Geopolitical thread

[SSridhar]

The Soviet Victory That Never Was

From the above,

The United Kingdom lavished resources on India in the nineteenth century;

Huh ?

[svinayak]

The United Kingdom lavished resources on India in the nineteenth century;

Huh ?

Yes and killing 40m Indians in man made famines

[AjitK]

Why Russia is feuding with Belarus and what it means for Europe's security

Under the terms of the contract, Belarus did not pay customs duty on oil imported from Russia. Minsk did not use all of these oil imports domestically, however, sending much of it on to Europe and keeping the customs receipts, despite participating in a customs union with Russia. The profits from reselling Russian oil have long been an important source of hard currency for the authoritarian government of President Aleksandr Lukashenko, making up around a third of Belarus's export revenue.

Moscow's long-term goal is to take control of energy distribution infrastructure throughout the former Soviet Union. This aim is clearly stated in Russia's energy policy, and the previous round in the dispute between Belarus and Transneft-which also sparked a brief cutoff of Russian oil supplies-was ended in part by an agreement for the Russian pipeline monopoly to take a 50 percent stake in Belarusian pipeline operator Beltransgaz. Gazprom has exerted similar pressure on Ukraine over Kiev's outstanding debts. If Moscow were to succeed in completely taking over the Belarusian energy distribution network, it would not only be in a stronger position to influence Minsk's foreign policy, but the move would also improve Moscow's market power, and hence its political leverage, vis-à-vis Europe. Uncertainty about deliveries through Belarus could also lead to higher global oil prices, just as Western economies are beginning to emerge from the recession. That in and of itself should be reason enough for the Europeans -- and their U.S. allies -- to pay close attention to a seemingly obscure customs dispute.

[Prem]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/op ... public_rss

Rudd the statesman has a loyal friend in Hillary

Just at the moment, the Rudd foreign policy could do with such a favour, given the troubles Canberra is having with India over the attacks on students, Japan over whaling and China over jailed Rio executive Stern Hu.
Oh, and don't forget Singapore's steadfast opposition to the Rudd plan for an Asia Pacific community stretching from Vladivostok to Delhi, and dealing with both trade and economics on the one hand, and security on the other.
She also hailed Australia as a traditional leader in the region.
But her speech was much more than just a statement of support for Rudd.
She set out the strong credentials the Obama administration is building up for its Asia policy.
Barack Obama has started well in Asia. He has a very good Asia team and they are ambitious for US policy in the region.
They have a clear-eyed view of Asia as embodying critical US interests and also as a region where US policy can achieve positive results.
In truth, the Obama administration will be doing well if it can match the record of the Bush administration in Asia, despite the implication in Clinton's words - "America is back in Asia" - that there was something to repair

[Gerard]

Turkey embraces role as Arab 'big brother'

[Masaru]

X-post
Russian Oil Pipeline Makes Splash in Asia

ESPO crude's advantage over competing blends is its proximity to the oil refineries of northeastern Asia. The new $2 billion terminal, at the Pacific coast port of Kozmino, is five days' sailing time from markets in China, South Korea and Japan. Producers in the Middle East, Africa and Latin America face journeys of at least two weeks.

This would throw a spanner in the nascent Malacca strait strategies of IN/US-N.

[ramana]

X-post
Russian Oil Pipeline Makes Splash in Asia

ESPO crude's advantage over competing blends is its proximity to the oil refineries of northeastern Asia. The new $2 billion terminal, at the Pacific coast port of Kozmino, is five days' sailing time from markets in China, South Korea and Japan. Producers in the Middle East, Africa and Latin America face journeys of at least two weeks.

This would throw a spanner in the nascent Malacca strait strategies of IN/US-N.

If you think about it it takes away some conflict potential between PRC and India for IN can't interdict non-existent tanker traffic in Malacca.

And India is reopeing the Stilwell road as SwamyG posted elsewhere.

[Philip]

Ukraine's eelction is likely to bring back a pro-Russian leader into power,after the failed orange revolution which was instigated by western interests at splitting the country from the Russian bloc.Yanukovych's expected victory would also calm the waters over the Russian fleet's use of the key Crimean enclave of Sevastopol,which Russia needs to protect its interests in the Black Sea,especially after the US and NATO have tried hard to influence Georgia join NATO,plans derailed by the asinine acts of Shakashvili which led to his "spanking" by Russian forces.Current Ukraine boss Yuschenko was a US stooge who never took Ukraines Russian region's interests at all.he is now in disgrace and even if Yulia makes an unlikely win,the country will bring back its old coridal relationship with Russia.

Viktor Yanukovych poised to take Ukraine presidencyPolls show comfortable lead over rival Yulia Tymoshenko for man who fraudulently fixed 2004 election

Luke Harding in Kiev
guardian.co.uk, Friday 15 January 2010 14.21 GMT

Supporters of Viktor Yanukovych hold his portrait during an election rally in Kiev. Photograph: Viktor Drachev/AFP/Getty Images

Viktor Yanukovych, the man who fraudulently fixed Ukraine's 2004 election, unwittingly setting off the Orange Revolution, was today on course for a spectacular comeback, with opinion polls suggesting he is poised to become Ukraine's next president.

Before the first round of Ukraine's presidential election on Sunday, polls show Yanukovych enjoys a comfortable 14-point lead over his nearest rival, Yulia Tymoshenko, Ukraine's populist prime minister. The two are the likely winners in this weekend's 18-candidate race and will face each other in a second run-off vote on 7 February.

Ukraine's incumbent Orange president, Viktor Yushchenko, has no chance of ­re-election. Polls give him less than 4% of the vote. Such is his loathing for Tymoshenko, his former ally, Yushchenko is now semi-openly campaigning for Yanukovych, whom he defeated in 2004, and whose supporters tried to poison him.

The pro-democracy sentiments that prompted thousands to protest against the authorities and build a flimsy tent city in Kiev's central Maidan have long given way to something else – anger, frustration and widespread disillusionment with Ukraine's quarrelsome and self-serving political elite.

Yesterday, there were few signs left of the Orange Revolution. Only a handful of elderly volunteers could be seen handing out election leaflets on Kiev's icy Independence Square. The main attraction was a bunch of cold-looking Father Christmases shivering under a tree, promoting a new chocolate bar.

Some have interpreted this weekend's poll as a decisive tilt by Ukraine towards Russia. Both Yanukovych and Tymoshenko have pledged to reset relations with Russia, reversing the pro-western Yushchenko's hostile Moscow policies. At the same time, however, both are broadly committed to Ukraine's integration with Europe, especially in economic matters, and to what has been dubbed multi-vector politics.

For its part, the Kremlin has not endorsed any candidate, a stark contrast with 2004, when it openly backed Yanukovych and bankrolled his campaign. Analysts say Russia's main priority is to get rid of Yushchenko. In addition, Russia has laid down demands for whoever wins. Top of the agenda is the renewal of the lease for Russia's Crimea-based Black Sea fleet, which runs out in 2017.

A Yanukovych victory would mean an extraordinary reversal of the dramatic events of 2004, which saw the supreme court overturn Yanukovych's fraudulent victory in the second round of the presidential election and order another vote, which Yushchenko comfortably won.

It would also be an important psychological triumph for Yanukovych, who grew up in a poor working-class family in Ukraine's eastern Donetsk region. As a young man he served two prison sentences for robbery and stealing women's hats – a record that has, paradoxically, only increased his standing among some Russian-speaking voters.

Critics point out that Yanukovych is a ponderously gaffe-prone speaker. Others compare his colourful biography with that of former US president George W Bush, arguing that both made mistakes in their youths but have since embarked on a redemptive journey. Yesterday, several voters on the streets of Kiev dismissed him as tupoi – a Russian word for stupid or obtuse.

However, others suggest Yanukovych would be a less autocratic and more consensual leader than Tymoshenko, whose authoritarian instincts have spooked many educated voters. Meanwhile, European diplomats appear reconciled to a Yanukovych victory, arguing that the key issue is not which candidate wins, but that the election is fair in a region not known for its democracy.

"After three free and fair elections in five years, Ukraine is the most democratic country in the former Soviet Union, excluding the three Baltic nations," Leigh Turner, the UK's ambassador in Ukraine, writes on Guardian.co.uk. He adds: "If Ukraine can make a success of democracy and media multipolarity that will show the rest of the region that there's a democratic alternative to authoritarianism and one-party rule."

According to Andrew Wilson, of the European Council on Foreign Relations, Yushchenko has only himself to blame for the failure of the Orange Revolution. His mistakes include failing to reach out to the Russian-speaking parts of the country, allowing the oligarchs to establish a cartel in parliament and constantly sniping at his prime ministers.

"The one good thing about the coming election is that Yushchenko seems to be on his way out. The five-year psychodrama of 'Viktor versus Yulia' is hopefully at an end. It would be deeply depressing if conflict is so embedded in the system that the duel between Yushchenko and Tymoshenko is simply replaced by one between Tymoshenko and Yanukovych," Wilson noted.

Yanukovych – the most likely winner – was no longer the "existential threat to democracy" he was back in 2004, when a secret Yanukovych team, hidden in a nearby cinema, hacked into Ukraine's central election commission computer, Wilson added. "The Orange leaders were poor on delivery. If democracy can tame and reshape a bad guy like Yanukovych it shows it works," he suggested.

Tymoshenko's strong campaigning skills are likely to see a bounce in her vote between the first and second rounds. She may also win support from Sergey Tigipko, the third-placed candidate, who is enjoying a late surge among voters fed up with the two leading contenders.

According to a poll by Ukraine's Democratic Initiatives Foundation, however, Tymoshenko faces an uphill struggle to win. It has Yanukovych on 33.6% and Tymoshenko on 19.2%, with Tigipko – a former chairman of Ukraine's National Bank – on 9.23 and Yushenko on 3.7.

In the event of defeat, Tymoshenko is almost certain to contest the results in court. She will inevitably accuse Yanukovych of fraud. It remains to be seen whether Yanukovych will be able to face down Tymoshenko's threats and win the prize that last time remained tantalisingly out of his grasp.

The election is taking place against the backdrop of a severe economic crisis in Ukraine. The country's economy contracted by 15% last year, with the government narrowly avoiding default. "Only Yanukovych can rescue us from the ­economic crisis," Yelena Petrovna said yesterday, handing out leaflets for Yanukovych and his Party of the Regions.

[Philip]

A sour Haitian joke says that when a Haitian minister skims 15 per cent of aid money it is called "corruption" and when an NGO or aid agency takes 50 per cent it is called "overheads".

Patrick Cockburn: The US is failing Haiti – again

There is nobody to co-ordinate the most rudimentary relief and rescue efforts

Saturday, 16 January 2010

The US-run aid effort for Haiti is beginning to look chillingly similar to the criminally slow and disorganised US government support for New Orleans after it was devastated by hurricane Katrina in 2005.

Five years ago President Bush was famously mute and detached when the levees broke in Louisiana. By way of contrast, President Obama was promising Haitians that everything would be done for survivors within hours of the calamity.

Discovered by Columbus, built by France – and wrecked by dictators
All you need to know about aid and the international effort
Ian Birrell: Death, disaster and a shocking reality

The rhetoric from Washington has been very different during these two disasters, but the outcome may be much the same. In both cases very little aid arrived at the time it was most needed and, in the case of Port-au-Prince, when people trapped under collapsed buildings were still alive. When foreign rescue teams with heavy lifting gear does come it will be too late. No wonder enraged Haitians are building roadblocks out of rocks and dead bodies.

In New Orleans and Port-au-Prince there is the same official terror of looting by local people, so the first outside help to arrive is in the shape of armed troops. The US currently has 3,500 soldiers, 2,200 marines and 300 medical personnel on their way to Haiti.

Of course there will be looting because, with shops closed or flattened by the quake, this is the only way for people to get food and water. Haiti is one of the poorest countries in the world. I was in Port-au-Prince in 1994, the last time US troops landed there, when local people systematically tore apart police stations, taking wood, pipes and even ripping nails out of the walls. In the police station I was in there were sudden cries of alarm from those looting the top floor as they discovered that they could not get back down to the ground because the entire wooden staircase had been chopped up and stolen.

I have always liked Haitians for their courage, endurance, dignity and originality. They often manage to avoid despair in the face of the most crushing disasters or any prospect that their lives will get better. Their culture, notably their painting and music, is among the most interesting and vibrant in the world.

It is sad to hear journalists who have rushed to Haiti in the wake of the earthquake give such misleading and even racist explanations of why Haitians are so impoverished, living in shanty towns with a minimal health service, little electricity supply, insufficient clean water and roads that are like river beds.

This did not happen by accident. In the 19th century it was as if the colonial powers never forgave Haitians for staging a successful slave revolt against the French plantation owners. US marines occupied the country from 1915 to 1934. Between 1957 and 1986 the US supported Papa Doc and Baby Doc, fearful that they might be replaced by a regime sympathetic to revolutionary Cuba next door.

President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, a charismatic populist priest, was overthrown by a military coup in 1991, and restored with US help in 1994. But the Americans were always suspicious of any sign of radicalism from this spokesman for the poor and the outcast and kept him on a tight lead. Tolerated by President Clinton, Aristide was treated as a pariah by the Bush administration which systematically undermined him over three years leading up to a successful rebellion in 2004. That was led by local gangsters acting on behalf of a kleptocratic Haitian elite and supported by members of the Republican Party in the US.

So much of the criticism of President Bush has focused on his wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that his equally culpable actions in Haiti never attracted condemnation. But if the country is a failed state today, partly run by the UN, in so far as it is run by anybody, then American actions over the years have a lot to do with it.

Haitians are now paying the price for this feeble and corrupt government structure because there is nobody to co-ordinate the most rudimentary relief and rescue efforts. Its weakness is exacerbated because aid has been funnelled through foreign NGOs. A justification for this is that less of the money is likely to be stolen, but this does not mean that much of it reaches the Haitian poor. A sour Haitian joke says that when a Haitian minister skims 15 per cent of aid money it is called "corruption" and when an NGO or aid agency takes 50 per cent it is called "overheads".

Many of the smaller government aid programmes and NGOs are run by able, energetic and selfless people, but others, often the larger ones, are little more than rackets, highly remunerative for those who run them. In Kabul and Baghdad it is astonishing how little the costly endeavours of American aid agencies have accomplished. "The wastage of aid is sky high," said a former World Bank director in Afghanistan. "There is real looting going on, mostly by private enterprises. It is a scandal." Foreign consultants in Kabul often receive $250,000 to $500,000 a year, in a country where 43 per cent of the population try to live on less than a dollar a day.

None of this bodes well for Haitians hoping for relief in the short term or a better life in the long one. The only way this will really happen is if the Haitians have a legitimate state capable of providing for the needs of its people. The US military, the UN bureaucracy or foreign NGOs are never going to do this in Haiti or anywhere else.

There is nothing very new in this. Americans often ask why it is that their occupation of Germany and Japan in 1945 succeeded so well but more than half a century later in Iraq and Afghanistan was so disastrous. The answer is that it was not the US but the efficient German and Japanese state machines which restored their countries. Where that machine was weak, as in Italy, the US occupation relied with disastrous results on corrupt and incompetent local elites, much as they do today in Iraq, Afghanistan and Haiti.

[Prem]

Uneasy Path to Leadership for China
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/busin ... nside.html

Mr. Bhaskaran sees things differently.
“I think this change goes beyond the jockeying for position ahead of the handover of power in 2012. It reflects the very real shift in the balance of power in the world,” he said.According to this line of thinking, China can afford to be more assertive because it sees the United States stretched militarily and weakened financially; Japan in irreversible decline; and Europe unable to get its act together.In such circumstances, there is a risk of policy missteps if China is perceived by its partners as digging in its heels, potentially ushering in a cycle of tit-for-tat retaliation and resentment.

2012 seems too early. Major shift unlikly to happen before 2022.

[Gerard]

Why America and China will clash

[ramana]

Why America and China will clash

Two comments in the above article:

mikealex | January 19 3:04pm | Permalink
| Options
1. In the post-modern world politics is irrelevant. The future of all nation states is economic authoritarianism. Why? because history has always shown that the power elite always consolidate power in the hope of reserving it for themselves in perpetuity. That is why revolutions eventually occur, because they always go too far. We do have China to thank for showing the rest of us this wonderful model of consolidating and keeping economic power. Economics controls policy, which controls politics. It is very easy to steer the bus when you are in charge of all the controls. You can almost smell the envy of our power elite when they see what China has accomplished. They have been working on this for years and today there is hardly any difference between China and USA today in this regard. The entire recent economic crisis was generated to give the US power elite the exact same kind of control over the economy that the Chinese leaders enjoy. It has already happened.
2. The major economic problem for China and America is converse: China has to figure out how to give its people more money; America has to figure out how to give its people less money. If you were the average worker or even an entrepreneur, where would you rather be now from a subsistence point of view?
3. Everyone has an idea of what freedom is to them. Freedom to do what? Complain? because that's about the only freedom left to the "Democracies." The only freedom that really matters to the "man in the street" is how much the state stays off his back and out of his pocket on a daily basis. In America, the man in the street is harrangued with taxes, fines and fees from the moment he is born. America has in place an entire apparatus that does nothing but extract money from us. It is called the courts. {Rahul Mehtaji your thinking is spreading!} We cannot literally do anything outside of our homes without someone telling us what to do or not do. There are economic traps everywhere that the free state has laid for the free man. The average Chinese worker does not have government pick-pockets laying in wait for him the moment he walks out the door. In this respect we are one of the most unfree people in the world and China one of the most free.
4. Information technology infrastructure and distribution is lacking in China. Entrepreneurs seeking to profit from this lack would do well by investing in China.

and

Olu Omoyele | January 19 10:36am | Permalink
| Options
The rise of China is not predicated on Western theories of economic growth neither is it dependent on acceptance by the US. Rachman states:

"Welcoming the rise of a giant Asian economy that is also turning into a liberal democracy is one thing. Sponsoring the rise of a Leninist one-party state, that is America’s only plausible geopolitical rival, is a different proposition."

Well, I beg to differ, and on two fronts. First, the US is not, and has never been, the sponsor of Chinese rise to economic prominence. The US trades with China because it is in its own interest to do so and China, love her or hate her, is nothing short of an unavoidable and colossal force of nature. It is China who sponsors the lavishness and false impressions about the true state of the American economy by essentially funding it. Yes, China funds much of America's excesses via its vast holdings of US Treasury Bills.

Second, the impression that the US welcomes the rise of a giant Asian economy in the form of China is misleading. The US doesn't "welcome" it. In fact, the US is theatened by it; afterall, China is one of the very few countries in the world that doesn't jump at the beck and call of Washignton - a country so powerful and so self-assured that it gives the US sleepness nights, what with the States' desire to remain the sole superpower in the world for all of time. As opposed to welcoming China's elevation, the US merely acknowledges the factual state of affairs. To deny China's place in global economics would make any professor look foolish. The US, and the whole world in fact, must come to terms with China's position.

On a separate note, countries other than the US, particularly developing nations, should welcome the emergence of a rival power to that of the US given the enormous, monopolistic oppression that the US has visited on many developing nations over the years with the aid of its economic might. What the world needs right now is not a world polarised into US and China arms (like the USSR and USA) but a series of regional powers, preferably with differing ideologies and a powerful and credible international organisation (unlike the UN) to stand in the middle to balance competing goals and interests. India, Brazil, Iran, Russia and Nigeria are all countries with the potential to step up to the plate. Whether and how they in fact do so, only time will tell.

[Hari Seldon]

Saw this tweet:

HDS Greenway implies extra-territorial loyalties of American Muslims, and explains terrorism as a understandable response http://is.gd/6Fk9g

and followed up.

Here's the meat of the NYT article:

America had always been open to immigration. Citizenship, the flag, and our institutions define what an American is, not how people dress. Thus the constant controversies over headscarves that cut to the core of European sensibilities seemed strange to American ears. A national referendum to ban minarets would be inconceivable in the United States.

So we thought our very American-ness had inoculated us against the radicalization of Muslim youth. The British–born plotters of the London subway explosions, the 9/11 Hamburg cells, or the British educated Nigerian bent on bringing down an airliner were not going to be replicated here. Our Muslims were immune, we thought.

versus

But now, with young Somali-Americans going off to jihad in East Africa, with Pakistani-Americans doing the same in Pakistan, a former New York coffee vendor named Najibullah Zazi arrested in a bomb plot, and with Major Nidal Hasan’s mass murder of his fellow soldiers, we have come to realize that the siren call of jihad does not fall upon deaf ears on these shores. A decade of invading Muslim countries is having its radicalizing effects here at home. We can no longer afford to be smug.

The F.B.I. tries to infiltrate extremist cells, and so they should. But there are reports that American Muslim organizations that have in the past cooperated with law enforcement are feeling alienated by increasing pressure, and reconsidering their cooperation.

The worst we could do as a society is to overreact, to make American Muslims feel they are a not one with the rest of us; in effect, to take the American flags off their front lawns.

As ye sow...onlee. US-UK courting of wahabism, covertly propping up or/and sponsoring radical mslim unrest in far-off shores (including in our subcontinent) hasn't gone unnoticed in even the turd world, I daresay.

[pgbhat]

^ And now this.
Ex-cons who converted to Islam in NY have turned up in Yemen as Al Qaeda recruits:

[Philip]

..and the British Muslim police angst.It is certainly not the view on the British street,that Islam has nothingto do with the terro threats.In actual fact,it is the extremist view of Islam that spurs the ungodly Ilamist terroprists to act so diablolically,citing the Koran as their inspiration.Secondly,how can the British govt. react differently when almost every terro plot appears to have originated form Pakistan most often involving UK based Pakis of the Islamic faith? The perverted understanding of Islam by the jehadis is the most serious global threat today and the UK's Muslim police officers are sadly out of their depth in understanding of the truth.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... tacks.html

Muslim police say Islam not to blame for terror attacks

Muslim police officers have rebelled openly against the Government’s anti-terrorism strategy, warning that it is an “affront to British values” which threatens to trigger ethnic unrest.

By By Robert Winnett, Deputy Political Editor
20 Jan 2010

Photo: JOHN TAYLOR
The National Association of Muslim Police (NAMP) claimed that ministers were wrong to blame Islam for being the “driver” behind recent terrorist attacks.

Far-Right extremists were a more dangerous threat to national security, it said.

The officers told MPs that Muslims were being “stigmatised” by the Government’s attempts to tackle terrorism, which was adding to “hatred” against entire communities.

In the official intervention, the association said the Government’s anti-terrorism policies could not “continue unchecked”.

The comments, made in a seven-page memorandum to a parliamentary committee investigating extremism, are embarrassing for Gordon Brown. They indicated that Muslim officers may be reluctant to take part in “hearts and minds” anti-terrorism campaigns.

The organisation, which represents more than 2,000 officers, was previously publicly backed by Mr Brown. The Prime Minister said the association was crucial to bridge the historic divide between Muslims and the police.

There have been growing concerns about the radicalisation of Muslims in Britain. The failed Detroit bombing on Christmas Day was carried out by an al-Qaeda-inspired extremist who had studied in London.

The Daily Telegraph disclosed last week that American intelligence agencies believed that Britain had the greatest number of Islamic extremists of any Western country.

It is thought to be the first time that the Muslim association, which was founded in 2007, has criticised government policy.

In an analysis of the Prevent strategy, which is a set of policies designed to stop radicalisation, the organisation claimed: “The strategies of Prevent were historically focused on so-called Islamist extremism.

“This has subjected the biggest black and ethnic minority community, and second biggest faith group, in an unprecedented manner, stigmatising them in the process.

“Never before has a community been mapped in [such] a manner ... it is frustrating to see this in a country that is a real pillar and example of freedom of expression and choice.

“Our British system is a model for the world to follow, yet we have embarked on a journey that has put this very core of British values under real threat.”

The association warned there were “echoes” of the racism of the 1970s and 1980s which led to inner city riots. “We appear to have ignored the lessons learnt from these dark days,” the officers said.

There is growing criticism among Muslim groups of the government strategy, which was welcomed by mainstream police organisations.

The policies are aimed at stopping Muslims from becoming radicalised through measures such as sponsoring moderate community groups.

Ministers insisted that the strategy, which costs more than £140 million a year, had “real successes”. More than 200 people were convicted of terrorist offences in the past eight years.

But the NAMP claimed the policies had led to “hatred against Muslims” which “has grown to a level that defies all logic and is an affront to British values”.

The organisation said Prevent should focus on confronting far-Right extremists such as the BNP.

The memorandum warned that Muslims were subjected to “daily abuse” due to the strategy. “We must not diminish our British values further by continuing to allow such behaviour and polices to continue unchecked,” it added.

The Muslim officers believe the Government is wrong to blame Islam as the main driver of terrorist activity.

Research by “those convicted of terrorism acts shows Islam was not, and is not, a real driver but all our strategy seem to focus on is this un-evidenced view of Islam being the driver,” they said. The Government said that confronting Islamic terrorism was one of the key priorities of the anti-radicalisation strategy. Last night, the Foreign Office admitted that funding for counter-terrorism policies in Pakistan had been cut.

A spokesman from the Department of Communities and Local Government said: “The idea that we only focus on Muslims on terror issues is completely false.

“Muslims, like other faith groups, engage with government departments right across Whitehall, from health to education to work and pensions, to culture, media and sport. They rightly play a full role in our society, and across public and civic life.”

[Prem]

Dispatches from the Edge: Yemen: Terrorist Haven or Chess Piece?

http://tiny.cc/VUC03

So is the current uproar over Yemen a case of a U.S. administration overreacting and stumbling into yet another quagmire in the Middle East? Or is this talk about a “global danger” just a smokescreen to allow the Americans to prop up the increasingly isolated and unpopular regime in Saudi Arabia? Maybe both, but at least one respected analyst suggests that the game in play is considerably larger than the Arabian Peninsula and may have more to do with the control of the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea than with hunting down al Qaeda in the Yemeni wilderness.

The Asia Times’ M.K. Bhadrakumar, a career Indian diplomat who served in Afghanistan, Kuwait, Pakistan, and Turkey, argues that the current U.S. concern with Yemen is actually about the strategic port of Aden. “Control of Aden and the Malacca Straits will put the United States in an unassailable position in the ‘great game’ of the Indian Ocean,” he writes.Aden controls the strait of Bab el-Mandab, the entrance to the Red Sea though which passes 3.5 million barrels of oil a day. The Malacca Straits, between the southern Malay Peninsula and the Indonesian island of Sumatra, is one of the key passages that link the Indian Ocean with the South China Sea and the Pacific Ocean. Bhadrakumar says the Indian Ocean and the Malacca Straits are “literally the jugular veins of the Chinese economy.” Indeed, a quarter of the world’s sea-borne trade passes through the area, including 80 percent of China’s oil and gas. In 2005 the Bush administration pressed India to counter the rise of China by joining an alliance with South Korea, Japan, and Australia. As a quid pro quo for coming aboard, Washington agreed to sell uranium to India, in spite of New Delhi’s refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Agreement. Only countries that sign the treaty can purchase uranium in the international market. The Bush administration also agreed to sell India the latest in military technology. The Obama administration has continued the same policies.

[RayC]

U.S. to deploy missiles near Russia

By Nicholas Kralev

President Obama sent two of his top national security officials to Moscow on Wednesday to clear the last hurdles to a new nuclear pact, but a revelation that U.S. missiles will soon be deployed near Russian territory could complicate the talks.

The White House said that National Security Adviser James L. Jones and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen will meet with Russian officials "primarily to discuss the remaining issues left to conclude" a follow-on to the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which the U.S. ambassador to Moscow predicted will be completed within weeks.

"It's only a question of when, and I think the finish line is approaching in the very near future," Ambassador John R. Beyrle said in an interview with the Echo of Moscow radio.

Washington and Moscow began negotiating a new treaty last spring but failed to work out all their differences by the time START expired on Dec. 5. ........
US Missiles

Interesting developments.

[RayC]

The Realist Prism: The Ukraine That Might Have Been
Nikolas Gvosdev
World Politics Review

As the dust settles from the first round of Ukraine's 2010 presidential elections, two things are clear: First, the hero of the Orange Revolution of 2004, Viktor Yushchenko, was decisively defeated; and second, both of the run-off contenders, Yuliya Tymoshenko and Viktor Yanukovych, are likely to follow through on pledges to improve relations with Russia if elected.

The last time Ukrainians went to the polls to select a president, the battle between Yushchenko and Yanukovych was portrayed as an apocalyptic clash, presenting a momentous choice for Ukrainians between a bright future with the West and a return to its post-Soviet embrace of Russia. Gallons of ink have been spilled over the last six years explaining why Ukraine's subsequent attempts to consummate the promise of closer integration into the Euro-Atlantic world ultimately failed.

But there hasn't been much soul-searching in Western capitals, where it has been much easier to point the finger -- at squabbling Ukrainian politicians, who were unable to unite to form an effective government that could pursue reforms, or at Russia's dark machinations to retain Ukraine within its sphere of influence (notably through the economic leverage of natural gas). The West's own complicity in Ukraine's failures is left unmentioned.

Members of the realist community had already worried that American and European rhetoric on Ukraine in the aftermath of the Orange Revolution was grievously out of sync with what governments were actually prepared to do. A European Union gripped by expansion fatigue was in no mood to seriously consider Ukraine's membership bid. Admitting a country to the union that would be a net consumer of EU development funds while doing potential damage to both the sustainability of the Common Agricultural Policy and the steel industries of the EU's core countries was not on the agenda. For their part, NATO countries did not want to see a security consumer join the alliance, especially in the aftermath of the Georgia-Russia conflict of 2008. Ukraine today is no closer than it was in 2004 to entering either NATO or the EU, and the prospects for membership in the near future -- certainly during the term of the next Ukrainian president -- seem nil.

Nor did Washington step up to the challenge......

Ukraine

[nachiket]

U.S. to deploy missiles near Russia

By Nicholas Kralev

President Obama sent two of his top national security officials to Moscow on Wednesday to clear the last hurdles to a new nuclear pact, but a revelation that U.S. missiles will soon be deployed near Russian territory could complicate the talks.

The White House said that National Security Adviser James L. Jones and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen will meet with Russian officials "primarily to discuss the remaining issues left to conclude" a follow-on to the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which the U.S. ambassador to Moscow predicted will be completed within weeks.

"It's only a question of when, and I think the finish line is approaching in the very near future," Ambassador John R. Beyrle said in an interview with the Echo of Moscow radio.

Washington and Moscow began negotiating a new treaty last spring but failed to work out all their differences by the time START expired on Dec. 5. ........
US Missiles

Interesting developments.

Question: Which "Russian Territory" could we be talking about here? Is the USA actually thinking (and capable) of deploying nukes in some Eastern European country? This could be the Cuban missile crisis with the roles reversed.

[svinayak]

http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles ... ing_flash/

First a blinding flash
Then the mushrooming authority of the president, unbalancing separation of powers in national defense

By Glenn C. Altschuler
Globe Correspondent / January 24, 2010


And yet, as Garry Wills, the provocative, prolific, and polymath professor of history emeritus at Northwestern University, reminds us, the bomb proved to be “a fatal miracle.’’ Fatal as a weapon - and fatal to the delicate system of checks and balances over the power of the presidency. In “Bomb Power,’’ Wills argues that the Manhattan Project, which proceeded without authorization, funding, or oversight by Congress, planted the seeds of a massive shift of power to the executive branch. From World War II to the Cold War and later the War on Terror, “the permanent emergency’’ initially claimed by Truman was used to justify a monopoly by the executive branch on the use of nuclear weapons, the establishment of military bases around the world, the formation of intelligence agencies, the launching of covert operations, and a vast expansion of state secrets. For seven decades, he concludes, what Wills refers to as the National Security State “has made the abnormal normal and constitutional diminishment the settled order.’’

Although it breaks no new ground, “Bomb Power’’ is a powerful - and sobering - account of the step-by-step creation of government structures, unaccountable to Congress or the people, to conduct “permanent war in peace.’’ The culprits, Wills points out, were Democratic as well as Republican presidents, who engineered a quiet coup against the Constitution, making the commander-in-chief of the armed forces the commander-in-chief of the nation. And the post-Vietnam, post-Watergate reining in of “the imperials presidency,’’ through the War Powers Resolution (1973), the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (1978), and the Presidential Records Act (1978), never really happened.


Wills, it appears, has already given up hope that Barack Obama will make substantive changes to the National Security State. Administration officials, he observes, have already indicated that they reserve the right to use “extraordinary renditions,’’ subject terrorists captured anywhere to “battlefield law,’’ and invoke the Reynolds case to abort trial proceedings that involve “state secrets.’’ Obama said the government would not prosecute any officials of the Bush administration or empanel a “truth commission.’’ “Most important,’’ the president is committed to “a long-term nation-building effort in Afghanistan, a drug-culture government not susceptible to our remolding.’’ The self-professed change agent, Wills concludes, has “grabbed at the powers, the secrecy, the unaccountability’’ of the “imperial system.’’

Dismantling the National Security State is, indeed, “a hard, perhaps impossible task.’’ But it’s worth remembering that even if, to some extent, Obama is the prisoner of his own power, he isn’t George W. Bush. By the time he’s done, many things millions of Americans care passionately about - torture, indefinite detention, the denial of habeas corpus and legal representation, the unilateral abrogation of treaties, defiance of Congress, distortions of the Constitution, and the rewriting of statutes through signing statements - may no longer be acceptable practices of the federal government. In the end, Wills suggests, principled reformers should continue the fight despite the odds, invoking the spirit of Cyrano de Bergerac who said: “One fights not only in the hope of winning.’’

[Gerard]

Question: Which "Russian Territory" could we be talking about here? Is the USA actually thinking (and capable) of deploying nukes in some Eastern European country? This could be the Cuban missile crisis with the roles reversed.

Kaliningrad
These are Patriot missiles, not nuclear ones.

[SSridhar]

Pakistan is trying to undermine Indian influence in Oman

Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee Chairman General Tariq Majid who is on an official visit to Oman, called on Chief of Staff of the Sultan’s Armed Forces Lieutenant General Ahmad Bin Harith Al Nabhani to discuss issues of mutual interest.

Highlighting the damaging impact and social, economic and political fallouts of the conflicting situation existing in some of the neighbouring countries, threats of terrorism and violent extremism and increasing incidences of international crimes especially sea piracy, drug trafficking and human smuggling etc, Majid emphasised the need for mutually reinforcing collaborative efforts and enhanced cooperation to effectively deal with such security dilemmas.

Dilating upon the scope and potential to upgrade defence and security ties between the two countries, Majid underscored the importance of regular operational coordination and instituting a mechanism for real time intelligence sharing.

In addition to offering enhanced assistance to meet training, technical manpower, logistics and maintenance support and military hardware needs of Oman’s Armed Forces, he also proposed
a partnership for joint ventures with the defence industry of Pakistan.

Later, in a separate meeting with Royal Navy of Oman Commander Rear Admiral Abdullah bin Khamis bin Abdullah Al Raisi Majid explored prospective Naval cooperation between the two countries.

Majid also held separate meetings with Ministry of Defence Under Secretary Mohammed Bin Nassar Al Rasabi and Police and Customs General Inspector Lieutenant General Malik Bin Suleman Al-Mamamri to discuss ways to enhance bilateral cooperation.

[sourab_c]

South Korea, India sign series of comprehensive agreements

From the Article -

With the world's sixth largest armed forces, South Korea has already signed a pact with India for securing its sea routes. A major amount of South Korea's trade is conducted through the sea route and it has great interest in the protection of sea lines of communication in the Indian Ocean.

[Neshant]

Securing sea routes against.... China ?

[Gerard]

Obama’s Brzezinski Plan

[SwamyG]

Any theories on why this news about Korean First Lady's link to ancient Indian dynasty was let out ? I mean is it because of her visit or is there something else going on between India and S.Korea? South Korea watchers any thoughts?

[ramana]

Obama’s Brzezinski Plan

Please read this with the book review of Brezenski's book.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 99#p812499

Especially the bolded parts.

What is happening in the long view is US benefited from the long duration of the British Empire and even though they picked up the mantle during World War II, (~1943) they are not ready to carry the burden that goes with it. Initially they thought it was move over John Bull we are comng ready or not. Its not exactly simple as that. The enlargement of the American identity to give strength to the empire impulse is faltering.

Hence the anxious contra opinion books by Pat Buchanan and others versus these Empire books.

[ramana]

Two articles by Tyler Durden at zero -hedge

This is how the cold war will look like in the post-Lehman era (when all the debt risk is held on the public balance sheet): one country urging another to sell a third's bonds. According to Hank Paulson's soon to be released memoir, Russia had urged China to sell its GSE holdings in August 2008 "in a bid to force a bailout of the largest U.S. mortgage-finance companies." China refused... That time. Of course, what has transpired since is that China, through the Fed custodial account, has rotated a vast majority of its GSE holdings into Treasuries, in essence doing just what Pimco's Bill Gross has been doing since the beginning of 2009: offloading hundreds of billions of Fannie and Freddie bonds straight to the Federal Reserve. Alas, the Fed is 93% done with MBS QE... What happens when residual selling of bonds finally hits the public market, and the bottom falls out?

Bloomberg reports:

The Russians made a “top-level approach” to the Chinese “that together they might sell big chunks of their GSE holdings to force the U.S. to use its emergency authorities to prop up these companies,” Paulson said, referring to the acronym for government sponsored entities. The Chinese declined, he said.



Paulson learned of the “disruptive scheme” while attending the Beijing Summer Olympics, according to his new memoir, “On The Brink.”



“The report was deeply troubling -- heavy selling could create a sudden loss of confidence in the GSEs and shake the capital markets,” Paulson wrote. “I waited till I was back home and in a secure environment to inform the president.”

Of course, the Russians were very prophetic, with the formal GSE conservatorship announcement following a few short days later on September 6, 2008. They also knew how to put their money where their mouth was:

Russia sold all of its Fannie and Freddie debt in 2008, after holding $65.6 billion of the notes at the start of that year, according to central bank data. Fannie and Freddie were seized by regulators on Sept. 6, 2008, amid the worst U.S. housing slump since the Great Depression.

The implications of this revelation are troubling, as in a newly multi-polar world, in which China is now the second largest economy, and merely needs a block of one other major power, be it Russia or Japan, in order to precipitate a selloff in critical U.S. securities, be they MBS (not so much these days), or, more relevantly, Treasuries.

Curiously, the bailout of the GSE was based on the premise that placating China and other major US security holders (both in the public and private arena) is critical. It explains the lack of impairment of both the Sub debt in the GSEs as well the sub debt in all the bank holding companies. If indeed China had been considering selling its bonds, it means that it had likely approached the proper senior level officials with its concerns, and could have been a material influence in bailout policy in the days surrounding the Lehman collapse. Which makes an even bolder case for the observation that the U.S. is nothing more than a vassal state of its largest creditor: if China can dictate domestic policy, which these days typically amounts to yet another bailout decision, then why do Americans need to pretend their government is at all relevant any longer?

and about Lehman Bros.

Paulson says Lehman Bailout would have cost taxpayers massive losses

The key was Price Waterhouse London office refused Lehman Bros.

[abhishek_sharma]

Japan’s Elder Statesman Is Silent No Longer

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/world ... asone.html

ANY mere mortal might have reacted with dismay, even anger, if a group of brash newcomers threatened to undo the accomplishments of a lifetime. But from his Olympian heights as Japan’s most revered elder statesman, Yasuhiro Nakasone, the former prime minister, at first watched with sphinx-like calm as an inexperienced, left-leaning government swept to power, challenging Japan’s postwar political order and its close relationship with the United States.
...

Aware of his status as one of the few leaders revered across Japan’s suddenly fractured political landscape, Mr. Nakasone (na-ka-SOH-nay) is careful in choosing his words. But his message is nevertheless clear. He wants to tell his nation’s conservatives to pick up the pieces from their defeat, and he wants to tell his countrymen to keep a careful eye on a rising China.

But his most important message is for the new prime minister, Yukio Hatoyama, who came to power with promises to create a more equal relationship with the United States. It is possible, he says, for Japan to act more independently without alienating Washington, its protector and proven friend.

...

DURING the interview, Mr. Nakasone showed flashes of the fiery nationalist who as prime minister proclaimed Japan an “unsinkable aircraft carrier” against the Soviet Union. He also displayed hints of the celebrated oratorical skills that once set him apart in a nation of colorless political leaders.

Mr. Nakasone was a rarity in the nepotistic, insider-driven world of Japanese politics, a self-made man whose father was a lumber dealer in the poor mountainous prefecture of Gunma, north of Tokyo. As a paymaster in Japan’s Imperial Navy during World War II, Mr. Nakasone said, he developed an enormous pride in his country and an admiration for the strength and ideals of its former foe, the United States.

Two years after the war’s end, he gave up a promising career in an elite government ministry to run for Parliament with the belief that in its postwar remorse, Japan was in danger of discarding its traditional values. As a freshman lawmaker in 1951, he delivered a 28-page letter to General MacArthur criticizing the occupation, a brazen move. The general angrily threw the letter in the wastebasket, Mr. Nakasone was later told.

[shyam]

X-post

Paulson Says He Was Prepared to Guarantee Lehman (Update1)

The U.K. government ultimately was responsible for forcing Lehman into bankruptcy, Paulson said. Lehman executives had reached a deal to sell the bank to Barclays Plc, a British bank, on Saturday, Sept. 13.
...
The U.K. government, however, refused to waive a requirement that Barclays submit the deal to a shareholder vote, in spite of a personal plea by Paulson to Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling. Darling, Paulson wrote, was concerned that if Lehman’s bad assets hurt Barclays, it might affect the entire U.K. banking system.

“The British screwed us,” Paulson, a former chairman of Goldman Sachs, said he told the U.S. bankers the next day.
...
The former Treasury secretary said he, Geithner, and Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke were well aware the bankruptcy of Lehman would cause havoc in financial markets, although the consequences were much worse than they had anticipated. That was in part because Lehman’s U.K. bankruptcy receiver, PricewaterhouseCoopers, froze all of the firm’s accounts in that country, refusing to transfer collateral back to Lehman creditors, Paulson said.
...
Paulson also wrote that Chinese officials were very helpful during the crisis. He spoke often with Wang Qishan, vice premier of China’s financial and economic affairs, who pledged his country wouldn’t sell its large holdings of U.S. Treasury and agency bonds.

Russia tried to take advantage of the turmoil in U.S. markets, he wrote. While he was attending the Summer Olympic Games in Beijing in early August 2008, he learned that “top-level” Russian officials suggested to the Chinese that the two countries sell a large amount of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bonds they owned in order to force the U.S. to bail out those firms. The Chinese refused, Paulson said.

[abhishek_sharma]

Europe Feels Snubbed by Obama

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/world ... urope.html

PARIS — President Obama’s decision to skip a United States-European Union summit meeting scheduled for Madrid in May has predictably upset European officials, who suggested Tuesday that the summit meeting itself would now be postponed, possibly to the autumn.

In addition to the palpable sense of insult among European officials, there is a growing concern that Europe is being taken for granted and losing importance in American eyes compared with the rise of a newly truculent China.

...

The Spanish prime minister, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, who is scheduled to arrive in Washington this week on a visit, was described as angry and embarrassed, and European officials said there was a set of high-level diplomatic exchanges overnight.

The White House explained the decision as a matter of scheduling, insisting that the May visit to Europe was never on the president’s agenda, so it could not be said to have been canceled.

European officials said that two senior American officials — the under secretary of state for political affairs, William J. Burns, and the assistant secretary of state for European affairs, Philip H. Gordon — had attended a preparatory meeting for the summit meeting two weeks ago in Madrid, and that there was no hint then that Mr. Obama would decide not to attend.

But a senior American official said that Mr. Gordon and Mr. Burns emphasized to Spanish officials, when the meeting was raised, that they “were not in a position to commit to one.” In fact, the official said, the Obama administration has been “pursuing and getting a better relationship with Spain and the new E.U.,” with Mr. Zapatero visiting Washington twice.

...

Charles Grant, the director of the Center for European Reform, a London-based research center, said that the Obama decision “is a useful wake-up call for the E.U.” He said the European Union must realize “that no one will court them or have summits with them because Europe is a nice idea.

“They need to deliver.”

Mr. Obama sees Europe as an important ally, but “Obama clearly has no emotional identification with Europe,” Mr. Grant said. “He has a cool, analytical view of allies and partners, but when the Europeans can’t provide much to help America solve global security problems, he doesn’t want to spend too much time on it.”

[Prem]

Myanmar-China Pipeline to Start Construction in 2009
http://www.chinastakes.com/2008/11/Myan ... -2009.html

The construction of a Myanmar-China Pipeline, with the total investment of $2.55 billion, is to start next year. This will be China’s third overseas oil and gas pipeline from a foreign country. It is reported that PetroChina will be the holding company for the pipeline constructed jointly by China, Burma, India, and Korea. Mi Dongsheng, director of Development and Reform Commission of Yunnan Province, revealed Yunnan was set to start construction on the pipeline from the first half of 2009 as a part of the province’s 72 billion yuan energy project.

[AnimeshP]

Europe Feels Snubbed by Obama

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/world ... urope.html

... these guys were tripping over themselves to ingratiate themselves with Obama (massive rallies in Europe, Nobel Peace prize ityadi) ... talk about unrequited love ...

[ShauryaT]

Quadrennial Defense Review Report

The rise of China, the world’s most populous country, and India, the
world’s largest democracy, will continue to shape an international system that is no longer easily
defined—one in which the United States will remain the most powerful actor but must
increasingly work with key allies and partners if it is to sustain stability and peace.

[SSridhar]

Southeast Asia's new focus on India, China

India and China were in such focus, in the alternate order of their names, as the week-long ‘Singapore Airshow 2010’ ended on Sunday (February 7).

Neither India nor China courted undue attention at the show, but they were seen, alongside the United States, as the architects of a future Asia-Pacific order. Such a nuanced view, which did not eclipse Japan’s potential role, was evident during the Airshow-related Asia Pacific Security Conference on February 1.

Of greater interest was the novelty of India being celebrated at the popular cultural level in the ongoing countdown for the Chinese New Year Day. A mini musical show at Chinatown in Singapore on Sunday (February 7) had a Bollywood song on India as an interlude.

Signifying a thematic leap to the mediaeval era from such perspectives, a book on India’s historical links with Southeast Asia was launched on January 27. Published by the Singapore-based Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS), the book was released by Sugata Bose, a Harvard University Professor. The title of the volume edited by ISEAS Director K. Kesavapany and two others, is a tale in itself. An unusual historical phase is sought to be narrated in Nagapattinam to Suvarnadwipa: Reflections on the Chola naval expeditions to Southeast Asia. {Should be an interesting book}

The broad theme is best conveyed in the words of Hermann Kulke, a German scholar in Asian history and a co-editor of this book. Under the scanner is the “claim” of the Chola King, Rajendra I, about his naval expeditions to Southeast Asia nearly one millennium ago. His “claim” relates to the Cholan conquest of over a dozen harbour-cities of the Southeast Asian kingdom of Srivijaya in the early 11th Century A.D.

These ancient South Indian influences in Southeast Asia were “followed by the strong impact of Pallava and Chola art and architecture.” In this perspective, the maritime triumph “claimed” by Rajendra I in about 1025 A.D. “was a unique event in the otherwise peaceful and culturally exceedingly fruitful relation of India with its neighbours in Southeast Asia” in historical times.

The mystery of missing references to the Chola expeditions in the relevant Chinese texts is sought to be addressed in the book. And, Tansen Sen, Head of the Nalanda-Sriwijaya Centre at the ISEAS in Singapore, has traced the “Chola-Srivijaya-China triangle.” On the mystery itself, Kulke writes that “it is one of the ironies of the history of Indo-China relations [India-China relations] that the extant Tamil inscriptions in China date only from 1281 [A.D.], two years after the final fall of the Cholas.” He emphasises that the Cholas were, historically, the Indian dynasty that was “most actively involved in maritime trade with China.”

Predating such links was the influence of Nagarjuna’s thoughts on the evolution of Buddhism in China, a subject expounded by a present-day Chinese diplomat Jiang Yili.

[abhishek_sharma]

Japanese Split on Exposing Secret Pacts With U.S.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/09/world ... japan.html

They were Tokyo’s worst-kept diplomatic secrets: clandestine cold war era agreements with Washington that obligated Japan to shoulder the costs of United States bases and allow nuclear-armed American ships to sail into Japanese ports.

...

Now, the so-called secret treaties are causing problems again, this time in how Japan is handling its suddenly rocky relationship with the United States.

...

Last fall, the foreign minister appointed a team of scholars to scour Japanese diplomatic archives for evidence of the treaties. Its findings are due this month.

The problem is that the inquiry is coming at a delicate moment in Japan’s ties with its longtime patron, the United States. The administrations of Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama of Japan and President Obama are already divided over the relocation of an American air base in Okinawa. By exposing some of the less savory aspects of Japan’s military reliance on the United States, the investigation has drawn criticism, particularly from conservatives in both nations, as an effort by the left-leaning Hatoyama government to pull away from Washington.

...

“The prime minister and I cannot just stand before Parliament and deny the secret treaties, as has been done until now,” Mr. Okada said. “We are just doing what the United States has already done.”

Diplomatic experts agree that exposing the treaties will have little or no direct effect on the alliance, partly because the United States announced in the early 1990s that it was no longer carrying nuclear weapons on most of its warships.

...

“Why do the Japanese people only learn about their own government from documents disclosed in the United States?” he said. “This is crazy.”

[abhishek_sharma]

Gates Voices Concern About Warship Sale to Russia

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/09/world ... gates.html

PARIS — Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told French officials Monday that he was concerned about their plans to sell Mistral-class amphibious assault ships to Russia, although there is little if anything the United States could do to block the deal, officials said.

Russia has been engaged in negotiations for months over what would be the first significant purchase of advanced NATO weaponry since the collapse of communism. Each Mistral warship costs up to $750 million, and the vessels, which can launch helicopters and armored vehicles, would be viewed as a notable addition to the Kremlin’s rusting fleet.

Mr. Gates chose the well-known diplomatic code for disagreement in describing his discussion of the arms sale with his French counterpart, Defense Minister Hervé Morin.

[sanjaykumar]

On the mystery itself, Kulke writes that “it is one of the ironies of the history of Indo-China relations [India-China relations] that the extant Tamil inscriptions in China date only from 1281 [A.D.], two years after the final fall of the Cholas.


Fabulous stuff. But perhaps Tamil was adopted as the courtly language of Khmers etc.

[Prem]

X-Post
India-China confluence: Ushering in a new golden era
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/200 ... 390900.htm

The vista stretching before India and China, if only they join hands and march in step, is unparalleled in its grandeur.
(And the KLPD of high degree)

Let us come to specifics and look at a concrete, plausible scenario from India’s perspective by way of illustration. Let us assume that India decides to unfasten itself from the US and makes happy and harmonious relations with China the pivot of its foreign policy. Imagine what a powerful magnet it will be for all the currently dormant constructive forces in the world at large. t will receive nothing but joyous welcome from Russia, an influential power straddling both Europe and Asia, which has consistently been a true and genuine friend of India in fair weather and foul, and even taken an understanding view of its strategic partnership with the US.
Political nettle
Beyond a scintilla of doubt, there can be no definitive solution without give-and-take of territories on either side. The formula that has the best chance of success is accepting the status quo in the western and northern sectors, and ceding Tawang to China, with the McMahon Line being taken as the basis for delineating the boundary on the east without prejudice to its legitimacy or otherwise.
This also broadly corresponds to the ‘Heixiazi’ formula (used to settle the Sino-Russian border) advocated by Professor Zhou Shixin of the Shanghai International Studies University.

[abhishek_sharma]

State Department holds firm on exempting France from Iran sanctions

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts ... _sanctions

France's announcement that it will sell an advanced amphibious assault ship to Russia should not complicate ongoing negotiations over Iran sanctions, according to the State Department's top spokesman.

Lawmakers had threatened that if the French government went through with the sale, which would be the first major arms sale to Russia from a NATO country, they would retaliate by resisting administration efforts to exempt France and other countries from sanctions in the Iran legislation making its way through Congress.

It was never clear how serious the threat was, but nonetheless the administration says it will insist on the exemptions, despite the French decision.

...

Almost every article about the Mistral quotes Russian Adm. Vladimir Vysotskiy, who said in September that the ship "would have allowed [Russia's] Black Sea Fleet to accomplish its mission in 40 minutes" during the 2008 Georgia war, "not 26 hours which is how long it took us."

Russian leaders have distanced themselves from Vysotskiy's statement, but Russian President Vladimir Putin has made clear he will not foreswear using the Mistral wherever his government pleases.