect and all that?
BTW no territory is being traded only concessions.
Manishw wrote:
Shiv Ji Though I do agree that the seat has to be earned but there is no point in shying away from some chankianness(badly abused the word might be) this is all part of geopolitics, the problem I reiterate is with our leadership that it should show clarity of purpose.Why the obsession with respect and all that?
BTW no territory is being traded only concessions.
Manishw wrote:
Shiv Ji Though I do agree that the seat has to be earned but there is no point in shying away from some chankianness(badly abused the word might be) this is all part of geopolitics, the problem I reiterate is with our leadership that it should show clarity of purpose.
BTW no territory is being traded only concessions.
The real problem I have is the needless linking of two unrelated issues.
For clarity let me use an analogy.
A man has a beautiful wife and his neighbor is trying to get into bed with her. The man with the wife also separately, and unconnected with his marriage, has a desire to get into an exclusive club which he feels will give him enhanced status.
What the article has done is to give the man an idea. The idea is "I will allow my neighbor to feel under my wife's blouse in exchange for permission to enter the club. Note that I am not giving my wife away - I am only allowing a grope"
I think the idea is extremely stupid for the following reasons:
The neighbor who wants to sleep with the wife has no rights on the club himself. He has nothing to do with club membership
Allowing the neighbor to grope the wife is a pointless incentive to the club owners. One of the club members may want to sleep with the wife instead. If the man is allowing a neighbor with no status in the club to have a grope, why not allow the real club members to grope and even own the wife
The neighbor gets to grope without having to promise anything in exchange
There is absolutely no guarantee whatsoever that getting the club membership will reduce the neighbors lust. The club has never managed to do anything to stop the neighbor.
The article does a self-goal scoring torn-shirt-open-fly.
KLNMurthy wrote:
Are there any signs that the Indian leadership is being chanakian in this matter?
If you were to read a couple of my posts before, the sad answer seems to be No.That is the problem with pursuing such strategies as far as I understand.This thing if followed will lead us into a pile of s**t seeing the quality of leadership we have have otherwise I do not see anything wrong in this.
Earning and getting are two different things. Japan was the second largest economy for a long time and never had a chance of getting a permanent UNSC seat. It is not something that will just come to us if we increase our economic and military might. We also have to take some actions that specifically target it.
First of all, is a veto-holding, or veto-among-equals UNSC permanent seat worth something? Definitely. It vastly increases our options. Is a veto less UNSC permanent seat worth something? Again, yes, but not as much as the veto holding option. Does the specific actions that we need to take to achieve either include concessions on J&K. I think not. I think the diplomatic push we have had in the recent years towards this will eventually bear fruit, and if it doesn't, we can take actions that throw our weight around a bit. We can withdraw contributing towards peacekeeping efforts for a few years, or refuse to take part in UN sponsored multilateral initiatives, always making a huge noise about the unresolved UNSC situation and so forth.
Is any of this worth making concessions on J&K? I think not. OTOH, it seems like GoI is inclined to make concessions on J&K regardless.
Manishw wrote:
Shiv Ji Though I do agree that the seat has to be earned but there is no point in shying away from some chankianness(badly abused the word might be) this is all part of geopolitics, the problem I reiterate is with our leadership that it should show clarity of purpose.
BTW no territory is being traded only concessions.
The real problem I have is the needless linking of two unrelated issues.
For clarity let me use an analogy.
A man has a beautiful wife and his neighbor is trying to get into bed with her. The man with the wife also separately, and unconnected with his marriage, has a desire to get into an exclusive club which he feels will give him enhanced status.
What the article has done is to give the man an idea. The idea is "I will allow my neighbor to feel under my wife's blouse in exchange for permission to enter the club. Note that I am not giving my wife away - I am only allowing a grope"
I think the idea is extremely stupid for the following reasons:
The neighbor who wants to sleep with the wife has no rights on the club himself. He has nothing to do with club membership
Allowing the neighbor to grope the wife is a pointless incentive to the club owners.
Manishw wrote:Shiv Ji the neighbour is already groping the wife what else is being given to the neighbour.Here is the point uptil which I agree.
shiv wrote: One of the club members may want to sleep with the wife instead. If the man is allowing a neighbor with no status in the club to have a grope, why not allow the real club members to grope and even own the wife
[*]The neighbor gets to grope without having to promise anything in exchange
[*]There is absolutely no guarantee whatsoever that getting the club membership will reduce the neighbors lust. The club has never managed to do anything to stop the neighbor.[/list]
The article does a self-goal scoring torn-shirt-open-fly.
[/quote]
That is where the Indian leadership gets out its Bazooka and the story has a happy ending, sad point is that the leadership will do nothing and allow all that you say, so this idea then becomes a non starter.
In any case if we had such brilliant leadership matters would not have been allowed to deteriorate to even the first part of your statement.
Last edited by Manishw on 20 Oct 2010 09:19, edited 1 time in total.
Nandu wrote:Earning and getting are two different things. Japan was the second largest economy for a long time and never had a chance of getting a permanent UNSC seat. It is not something that will just come to us if we increase our economic and military might. We also have to take some actions that specifically target it.
The UNSC was created by the victors of World war 2.
But WW2 was fought by two other superpowers Japan and Germany who had the military and economic and technological might to start a global war. The UNSC could stand on its own, unchallenged only because Japan and Germany were neutralised by war.
Even at the outset the UNSC was a sham. They put in Taiwan - a small island off the coast of China with no claim to global power status. It later went to China and Taiwan was just kicked out of the UNSC. Rarely have I heard of suc stupidity being passed off as events of great gravity and import.
shiv wrote: Even at the outset the UNSC was a sham. They put in Taiwan - a small island off the coast of China with no claim to global power status. It later went to China and Taiwan was just kicked out of the UNSC. Rarely have I heard of suc stupidity being passed off as events of great gravity and import.
But it's the game we play tho. Shiv, I gather from your posts that you're an idealist. But I'm trained as an engineer and I think in terms of what works, how much does it cost, and how do I get it across the line at the Board. Being idealistic just mean you're gonna suffer disappointments. The UN is the best the human race has came up with. I'm looking forward to UN 3.0. But I fear it will take another world war. And the first meeting might be in a cave.
Manishw wrote:Shiv Ji the neighbour is already groping the wife what else is being given to the neighbour.Here is the point uptil which I agree.
If that is the case what "concession" is India going to give in exchange for being given a seat?
Pakistan is already screwing India about Kashmir. if Pakistan was not screwing India about Kashmir there would have been no J&K issue. Now we want to "give concessions" about Kashmir, admit that Pakistan was right all these years and the UNSC members were all correct in supporting Kashmir, Then we want to say "Please give seat".
Surely if we are going to make a connection with the UN and J&K we can then abrogate the Simla and later accords, go back to 1948 and ask the UNSC (whom we are begging for a seat) to allow plebiscite as was decided at the UN. Why should anyone allow Indian into the UNSC for all this?
shiv wrote: Even at the outset the UNSC was a sham. They put in Taiwan - a small island off the coast of China with no claim to global power status. It later went to China and Taiwan was just kicked out of the UNSC. Rarely have I heard of suc stupidity being passed off as events of great gravity and import.
But it's the game we play tho. Shiv, I gather from your posts that you're an idealist. But I'm trained as an engineer and I think in terms of what works, how much does it cost, and how do I get it across the line at the Board. Being idealistic just mean you're gonna suffer disappointments. The UN is the best the human race has came up with. I'm looking forward to UN 3.0. But I fear it will take another world war. And the first meeting might be in a cave.
TonyMontanaji - first rule in internet fora - "Do not ascribe personal traits to unknown entities making forum posts". My being an idealist or an ideal rapist has no bearing on my views about the UNSC.
The reason for the tone of my posts is not out of idealism but contempt. The UNSC is a toothless body. But those on the UNSC think it gives them great status and some has-been powers do not want to give up. But that does not cause me to feel contempt. What causes contempt in my mind is the slavish beggary among my fellow Indians who seem to want that seat and hope to get it by some form of "reservation for discriminated minorities" such as we have in India. In India we claim that the ancestors of some Indian screwed other Indians in the past. Then we say that the descendants of screwed Indians need special privileges and allow them to claim status over others in that manner.
shiv wrote:
If that is the case what "concession" is India going to give in exchange for being given a seat?
We are not ready to even abrogate article 370, so giving autonomy for me is nothing much as long as we have territorial control and as long as we keep in mind that all this has to be reversed( autonomy et al) and the leadership shows us this with great clarity.
shiv wrote:
Pakistan is already screwing India about Kashmir. if Pakistan was not screwing India about Kashmir there would have been no J&K issue. Now we want to "give concessions" about Kashmir, admit that Pakistan was right all these years and the UNSC members were all correct in supporting Kashmir, Then we want to say "Please give seat".
If it is only semantics then nobody will link UNSC seat with Kashmir but in realpolitik we own what we have under our control.
shiv wrote:
Surely if we are going to make a connection with the UN and J&K we can then abrogate the Simla and later accords, go back to 1948 and ask the UNSC (whom we are begging for a seat) to allow plebiscite as was decided at the UN. Why should anyone allow Indian into the UNSC for all this?
Nobody is making those connections, this would have been a clever way of gaining a seat at the UNSC humoring everybody so the can keep their H & D intact and we don't lose anything, but sadly our leadership as of today is way below the standard and such proposals are moot/non starters.
Last edited by Manishw on 20 Oct 2010 09:40, edited 1 time in total.
shiv wrote:
TonyMontanaji - first rule in internet fora - "Do not ascribe personal traits to unknown entities making forum posts". My being an idealist or an ideal rapist has no bearing on my views about the UNSC.
Bad Chicom drone. Bad! Humble, humble.
shiv wrote:
The reason for the tone of my posts is not out of idealism but contempt. The UNSC is a toothless body. But those on the UNSC think it gives them great status and some has-been powers do not want to give up.
Give the french a break. Think of it as a EU double vote. 3 v 2. Reflects the current geo-politics.
shiv wrote:
But that does not cause me to feel contempt. What causes contempt in my mind is the slavish beggary among my fellow Indians who seem to want that seat and hope to get it by some form of "reservation for discriminated minorities" such as we have in India. In India we claim that the ancestors of some Indian screwed other Indians in the past. Then we say that the descendants of screwed Indians need special privileges and allow them to claim status over others in that manner.
LOL. You should hear how much the Maoris are getting. But as some posters pointed out, shouldn't every trick be used in this geoppolitical struggle? If it gains India leverage, does it matter how you got it?
Manishw wrote:
Nobody is making those connections, this would have been a clever way of gaining a seat at the UNSC humoring everybody so the can keep their H & D intact and we don't lose anything, but sadly our leadership as of today is way below the standard and such proposals are moot/non starters.
Clever? I am not sure what is clever in getting into a useless body.
TonyMontana wrote:
If it gains India leverage, does it matter how you got it?
What leverage? China had zero leverage despite being in the UNSC until it developed clout. It was not the UNSC seat that gave China clout. Where is France by the way? I have heard of a country called "Great" Britain.
shiv wrote:
Clever? I am not sure what is clever in getting into a useless body.
What had been the harm if we had got into it useless though it may be, good for H& d and all that and then perhaps side benefits might have been where the politicians had shown us the clarity which is needed for India as a whole and not just Kashmir.
Apart from the silly heady feeling that we are sitting at some "high table" made by someone else and gifted to us like sops for Maoris in Bechuanaland or wherever you find Maoris what does being on the UNSC get India? Especially if we get in by begging because we are jealous of those who are already in there?
Manishw wrote:
then perhaps side benefits might have been where the politicians had shown us the clarity which is needed for India as a whole and not just Kashmir.
Perhaps?
Last edited by shiv on 20 Oct 2010 09:46, edited 1 time in total.
shiv wrote: What leverage? China had zero leverage despite being in the UNSC until it developed clout. It was not the UNSC seat that gave China clout. Where is France by the way? I have heard of a country called "Great" Britain.
Ha! True. True. It's more like the sargeant's stripes I guess. It's the man filling those boots that matters. But to the uninitiated, those stripes does look itimidating. And for all intents and proposes, those stripes does convey some form of authority. However, artificial they may be.
TonyMontana wrote:
Ha! True. True. It's more like the sargeant's stripes I guess. It's the man filling those boots that matters. But to the uninitiated, those stripes does look itimidating. And for all intents and proposes, those stripes does convey some form of authority. However, artificial they may be.
Words of wisdom. Your posts are gradually becoming Indianized. The propaganda is working. Wear a uniform and be respected. No. Change that to beg for a uniform. Give concessions on your own territory. And say "Hey you must respect me. I got Uniform. I got stripes". Even Somalia does not actually respect those stripes that Indians are hankering for.
Pranav wrote:
... a TSP-China alliance which would control Afghanistan's mineral resources and co-opt Iran and Saudi Arabia is what will make western elites uncomfortable. That is a major factor in Af-Pak strategy. Let's see how this plays out.
“China runs a virtual monopoly. There is real need to develop new sources,” said a B.D.I. official, who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak about the issue.
Chancellor Angela Merkel has stepped into the fray, saying it was “urgently necessary” to step up European investment in Eastern Europe and central Asia in order to prevent China from expanding its dominance in raw materials and rare minerals.
I disagree that the UNSC is useless. While it might be toothless against bigger nations such as, well, India, it is the stick that is being used to beat Iran with, and it was used as the instrument to "legitimize" invading Iraq. Similarly, the military intervention in Kosovo was authorized by the UNSC. There are many other similar actions in the recent decades that used the UNSC stamp of approval to legitimize themselves.
Any country who has its hands on such a stick, therefore, gains leverage, even if the stick has to be shared with others. As I said before, how much that is worth is debatable, but it cannot be dismissed as useless.
That is not to say that powerful nations won't find some other way to achieve their aims if the UNSC doesn't go other way. They will, but the costs of doing so are high, so UNSC still gives leverage.
Macroeconomic policy at the global level is co-ordinated through the G20, with the WTO as the legal framework for trade. India is an important player in both those bodies.
The G20 summits often discuss political issues as well, such as Iran and Af-Pak. However the UNSC still provides the legal framework for enforcement.
The UNSC in the Cold War rarely did much thanks to the fact that the superpowers could veto each other. It mostly served as a cross between a theatre and a town hall. Expansion of the UNSC might return it to those days which many countries might well prefer.
The UNSC figleaf has its uses, admittedly. However, IMO, it might serve Yndia's interests better if the UN system of institutions is shown the limits of its legitimacy/credibility/power by the brazen, cock-a-snook actions of an actor like cheena. Perhaps. The NSG shall soon be revealed to be an impotent wimp when cheena gets done with TSP. So also the MTCR and the NPT, perhaps.
Here's something that probably won't shock you: I tend to agree with Paul Krugman more than I disagree with him. But not always. Case in point is his column last Sunday, which condemned China's hardline response to Japan's seizure of a Chinese trawler that had violated Japanese waters, and especially its decision to pressure Japan by cutting off the export of rare earth materials. He went on to criticize some other Chinese actions (including its chronically devalued currency), and said this added up to a picture of China as a "rogue economic superpower, unwilling to play by the rules."
I agree that China's overheated response to the trawler incident was foolish, if only because it will reinforce Asian concerns about China's rising power and make it more likely that other states will start taking concerted action to resist its influence. It's normal for great powers to throw their weight around -- if you don't believe me, just read a good history of U.S. relations with Latin America -- but doing so before one's power position is fully consolidated is a bad idea.
By the way, with the exception of the War of 1812, avoiding stupid quarrels with powerful countries was one of the smartest things that the United States did in its rise to superpower status. Not only did it avoid tangling with other major powers until after it had created the world's largest and most advanced economy, it also let the Eurasian powers bloody each other in ruinous wars, jumping in only when the balance of power was in jeopardy and leaving itself in a dominant position after both world wars (and especially WWII). This wasn't a perfect strategy, or even a noble one, but it was supremely self-interested approach that ensured U.S. primacy for decades.
If China's leaders are really smart, they'd act in a similar fashion today. They'd let the United States run itself to exhaustion in the Middle East, Central Asia, and elsewhere, while they stayed out of trouble, cultivated profitable relations with everyone, and made sure that their long-term development plans didn't get derailed. Picking fights with neighbors over minor issues is pointless, especially now, and on this point Krugman and I are in synch.
Where I part company is his characterization of China as a "rogue economic power," and his conclusion that "China's response to the trawler incident is… further evidence that the world's newest economic superpower isn't prepared to assume the responsibilities that go with that status."
For starters, this view assumes that China (or any other great power) has "responsibilities" to the global community. U.S. leaders like to proclaim that we have enormous "responsibilities" and "obligations" to the rest of the world, but this is usually just a phrase our leaders use to justify actions taken for our own (supposed) benefit. The leaders of any country are primarily responsible to their own citizens, which is why international cooperation is often elusive and why conflicts of interest routinely arise between sovereign states.
Moreover, the declaration that China is a rogue power that isn't "playing by the rules" neglects to mention that 1) many of these rules were devised by the United States and its allies and not by China, and 2) the United States has been all too willing to ignore the rules when it suited us. We went to war against Serbia in 1999 and against Iraq in 2003 without authorization from the U.N. Security Council, for example, even though we helped write the U.N. Charter that says such actions are illegal. Similarly, the US played the leading role in devising the Bretton Woods economic system after World War II, but it abandoned the gold standard in 1971 when this arrangement was no longer convenient for us.
...
Welcome to the real world. The bottom line is that it's neither illuminating nor helpful to hold China to a standard of "responsible" behavior that we fall short of ourselves. I mean, which country is currently detaining foreigners without trial in Guantanamo, and firing drone missiles into any country where it thinks al Qaeda might be lurking?
The embargo is expanding" beyond Japan, said one of the three rare earth industry officials, all of whom insisted on anonymity for fear of business retaliation by Chinese authorities. They said Chinese customs officials imposed the broader restrictions on Monday morning, hours after a top Chinese official summoned international news media Sunday night to denounce United States trade actions.... The signals of a tougher Chinese trade stance come after American trade officials announced on Friday that they would investigate whether China was violating World Trade Organization rules by subsidizing its clean energy exports and limiting clean energy imports. The inquiry includes whether China's steady reductions in rare earth export quotas since 2005, along with steep export taxes on rare earths, are illegal attempts to force multinational companies to produce more of their high-technology goods in China.
Despite a widely confirmed suspension of rare earth shipments from China to Japan, now nearly a month old, Beijing has continued to deny that any embargo exists. Industry executives and analysts have interpreted that official denial as a way to wield an undeclared trade weapon without creating a policy trail that could make it easier for other countries to bring a case against China at the World Trade Organization. So far, China seems to be taking a similar approach in expanding the embargo to the West.
Last edited by Prem on 21 Oct 2010 05:07, edited 1 time in total.
Willing to use their economic muscle? Perhaps... but if so that muscle is about as big as my pectorals. (Read: practically non-existent.) "Rare earth minerals" aren't all that rare (there are large deposits in California, Brazil, India, and many other places, and the minerals can also be gleaned from recycled electronics), and China's going to lose when this hits the WTO. This is at most a minor annoyance to the U.S., Europe, and Japan, but it makes China look like a spoilt child who's refusing to eat his vegetables. Unlike Krugman, I don't think the answer is to argue with the child. Better to let him sit at his place until the veggies are eaten. In other words, if China wants to be a major power in global politics, it needs to learn what that entails. Lashing out like a four year-old isn't how it's done. (Neither is responding in kind, as Krugman evidently wants.)I assume that this move is an attempt to signal to some domestic audience, but I don't know enough about China's internal politics to know what that intention might be. I'd appreciate any pointers in that direction. In the meantime, this is further evidence that China is simply not as mature of a global power as many think.
The trilateral summit between French President Nicolas Sarkozy, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev made some gains in drawing Russia closer to NATO, with Russia agreeing to attend the NATO summit in Lisbon next month and leaving the door open to discussing cooperation on a European defense shield. CFR's Charles A. Kupchan says the effort has been difficult because many Russians, including Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, are skeptical of the West's intentions and many new NATO members from the former Soviet bloc are uncomfortable about closer ties with Russia. A key issue was NATO's effort to forge a Europe-wide missile defense that would include Russia--a discussion that began during the Bush administration, says Kupchan, who adds that Russia is suspicious about whether NATO and the European Union are sincere in their bid to make "Russia a card-carrying member of the Euro-Atlantic community."
The discussion over missile defense is a proxy for a much broader discussion about whether NATO and the European Union are still hedges against Russia or whether these institutions are sincerely interested in opening their doors to Russia and making Russia a card-carrying member of the Euro-Atlantic community. Russia remains suspicious, and that's why it continues to keep its distance from missile defense and from NATO.
Robert Kaplan: This blog has tended to concentrate, as it should, on the wars of the moment, in Iraq and Afghanistan, messy land wars where counterinsurgency is a doctrine that the U.S. military is pursuing. This book takes military issues beyond those of the day, and suggests a future where our challenges may be primarily maritime. China and its naval rise, and the possible threat it poses to the Indian Ocean and adjacent South China Sea, figure prominently in this book, while Iraq and Afghanistan figure barely at all. Central Asia figures, though, because it will one day be linked by roads and energy pipelines to the Indian Ocean. Pakistan figures heavily, but here, too, I concentrate on what the media has generally ignored: the restive provinces of Baluchistan and Sindh on the Indian Ocean. The surprise of this book is that future wars and conflicts may be vastly different than the ones of the moment. Instead of fighting neighborhood by neighborhood in Baghdad or Kandahar, we may in the future have to influence vast spaces on the map through naval maneuvers.
Check this scenario which is never discussed by Kaplan. IOR is not going to be the theatre of conflict but the land borders around the Himalayas will be the region of real conflict
India prospers and it soon finds itself surrounded by powerful enemies. As war erupts. India joins the Allies against the Hegemony.
WW3: The Third Human Civil War
India one of the major allied powers during the Third Human Civil War, fought alongside the United States, EU, Mexico, Korea, AU, Australia, Japan, Brazil and Israel against the Hegemony. India provided the bulk of the allied soldiers and opened up a second front which in time broke apart the Hegemony and led to its fall.
