Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread - June 2015

[Vipul]

Earlier this week i saw a Shitistani talk show where the host urged the Pakis to show support to Azerbaijan against Armenia as a fellow Ummah country as "Azerbaijan is our brother country who supports us on kashmir in all international foras"

[ramana]

Need to pay attention to time line of #PanamaPapersLeak.

How a US president and JP Morgan made Panama: and turned it into a tax haven

It starts from 1977. Year of coming together of Oil, China, US and arms smugglers.
1987 Cold War ended next year, First US stock crash in recent memory Black Friday
1997 Taliban took over Afghanistan, China brought into WTO etc. Beginning of dot com bust
2007 US stock market collapse begins
2017 ????

[ramana]

A series of X-posts from India-US thread....

1)

Here's the situation as I see it.

Everything comes down to China. Russia and the US are both wooing China in ways that further their own respective spheres of influence. This is how.

What does China want? A secure route to its west. A safe, guaranteed way to bring goods to the EU markets (mainly) and bring back energy from the ME sources. A route that does not rely on American/Japanese/South Korean goodwill (the Pacific) and is not vulnerable to Indian blockade (the Malacca strait).

Both Russia and the US are wooing China with this carrot: two alternative routes to the west, for which they will stand guarantee. Now let us examine these routes being offered.

In Russia's case the proposed route is from Xinjiang via Central Asian (CIS) states to Iran>ME, and across Russia proper to the EU. The "Silk Route" in other words, under SCO dominion with Iran, China and Russia forming the bulwarks of a continental "Fortress Asia".

To stymie this, the US is encouraging Shia-Sunni conflict in the ME, and also building up ISIS dreams of a Sunni "Khorasan" that will place itself bodily across such a route and destroy any sense of security.

So what route is the US offering to China instead? Lanzhou MR into Pakistan and thence to Gwadar... bypassing the straits of Malacca and directly into the Indian Ocean and Gulf, under US dominion. USN/CENTCOM will guarantee security of the sea routes from the Arabian Sea on to the Mediterranean, and thence EU.

Note that there are two ways from Lanzhou MR into Pakistan. One is via Afghanistan. The US is leaning hard on Ashraf Ghani to create a dispensation acceptable to Islamabad that Pakistan can stand guarantee for. The Afghans are resisting, because this inevitably means giving in to Paki dominance; but they are under considerable pressure from three larger powers (US, China, and Pakistan) to go along. Pakistan's main concern is that India should be shut out of Afghanistan. China is in agreement with this for many reasons. US is also in agreement because Pakistani compliance is a key piece of the carrot that they want to offer China... the route west via Af-Pak, which will wean China away from a "Silk Route" plan in collaboration with Russia.

Now, Afghanistan still remains riddled with security concerns, and will be for the foreseeable future. Hence China is exploring a second route west, via CPEC. Lanzhou MR into Pak-occupied NA and POK, and thence into Pakistan proper to Gwadar. This is also in US interests because the US will dominate the sealanes from Gwadar to the Gulf or to the Mediterranean; hence, China taking this option will also make Beijing more dependent on the US.

Note that an important factor to consider for the US, if they want China to go along with either of the proposed westward routes through Gwadar, is that India is not far away from Gwadar. If the Chinese become dependent on this westward egress, India is capable of plunging multiple daggers into their side... either off the Paki coast, or in Baluchistan, or in Kashmir/NA, or even in Afghanistan.

This is why US is leaning on India to turn its back on its western flank and "look east". In this way, India becomes a pehredar for the South China Sea and Malacca Straits... securing a choke-point that serves the US' PACCOM interests more than our own, and which the US itself is helping to make redundant as a choke-point by supporting a trans-Gwadar westward route for China. Essentially we will be helping police the US' allies' interests in the South China Sea, playing Gungadin to support the US hegemony of security guarantees to ASEAN and the Philippines; meanwhile China itself will have free, US-guaranteed access to its west via Gwadar where we have turned a blind eye.

Do I really need to spell out why this is unacceptable?

A thousand times, no. We need to pull out ALL the stops to make sure that both the CPEC route via POK/NA, and if possible the Af-Pak-Gwadar route via Afghanistan, cannot work for China. We have to destroy any sense of security Beijing might have regarding the carrots that the US is holding out to China. Too bad for the US and its interests. It is in OUR interest that these routes never become established routes of commerce that the world economy depends on, and that the "international community" will later band together to protect if threatened.

If that ever happens, goodbye Kashmir, goodbye Afghanistan.

Unless the US is prepared to see that the carrot of a westward route that it is offering China runs directly contrary to Indian interests... and agrees to fully accommodate Indian interests in this regard... Carter (and every carpetbagger who travels to India in his wake) should go back with absolutely nothing from us.

2)

---
RD my gut instinct was US wants to protect China by engaging India.
You have given the rationale.

Ramana garu, if we are right, the repercussions are vast.

Have you had a strange feeling about the nature of the J&K separatist movement lately? I feel it has taken a turn away from the old path of overt Islamization (which had bad-PR associations, given the kind of publicity Taliban, Pakiban and Al Qaeda garnered for themselves over the last 15 years).

It has, since Modi's election, adopted more of the intifada/"Orange Revolution" color it used to have in the Robin Raphel days... designed to give it a sense of "respectability" as a "true democratic movement for self-determination" in international eyes.

Even the terrorist attacks have shifted to mainly military targets, like Pathankot AFB; meanwhile, terror against civilians in Jammu comes directly from Pakistan's artillery guns across the IB (not gruesome beheadings by jihadi infiltrators like in the days of Doda and Udhampur in the 1990s). This kind of ethnic cleansing easily escapes notice in the international media (after all, the "most dangerous border in the world" is always a place of cross-border firing).

Something is going on here. It is suggestive of a collusion between US SD and Pakistan to give the Kashmir separatist movement a "makeover", and change it into something the "international community" can get behind. The narrative is being reinvented... Hindu Fundamentalist, intolerant India is "oppressing civilians" in Kashmir, and it is in the world's interest that we should "free" the Kashmiri people before they coalesce around dangerous ISIS-type Islam and become an international threat.

If we look at this in the context of needing to keep India away from the CPEC... preventing us from breaking the CPEC at the key POK/NA nexus... it begins to make a new kind of sense.

3)

RD: Let me stick to likely possibilities and not theories which are difficult to prove. I think China is ready to up the stakes with a full base in Gwadar. It will not be official but a strong air base in Kashgar with overflight rights in TSP, AWACS, refuelers and extensive transfer of Subs, aircrafts of all types to PN and PAF. Gwadar will see permanent stationing of PLAN assets by way of replenishments and like. (estimates are as of now, it is one PLAN sub a month that makes a visit to the IOR). It is TSP's way of selling herself to another bidder as her former lover is now bored of her. PLAN is getting ready to defend its own assets in the Gulf and Gwadar is its lynchpin - so no US delegation. For Pakistan, the geo-political drivers to be in bed with China are far more compelling than the policeman, she was courting. What was missing was Chinese heft and willingness, which is now in play. We may be able to block Gwadar but then be ready for a two front war. check mate India?

Is the hug with the US, India's response? If it is, then TSP/PRC plan has succeeded. It further solidifies, PRC wanting India to stay firmly with in southasia, with China in control of its periphery. PLAN may not have the heft yet to dominate the oceans but by controlling the littoral states, it controls the outcome leaving India to float in the empty waters of the ocean? At the end of the day a few Chinese ships destroyed is a bad bargain to China's control of our land access routes.

We need aggressive steps in the littoral states and make moves to increase the threat profile to China from India to make it back off from CPEC. China wants to compete with the Crab and not just one of its claws. Expect China to make the next moves in Iran.

[ramana]

More x-posts...

I'm having difficulty with the case being made that the us is playing the "balance of power" game, but at the same time wants to "protect" China by "managing" India? Why? They like China more?

JEM:

It isn't just "managing India" and "protecting China"... let's not hang too much on the semantics of what are essentially very reductive one-word descriptions of complex policies.

Indeed, the term one hears very, very often (in what purports to be "serious" literature issuing from US think tanks) over the last couple of decades is "managing China's rise."

China is rising, as everyone has known for a while. Some of that rising is indubitably good from the US' point of view, particularly for large corporations, big players in financial markets, and their lobbies in Washington. Hamiltonian policy imperatives dictate that the best way to keep a nation "on-side" is to get heavily entangled with its economy... so that anything the Chinese do that could directly harm the US would in turn harm the US economy, and thus inescapably harm the Chinese economy.

This has, for the most part, been achieved. The Chinese have a limit beyond which they will not actively try to harm the US directly. That in itself determines a certain parity of interests between these two so-called "geopolitical adversaries". Nothing like this was ever achieved by Washington with respect to the Russians or Iranians, for example... so the threat perceptions for those two nations are entirely different.

But what about growth in other dimensions than the economic? China also has hegemonic ambitions: domination of territory, foreign markets, and natural resources in its own imperium, particularly the near-abroad. It wants to create an expanding sphere of influence in which it is top-dog, and also challenge the current top-dog (the US) in that expanding area. This is DISTINCT, mind you, from directly harming the US... it is more of a rivalry or competition for dominance over third parties... not so different from, say, the Portuguese/Dutch/British fighting for influence over overseas colonial possessions even if they were not actively at war with each other on their home turf.

This is where the "managing" comes in.

The US doesn't want to confront China to the point of restricting all its hegemonic growth. Rather, it wants to channelize that expansion, as far as possible, in directions that don't conflict with defined and established US interests, and in fact become dependent on US dominance in its OWN defined spheres of interest.

Hence: the US does NOT want China to expand eastward (push into the Pacific, or Western Pacific littoral states, which are US clients.) The US does NOT want China to expand southeast or due south, into ASEAN. But southwest is perfectly OK. Due west and northwest are tricky... if the Chinese expand their sphere of influence in those directions, then from the US perspective, it must happen in such a way as to bring China into greater CONFLICT and less COOPERATION with Russia and Iran, and it is preferable that it happen in such a way as to coincide and synergize with the US' own interests in those directions.*

India is a different story. India has not risen as China has, as far and as quickly as China has, for various reasons. Hence "managing" India involves a different set of issues for the US. The US no longer sees us as a basketcase of the 50s, 60s, or 70s... far from it. The Hamiltonian economic entanglements, however, have far less interpenetration in the US-India scenario than the US-China scenario. Part of the reason for this is that India is a democracy and cannot grow economically by diktat.

India, for the US, is at a very different place on the ascending ladder than China is. We are climbing the ladder at a different pace than China was and is. It is not in the US' interest to grind India down. But neither is it in the US' interest to push us up at a rate that would threaten China... this is what I fervently believe, even though it flies in the face of all the "counterweight to China" rhetorical soundbites doing the rounds on twitter and news-trading websites. The US WANTS China to keep expanding in a direction that could potentially threaten India, rather than potentially threatening US clients like Japan and Soko; meanwhile, the US also wants India to become more dependent on the US as a result of feeling threatened by Chinese expansion... something that would, in turn, make India's FUTURE growth more manageable for the US.

This is how empires do their thing. It is subtle and doesn't lend itself to neatly-defined rhetorical posturing, but there it is IMHO.

*Footnote: THAT is why the CPEC or Af-Pak to Gwadar models make sense for the US. The Chinese build their own infrastructure all the way from eastern China manufacturing hubs across the Tibetan plateau and to the Karakoram Highway (all security guaranteed by PLA up to this point). They continue building across POK/NA into Pakistan and link with Pakistani arteries leading up to Gwadar (security guaranteed by PLA plus Pakistan armed forces and security forces along this stretch.)

But what happens after Gwadar? Is it worth the huge expense of building and maintaining this fantastically complex and difficult infrastructure, the CPEC, only to get Chinese goods to Gwadar? Who is going to buy all these goods there... Altaf Hussain's Ammi? No... the whole point of bringing Chinese goods to Gwadar is so that they can be loaded on ships and taken to their real markets in West Asia and Europe.

BUT who guarantees the security of ships plying the critical leg of this trade route between Gwadar and West Asia/Europe? The US, of course, via maritime dominance of CENTCOM.

Just as a co-dependency has evolved between American consumer markets and Chinese manufacturers, the US would like to extend that Hamiltonian entanglement by evolving a co-dependency of CPEC trade route and CENTCOM maritime security, with the added investment of energy suppliers going the other way (bringing oil and natural gas into Gwadar and trucking/pipelining it back up along the CPEC to eastern China). A whole ecosystem is thus built around this trade route in which China, the US, the Pakistanis, the EU (end customers of Chinese goods) and the ME nations (original suppliers of energy) become inextricably committed.

The one nation that can play spoiler... with its armed forces poised along the chicken-neck of the CPEC in POK/NA, and its navy capable of shutting down the Pakistani coast... is India. IF India allows this plan to proceed as envisioned, we will find ourselves overwhelmingly opposed by a large bloc of nations to anything that could interfere with the trade route in which they have all invested so much.

That is why it is imperative to disrupt this in any way we can.

and

In a nutshell: the US views China as an empire that should be dissuaded from challenging the US' own empire, and India as a nation that should be dissuaded from becoming an empire at all.


Their solution for China is to tie up the fortunes of China's empire with those of the US' empire so that both prosper or fail together.

Their solution for India is to persuade India to become a client of the US rather than a contending empire in our own right. This is done by strengthening the Chinese empire's expansion into India's sphere of influence, and then promising India protection from the threat of the Chinese empire's expansion... all the while blowing smoke up the a$$es of Indians that we are a "great nation".

Note that NOWHERE have I said that India is helpless or paralyzed or without hope (I do believe it was between 2004-2014, but I have faith that things are turning around now). I am just articulating what I see as the US strategy. Having recognized that, it is up to India to formulate our own strategy accordingly.

[rahulm]

Saudi - US love fest

Saudis threaten to sell off $US750b in US assets if Congress passes 9/11 bill

The Saudi Arabian government has threatened to sell hundreds of billions of dollars worth of American assets should the US Congress pass a bill that could hold the kingdom responsible for any role in the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Saudi's trying to squeeze Uncles economic gonads. They sure have b@lls.

The officials have warned senators of diplomatic and economic fallout from the legislation.

Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir delivered the kingdom's message personally last month during a trip to Washington, telling lawmakers that Saudi Arabia would be forced to sell up to $US750 billion ($975 billion) in Treasury securities and other assets....

Several outside economists were sceptical the Saudis would follow through, saying that such a sell-off would be difficult to execute and would end up crippling the kingdom's economy.

However, the threat is another sign of the escalating tensions between Saudi Arabia and the US.

.....conclusions of a 2002 congressional inquiry into the attacks that cited some evidence that Saudi officials living in the US at the time had a hand in the plot.

[kit]

Saudi - US love fest

Saudis threaten to sell off $US750b in US assets if Congress passes 9/11 bill

The Saudi Arabian government has threatened to sell hundreds of billions of dollars worth of American assets should the US Congress pass a bill that could hold the kingdom responsible for any role in the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Saudi's trying to squeeze Uncles economic gonads. They sure have b@lls.

The officials have warned senators of diplomatic and economic fallout from the legislation.

Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir delivered the kingdom's message personally last month during a trip to Washington, telling lawmakers that Saudi Arabia would be forced to sell up to $US750 billion ($975 billion) in Treasury securities and other assets....

Several outside economists were sceptical the Saudis would follow through, saying that such a sell-off would be difficult to execute and would end up crippling the kingdom's economy.

However, the threat is another sign of the escalating tensions between Saudi Arabia and the US.

.....conclusions of a 2002 congressional inquiry into the attacks that cited some evidence that Saudi officials living in the US at the time had a hand in the plot.

wont the Saudi gonads be squeezed as well in the process ?! .. what if Obama calls the bluff !

[chanakyaa]

George Friedman: NATO is an illusion

[chanakyaa]

Saudis threaten to sell off $US750b in US assets if Congress passes 9/11 bill

Interesting rhetoric. Are they really that angry? If they were, they would have threatened to stop selling 11% their contribution of oil exports, as in 80s. Wait, but TSJ would argue that world is flooded with oil, so those threats would not work. Never mind. Looks like a large monetary settlement is cooking up behind the scene.

[Neshant]

by that logic, it would be easy to "convict" Pakistan of all kinds of associations with terrorists.

in fact US itself would be convicted of financing terrorism and abetting it.

[Adrija]

Rudradev garu wrote:

In a nutshell: the US views China as an empire that should be dissuaded from challenging the US' own empire, and India as a nation that should be dissuaded from becoming an empire at all.

Just one small comment to add to the picture- the US long term obsession is to ensure Russia does not become strong, and they have always cultivated China accordingly (and of course, used Japan to control China, Korea to balance Japan, now India against China as well but Pak against India, etc etc)

But China main value has always been "card against Russia" play

However, China is a fragile nation, and prone to disintegration cyclically. Chinese history has been a yin-yang struggle on two main counts- North vs South tension, and keeping in check a historically restive population. The answer has "always" been economic growth- previously in the middle ages continued harvest (mainly rice) as a sign of the continuing mandate of the "Son of Heaven", and now jobs

So China has to be propped up and ensured continued viability. But not too much, as otherwise it can become "too" strong. The US doesn't always get this balance right- I personally think they tipped too far in making China stronger than what they would have liked- but now the balance has swung the other way

JM2 cents and IMVVHO and all that

[Prem]

[RajeshA]

Rudradev garu wrote:

In a nutshell: the US views China as an empire that should be dissuaded from challenging the US' own empire, and India as a nation that should be dissuaded from becoming an empire at all.

Just one small comment to add to the picture- the US long term obsession is to ensure Russia does not become strong, and they have always cultivated China accordingly (and of course, used Japan to control China, Korea to balance Japan, now India against China as well but Pak against India, etc etc)

All this balancing was good as long as USA was really the undisputed and richest king. Things have changed, and all this balancing is not really working out.

In 2017-2018, I expect USA-Russia relations to improve dramatically, if Trump wins. If that happens, everything else changes accordingly. China becomes the main rival, and Russia could move away from China.

[svinayak]

All this balancing was good as long as USA was really the undisputed and richest king. Things have changed, and all this balancing is not really working out.

In 2017-2018, I expect USA-Russia relations to improve dramatically, if Trump wins. If that happens, everything else changes accordingly. China becomes the main rival, and Russia could move away from China.

Trump came out and into politics because of this.
He figured out that it is not working out and all his debate on policies are based on this.

He knows a coalition is required and immediate threat has to be faced

[ramana]

Russia is a nuclear issue.
China is economic issue.
RIC would be scary for US.

US is also wooing India for China's sake.

Complicated moves.

[Bhurishrava]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... ts-own-oil

Russia will price its own oil. Also most likely delinking it with Dollar.

[ramana]

Iran news...
X-posting...

The iranians are as slimy as the pakis, hope someone in GOI is watchful


http://www.khorasannews-en.com/en/doc/n ... from-india

Iran reports huge rail purchase from India
Monday 25 April 2016 12:52

Iran says it has purchased 250,000 tons of rails from India through a scheme that envisages an almost full payment for the purchase by the India government.

Iran said on Sunday that it had made a major purchase of rails from India, adding the payment for almost the entire of the purchase had been made by New Delhi,Press TV reported.

Mohsen Pour-Seyyed Aqaei, the managing director of the Islamic Republic of Iran Railways (IRIR), has been quoted by the media as saying that the total weight of the rails that have been purchased from India stands at 250,000 tons.



Iran says it has purchased 250,000 tons of rails from India through a scheme that envisages an almost full payment for the purchase by the India government.

“Five percent of the funds required for the purchase will be provided by the IRIR,” said Pour-Seyyed Aqaei. “The remaining 95 percent of the funds will be provided by the Indian government.”
The official further added that the rails will be used to develop the train network across Iran over the current Iranian calendar year which ends in March 2017.
He also emphasized that the priority for the IRIR is to provide its required rails from domestic sources, but added that the leading supplier in the market – Esfahan Steel Company (also known as Zob Ahan) – is yet to announce when it can supply IRIR’s demands.
Last July, IRIR’s Deputy Director Saeid Mohammadzadeh was quoted by the media as saying that India plans to finance exporting about 150,000 tons of standard rail tracks to Iran.
Mohammadzadeh said that India has created a special mechanism to support exports of rail tracks to Iran through the “full finance” scheme, and that Iran will not pay anything in return.
Officials in Tehran have already emphasized that Iran wants to spend up to $8 billion over the next six years to revamp and expand its railway network.
To the same effect, they have emphasized that the country will need about 3 million tons of steel rails to connect all major cities, industrial centers and also ports for faster evacuation of goods.

It could be a follow-up from recent Sushma Swaraj visit to Tehran. It was announced then India would supply the rails as its contribution to the rail network.

[Bhurishrava]

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 348_1.html
http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 455_1.html

Two articles by former commerce secretary Rajeev Kher on what India needs to do to get going on the world trade business.

[Bhurishrava]

http://www.dw.com/en/french-lawmakers-v ... a-19223170

French lawmakers vote for lifting EU sanctions against Russia.

Former president Nicolas Sarkozy's Republican party - alongside center-right and far-left groups - voted for a lifting of sanctions, while the Socialists and Greens voted against.
"(The sanctions are) totally ineffective today to solve this international crisis and are dangerous for France's interests," said conservative MP Thierry Mariani, who put forward the resolution.

"The measures are dangerous for our economy," Mariani added, giving as examples the cancellation of the sale of two Mistral warships to Russia over the crisis.

Fischer's statements echoed similar calls made in early February by Austria's Vice-Chancellor Reinhold Mitterlehner, who said that EU sanctions against Russia had not led to any political progress but only damaged Austria's economy.

[Philip]

Australia-Japan defense vision takes hit with submarine snub

By John Power on April 27, 2016 in Asia Times News & Features, China, Japan


MELBOURNE–Australia’s choice of a French supplier for 12 next-generation submarines puts a dampener on burgeoning defense ties with Japan, often pegged as the natural partner to counter rising Chinese influence in cooperation with the United States.

The DCNS Shortfin Barracuda
The DCNS Shortfin Barracuda

Canberra’s choice of Paris-based firm DCNS drew a disappointed reaction from Tokyo, which many analysts had favored for its strategic significance as a mutual U.S. ally and Asian power. The three bidders had also included German firm TKMS.

Japanese Defense Minister Gen Nakatan described Tuesday’s announcement as “deeply regrettable,” calling on Australia to explain its decision.

Previous Prime Minister Tony Abbot, who lost the top post in a September leadership spill, was widely thought to have favored Japan for the $40 billion-project before being pressured into holding a competitive evaluation.

Shortly after taking office, he called Japan the country’s “best friend in Asia” and cultivated a close relationship with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

“I think Japan was seen to have the inside running if the decision was to be made on strategic grounds,” Andrew Davies, an analyst at the Canberra-based Australian Strategic Policy Institute, told Asia Times. “I think there was a strong positive there. I think the Americans would have preferred a Japanese solution, and I think the former Abbot government absolutely preferred a Japanese solution.”

Australia has increasingly signaled its intention to act as a buffer to growing Chinese assertiveness, particularly in the South China Sea where Beijing is embroiled in a raft of territorial disputes with Southeast Asian nations. The conservative Liberal Party-led government’s 2016 Defense White Paper attracted considerable attention for its focus on the tensions, including a public rebuke from China.

Along with the U.S., Canberra already conducts regular sea and air patrols in the area. It has also previously joined Washington and Tokyo in protesting Beijing’s contentious island-building project in the waters.

Amid these tensions, Australia has in recent years appeared to be moving toward Tokyo, despite conducting its biggest portion of trade with Beijing.

On a visit to Tokyo in February, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, who retained her portfolio from Abbot’s tenure, trumpeted plans for more military exchanges and combined exercises between the countries.

In the end, strategic concerns appear to have lost out to technical specifications, with the French design, a modified version of its Shortfin Barracuda, seen to have size and propulsion advantages, according to Davies.

“The Japanese got dragged into a competition with a couple of commercial European firms and they didn’t enjoy that at all,” said Davies. “And now they’ve lost face and been embarrassed as well as that. So, all in all, this has been a quite unpleasant experience for Japan. And I expect that for the next few months or even longer, there’ll be a distinct cooling in the relationship between Australia and Japan.”

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull insisted, however, that the “special strategic partnership” with Japan remained a priority while announcing the winning bid in Adelaide, the city in South Australia where the boats will be built.

Even if relations temporarily suffered, external circumstances would continue to push Australia and Japan together in the long term, Davies said.

“I think the things that brought Australia and Japan together to start talking about this in the first place are still there: The rising Chinese hard power in the region and the competition between China and the United States and its allies,” he said. “And I think Australia and Japan will eventually end up with a big defense relationship anyway.”

John Power is a journalist who has reported on North and South Korea since 2010. His work has appeared in outlets including The Daily Mail, The Christian Science Monitor, Mashable, NK News, Asian Geographic, The Diplomat, The Korea Herald and Narratively, among others. He is currently based in Melbourne, Australia.

http://atimes.com/2016/04/australia-jap ... rine-snub/

[Philip]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 09531.html

Anti-immigrant AfD says Muslims are not welcome in Germany
The far-right party has seen its support jump due to the migrant crisis
Tina Bellon

Members of the anti-immigration party Alternative for Germany (AfD) have backed an election manifesto that says Islam is not compatible with the constitution and calls for a ban on minarets and the burqa.

Set up three years ago, the AfD has been buoyed by Europe's migrant crisis, which saw the arrival of more than one million, mostly Muslim migrants, in Germany last year. The party has no lawmakers in the federal parliament in Berlin but has members in half of Germany's 16 regional state assemblies.

Opinion polls give AfD support of up to 14 per cent, presenting a serious challenge to Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservatives and other established parties ahead of the 2017 federal election. They rule out any coalition with the

Revealed: the neo-Nazi manifesto that AfD doesn't want you to see
.In a raucous debate on the second day of a party congress, many of the 2,000 members cheered calls from the podium for measures against "Islamic symbols of power" and jeered a plea for dialogue with Germany's Muslims.

"Islam is foreign to us and for that reason it cannot invoke the principle of religious freedom to the same degree as Christianity," said Hans-Thomas Tillschneider, an AfD lawmaker from the state of Saxony-Anhalt, to loud applause.

Merkel has said freedom of religion for all is guaranteed by Germany's constitution and has said on many occasions that Islam belongs to Germany.

Up to 2,000 left-wing demonstrators clashed with police on Saturday as they tried to break up the first full AfD conference. About 500 people were briefly detained and 10 police officers were lightly injured, a police spokesman said.

The chapter of the AfD manifesto concerning Muslims is entitled "Islam is not a part of Germany". The manifesto demands a ban to minarets - the towers of a mosque from where the call to Muslim prayer is made - and the burqa, the all-encompassing body garment worn by some conservative Muslim women.

Germany is home to nearly four million Muslims, about five percent of the total population. Many of the longer established Muslim community in Germany came from Turkey to find work, but those who have arrived over the past year have mostly been fleeing conflicts in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Last month the head of Germany's Central Council of Muslims likened the AfD's attitude towards his community to that of Adolf Hitler's Nazis towards the Jews.

Although the AfD aimed to broaden its political agenda during the congress, members hardly debated on domestic issues, such as taxation and social welfare.

The head of Germany's DGB confederation of trade unions, Reiner Hoffmann, sharply criticised the AfD's programme.

"Their alternatives are nothing but simple, dull and inconsistent," Hoffmann said in a speech at an DGB event in Stuttgart to mark Labour Day.

He said the AfD was not only conducting a hate campaign against refugees, but also aiming for a tax policy that was against the interests of workers.

[ramana]

Philip, I worte this 16 years ago:

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/archives/ ... amana.html

The Challenge of China

D. Ramana



The end of Cold War and followed by the collapse of Soviet Union have transformed the geo-politics globally. Consequently, ideological confrontation has been reduced to a competition between states. While the prospect of nuclear confrontation in Europe has significantly diminished, there remains the problem of reforming of Asian socialism, limited as it may be to China, Vietnam and North Korea. Recent initiatives by the United States to draw North Korea into the world community are encouraging and should be continued. However the moves seem to be driven by need for reducing instability in the Pacific Rim due to continuation of intransigence of the North Koreans. The impact of North Korean behavior in other regions due to propensity to proliferate WMD technology should be taken into account. They have been a source of missile proliferation to rogue states in the Middle East and South Asia (Pakistan). The profile of these transfers notwithstanding, North Korea was and remains a surrogate of People’s Republic of China, and it the latter that requires a closer examination.

The Chinese Challenge

In order to understand the challenge that China represents, one needs to understand the challenge that the Soviet Union, another totalitarian state, once posed. The superpower label used to describe the Soviet Union was misleading, in that Soviet Union was chiefly an ideologically driven military and political power. Despite its prodigious output during World War II and after, the Soviet Union was by no means an economic power. Its inability to successfully transition from a war economy to a peacetime consumer economy ultimately proved to be its undoing. The West, led by United States, formulated the ‘Containment’ policy in order to contain the spread of Soviet power with its system of alliances. However one has to realize that the Soviet Union had already reached its limits of its power soon after end of WWII. Its expansion in Eastern Europe was due to the quest for buffer territory from Germany and later Western Europe. Its forays out of its ‘near abroad’ were limited and reciprocal. The Afghan war stretched its resources and sapped its morale. The economic collapse that followed the intervention led to its implosion and collapse as the ‘other superpower’.

China in contrast is both a rising economic and political power. Its military though modernizing is limited to strategic weapons and does not have any real capability to influence any major event in the near term. Unlike Soviet Union, which was implementing a Western ideology, China's political thought is rooted in nationalism. It has been beating back invaders for over 3000 years. Few nations can boast of its continuity in history and a track record of survival. It has absorbed many invasions and has survived each of them. Its interlude with Communism should be seen in that light as another invasion – an invasion of ideas.

China’s evolution today represents the vision of two individuals- Mao Ze Dung and Deng Xiao Peng. The Mao’s contributions are many, but key among them is his role as nation builder. In particular, he unified China under communist rule, obtained nuclear weapons, and consolidated China’s place in the world. It took the Soviet Union seventy years to realize the folly of its economic policies. China, on the other hand, realized this in about thirty years and Deng launched the four modernizations to transform it. Significant among them is the absence of any devolution of political power. In fact soon after the modernization program was launched, the regime suffered a jolt in the form of political dissent form of the Democracy Movement and led to the Tienannmen Square massacres. This event shook the very core of the regime and hardened its attitudes towards political dissent. The West hopes that by constructive engagement it can bring about gradual changes to the Chinese polity. The hope is that the government will transition from totalitarianism to authoritarianism to eventually democracy. The adoption of pragmatic policies by Deng Xiao Peng, and end of Cold War show that it is making the transition to authoritarian state. In all possibility this could be the most that will happen. Engagement with the West is bringing about tremendous pressure for political change from the newly rich. However, the regime in Beijing wants to keep all political freedoms in control while it leapfrogs from ox-carts to a modern economy without giving up anything on the political side. It fears democratization could derail the process of modernization and undermine the authority of the Communist Party. Consequently, economic liberalization has not been accompanied by political liberalization.

The challenge of Taiwan to the Chinese political system

Taiwan’s democratic transformation throws up a major ideological challenge to the mainland’s political system. Many mainlanders would question the authoritarian nature of their state if the Taiwan experiment succeeds. The mainland is tackling the challenge in two ways- by treating Taiwan as a renegade province it questions the legitimacy of that political system which could undermine it- this is accompanied by keeping up the military pressure and numerous threats. The second way is that of proposing ‘one country two systems’ type of government. Both these paths appear to be aimed at buying time while it grows stronger. As can be seen the fight is internal and will get resolved with the march of time. However it is in the interest of the world community that Taiwan exists as an example of contrast to the people of China.

China and the World

China is a member of many of the power bodies of the world. Its pretence at being a responsible international player is not matched by its actions on the ground. Despite being a member of the UN Security Council its participation in peacekeeping missions are few and that too in non-combatant roles. Despite being a member of many international treaties it has proliferated weapons of mass destruction in its own strategic interest and has thus spread suffering.

In order to understand its policy of proliferation, one must understand that this constituted practicing war by other means. Realizing that direct war can be costly, China has found the asymmetric weapon of proliferation to tie down its challengers- declared and potential. Its nurturing the North Korean regime to tie down South Korea and principally Japan has backfired. The latter is drawn more closely into security arrangements with the US than during the Cold War. And possibly that could be a goal of the Chinese- a Japan tied up in a relationship with the US is better than an autonomous Japan. And North Korean belligerent moves have prompted the neighbors into participating in US theater missile defenses, which in turn degrade China’s posture. Its proliferation to Pakistan has prompted India to unveil its nuclear capability and it is a matter of time for the Indian posture to build up sufficiently to dissuade China. It is contributing to the instability in the Middle East by proliferation and hopes to weaken the US based alliances in the region. One has to see how this turns out in the future.

Taking a long view of China’s history, the nearby regions have suffered whenever China had a weak center. From the time of the Mongol invasions to the colonial era, there has been negative fallout in the region whenever China had weak regimes. However strong centers have also resulted in a spillover of hegemonistic tendencies prompting a former Thai minister to say, "The best thing China can do is stay together and stay at home!" What is desirable is a benign son of heaven in Beijing for peace and prosperity in Asia and now in a globalized world. However till that happens, one has to be on guard.

Threat to India and responses

The post Cold War was hoped to give rise to multiple poles. China sees for itself a bipolar role globally and a unipolar role regionally. It is in this aspect that its moves to check India’s rise to power should be seen. Most Indian observers state that the loss of Tibet as a buffer has brought about problems in the Indo- Sino relationship. However it is not understood that the occupation of Tibet was an essential element of the Chinese worldview for gaining domination in Asia. It is the desire to dominate and play a zero sum game that drives the dissonance in the relationship and than mere border disputes. Here again it has taken advantage of the confusion among the Indian elite in recognizing the challenge it presents to them. Here is an instance of Sun Tzu’s precepts in practice to confuse the challenger in order to achieve strategic surprise.

Ever since Sumdrong Chu, China seems to have decided that direct confrontation is not a feasible option and has propped up Pakistan as a surrogate. The proliferation of delivery systems started in late 1988 along with the declarations of peace. It is notable that these transfers took place after the Cold War was waning and appears to be part of a long-term strategy to tie up India locally. The hoped for response did not materialize as India took steps to protect its strategic autonomy.

The potential areas where China could cause direct problems for India are mainly two – proliferation of WMD to Pakistan and support for insurgencies in the North- East region. It can cause indirect problems through dragging its feet on the unsettled border and veto India’s membership in world councils. Proliferation of weapons and delivery systems to Pakistan increases instability and causes resources diverted to defense related systems. The umbilical can only be cut by forceful posture with Agni-III deployment and a visible the C3I system put in place. The nuclear tests in the late nineties and the deployment of the deterrent will contribute in mitigating the effects of the proliferation. Active dialog and steps have to be taken to raise the costs to the proliferators to dissuade them. Pursuing peace efforts in Kashmir with the local militants will go a long way to diffuse the situation and remove the rationale for Pakistan to offer ‘moral ‘ support to the militancy.

The trouble in North East and an unsettled border lead to increase or sustained military/paramilitary expenditure, which reduces economic growth. These could be accompanied by encouraging intransigence in neighbors- Myanmar etc. Here again a mixture of economic and political measures should tackle the internal troubles. Integrating the North East into the mainstream of the Indian economy is an urgent and required step and should be pursued regardless. As regards the neighbors, expansion of BMIST, and a new regional economic integration are needed to ensure ASEAN type of system. This should go a long way in discouraging the propensity to support such behavior in neighbors.

Conclusion

Its threat is mainly an indirect one through proliferation to Pakistan and support of insurgencies in the North East. It could also harass India by prolonging the border settlement and oppose entry into world bodies. The response has to be increased economic growth and regional integration to reduce propensity for conflict accompanied by a watchful eye on defense related systems. As China eventually resolves for itself the role that it wants to play in the world, India has to be on its guard. China’s attempts to constrain India are doomed to fail for India has historically never taken a back seat to China. The realization should be that it is not that China directly threatens India but rather it reduces and diminishes India’s power.

[Bhurishrava]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-asia- ... SKCN0XS1NG

As Asia's rice crop shrivels, food security fears resurface

A heat wave is sweeping top rice exporter India, while the No.2 supplier Thailand is facing a second year of drought. Swathes of farmland in Vietnam, the third-biggest supplier, are also parched as irrigation fed by the Mekong river runs dry.

China, the world's top importer, taking about 5 million tonnes annually, is expected to continue this buying pace. IGC has forecast China's 2016 production will fall short of consumption for a third consecutive year.

[RajeshA]

Published on Mar 8, 2016
By Howard Richman and Raymond Richman
Would Trump's Trade Policy Really Cause a Recession?: American Thinker

In short, Romney doesn't appear to understand the economics of trade. Economic research about the "tariff-growth paradox," including one of our own academic papers, has found that tariffs hurt economic growth only when trade is relatively balanced. But periods of history during which world trade has been relatively balanced (such as 1840-1865 and 1950-1973) have been followed by periods during which world trade became more and more unbalanced. The world is once again experiencing a period of high trade imbalances (like the 1890s and the 1930s) in which trade-deficit countries can grow more rapidly simply by increasing their tariff rates. Anything that Trump does to balance the enormous U.S. trade deficits will be economically beneficial.

[Prem]

https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/05/04/th ... ghtenment/
The (Con)Fusion of Civilizations
( Importance of Modi Dharmic Doctrine To Balance Cultural Vultural Civilisational Bacchas:Loss of Economic Decade Has temporarily Pushed us Back)

s all for the best in this best of all possible worlds? If you’re looking for an upbeat assessment of recent global trends, check out the essay by Kishore Mahbubani and Larry Summers (“The Fusion of Civilizations”) in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs. Instead of a world of dysfunctional democracies, violent extremism, eroding institutions, and incipient Sino-American rivalry, they depict a globe where once-disparate civilizations are increasingly connected by shared values and constrained by a rules-based international order.For starters, does a rising middle class make states less likely to compete with one another and less prone to use force? It would be nice to think so, and I can think of various reasons why this might be true. But history is at best ambiguous on this point, and scholarly efforts to explore the links between economic inequality and interstate conflict have been inconclusive. Europe’s middle class grew dramatically between 1850 and 1914, for example, but that development did not prevent the continent from plunging into World Wars I and II, two of the bloodiest conflicts in recorded history.Mahbubani and Summers’s faith in human reason is even more puzzling. The Enlightenment occurred in the 18th century, and dozens of wars have taken place since then. Moreover, countries where Enlightenment values were embraced and extolled, such as revolutionary France, were involved in many of those fights. If human reason and pragmatic cost-benefit analysis were a reliable barrier to war, then surely the past two centuries would have been far more peaceful than they were.
Recent events reinforce the point. Ancient superstitions and clashing cultures did not lead the United States into war in Iraq in 2003; on the contrary, the people who conceived and sold that war were the products of America’s finest universities and were presumably well schooled in post-Enlightenment rationalism and basic cost-benefit analysis. Yale- and Harvard-educated George W. Bush was even lauded as “the MBA President,” and he was surrounded by people with similar pedigrees. Yet these highly educated, rational individuals still blundered into an unnecessary and disastrous war. Even a cool pragmatist like Barack Obama has admitted doing “stupid stuff” while in office, further underscoring the limits of human reason in the political realm.Even a cool pragmatist like Barack Obama has admitted doing “stupid stuff” while in office, further underscoring the limits of human reason in the political realm.Mahbubani and Summers do recognize trouble may still arise, saying “the possibility of an aggressive, militaristic China cannot be ruled out,” and warning that demagogues may exploit popular fears “even in the advanced industrial world.” But they are plainly just hedging their bets, for they conclude by predicting “the progressive direction of human history … is set to continue.”Again, let us hope they are right. What’s missing from their upbeat story, however, is a sound understanding of the forces that have led to international conflict in the past and are likely to fuel it in the future. Mahbubani and Summers reject Huntington’s gloomy forecast of civilizational clashes, but their argument adopts the same flawed “civilizational” template and its corresponding emphasis on culture as the main driver of international behavior. Because they assume conflict arises primarily from cultural differences, they believe cross-cultural “fusion” will remove this source of trouble and ensure a tranquil future.
But as I noted when Huntington’s book first appeared, civilizations are not actors and they do not make decisions for war or peace. Even now, the main actors in world politics are states and the most powerful political ideology in the world is nationalism. Nationalism explains why the number of countries continues to rise, why supranational institutions like the European Union are in trouble, and why China and its neighbors are increasingly at odds over seemingly minor chunks of territory in the open seas. And in China, nationalism and the middle class seem to be on the rise simultaneously. The power of nationalism and other forms of local identity helps explain the stubborn and bitter resistance the United States has faced in the Middle East (and elsewhere), and it is the real reason why Huntington’s original thesis was wrong. Ironically, his data showed that clashes within civilizations have been and remain more common than conflicts between them, and the vast majority of these conflicts arose not from cultural differences but from familiar security concerns.
Furthermore, events in the past month have not been kind to their basic thesis. A couple of weeks after their article appeared, the Chinese government “passed a new law restricting the work of foreign organizations and their local partners, mainly through police supervision,” a move designed to curtail the cross-cultural influences the authors extol. Similar measures have been implemented or proposed in Russia, Egypt, Israel, and several other countries in recent years. A few days ago, the increasingly popular far-right party Alternative for Germany called for a ban on minarets and burqas in Germany, an overtly anti-Muslim stance that echoes French restrictions on headscarves and the rightward shifts in Austria, Hungary, the Netherlands, and Poland. Cultures may be blending in some ways — just as they have in the past — but a lot of people don’t like it as much as Mahbubani and Summers do. And one of those people may be the next U.S. president.Lastly, let us not forget that countries don’t just exchange recipes, musical scores, and technological know-how; they sometimes converge in more disturbing ways. Doctrines like communism and fascism crossed cultural borders in the past, and today extreme ideologies can be disseminated at the click of a mouse. Nuclear weapons technology has spread to nine countries over the past 60 years, and 19 states have followed the United States’s lead and acquired their own fleet of armed drones. If a Chinese exchange student learns about the Monroe Doctrine in a course on American history, is it possible she might see this idea as an appealing blueprint for China’s position in Asia? And so forth. Globalization may bring the world closer together culturally, but the blend is bound to include both the good and the bad.

[chanakyaa]

Regime change plot by impeaching Dilma aunty continues to thickenchicken..

Brazil Coup Watch: Impeachment Efforts Against Rousseff Faltering?

[kmkraoind]

I think this is a big news and its a check to Sino-Pak.

Japan eyes development of Iranian port: Report - Presstv.ir

Tokyo hopes to team up with India in the development of the regional logistics hub in southeastern Iran, according to the Nikkei Asian Review citing its sources on Sunday.

The report said Tokyo wants to be part of a project on the construction of a site, which is set to include a port and an industrial complex in Chabahar.

It said Tokyo is keen to build stronger ties with Tehran and that Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe hopes to reach a deal on the port during a planned visit to the Iranian capital later this year.

[Philip]

On the 71st anniversary of the defeat of Germany in WW2,let's remember the heroic role played by the Russian armed forces and the 28 million who died due to the Nazis ,loses far outnumbering the rest of the Allies put together.

Victory Banner over the ReichstagUS Journalist Underscores Red Army's 'Key Role' in WWII Victory © Sputnik/ Haldei
WORLD
09:48 08.05.2016

May 9 will see wide-scale celebrations across Russia to mark the 71st anniversary of defeat of Nazi Germany in the Second World War, an event that slips by unnoticed to many Americans, according to the Washington Post.

Soviet anti-aircraft gunners
© SPUTNIK/ KNORRING
Americans and Europeans Ignore USSR's Role in Victory Over Nazism
While Russia is set to celebrate the 71st anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany in World War II, most Americans are unaware of the significance of the event, which was called V-E Day (Victory in Europe) and occurred on May 8 in the United States, United Kingdom and elsewhere in western and central Europe. Unlike their wartime allies in the West, Russians see it as one of the biggest holidays of the year, according to the Washington Post's Michael Birnbaum.
He recalled that "unlike the United States, which had two oceans that largely insulated it from attack after Pearl Harbor, Russia was besieged, bombed, invaded and re-invaded during World War II."

"Then the Red Army swept toward Berlin and played a key role in toppling Adolf Hitler," Birnbaum pointed out.

He quoted 44-year-old Pavel Elfimov as saying in an interview that in Russia there are very few families who weren't touched by the Second World War; both of Elfimov's grandfathers fought in the war, with one of them giving his life for victory.

Birnbaum, for his part, also recalled that "Soviet losses were immense" referring to "most historians" who estimate the Soviet death toll between 27 million and 28 million people.

Meanwhile, "World War II tends to be remembered in the United States as a victory by Americans, with the Red Army acting more or less as an adjunct," he said.

Typhoon-K and Typhoon-U armored vehicles and other military equipment are on Tverskaya Square in Moscow prior to the rehearsal of this year's Victory Day Parade
© SPUTNIK/ MAKSIM BLINOV
Sneak Peak: The View of Moscow's Victory Day Rehearsal From Inside a Typhoon-K
Additionally, he mentioned processions in which Russian WWII veterans' children and grandchildren march on Victory Day, holding their grandfathers' photos, separately from the official state military parades.
Also, Birnbaum referred to Russian President Vladimir Putin reviving "the Soviet-style tank parade in 2008, seeing the day as a way to rally citizens around the flag."

"But despite the hundreds of missile launchers, warplanes and antiaircraft guns that roll through Red Square every year, many Russians say that the true meaning of the holiday is more personal, 71 years after the end of the war," Birnbaum said.

Czech Republic's President Milos Zeman
© AP PHOTO/ PETR DAVID JOSEK
Czech President to Take Part in Victory Day Celebrations at Russian Embassy
When asked to choose which country played the most significant role in defeating Nazism during the Second World War between the United Kingdom, the USSR, the United States and the options 'other' and 'I don't know,' only 15 percent of respondents in a recent Sputnik.Polls survey chose the USSR.
The majority of respondents in the United States (79 percent), France (58 percent) and half of those in Germany (50 percent) said that the US Army played a crucial role in the victory over Nazi Germany.

All in all, according to various estimates, the Red Army liberated almost 50 percent of the states that make up present-day Europe, without counting the European part of Russia, and suffered more casualties than any other force in the war.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/world/20160508/1 ... z489H0JLA5

[chanakyaa]

And, it happened. Regime change, CHECK.

Dilma Rousseff suspended as senate votes to impeach Brazilian president

Less than halfway through her elected mandate, Dilma Rousseff was stripped of her presidential duties for up to six months on Thursday after the Senate voted to begin an impeachment trial....

Dilma Rousseff's suspension won't affect BRICS Summit: India

The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) on Thursday said New Delhi expects the eighth BRICS Summit to take place as scheduled despite Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff's suspension from office.

MEA official spokesperson Vikas Swarup said the date was mutually decided in consultation with all the concerned parties. "We are aware of the internal political developments in Brazil. We await to see how things pan out, but the decision was taken by the Brazilian Government. So, we expect those decisions to be continued," he added.

Rousseff has been stripped of her presidential duties for at least six months after Brazil's senators voted 55-22 to impeach her and put her on trial. The lawmakers accepted the charges against Rousseff, accusing her of manipulating government accounts to hide a growing public deficit ahead of her re-election in 2014.

Rousseff, Brazil's first female president, will have to step aside for at least six months while she is tried in the upper house and her judges will be senators, many of whom are accused of more serious crimes, reports the Guardian.

Vice-President Michel Temer will now assume the presidency while Rousseff's trial takes place. India will host the eighth BRICS Summit in Goa on October 15-16 this year. This will be the second time that India will host the BRICS summit. It last hosted the fourth BRICS Summit in New Delhi in 2012.

Will the next summit be BRICS or just RICS?

[chanakyaa]

Looks like it is time to run the garbage index...

45.8 million people are enslaved in the world today

Those countries with the highest absolute numbers of people in modern slavery are India, China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Uzbekistan. Several of these countries provide the low-cost labour that produces consumer goods for markets in Western Europe, Japan, North America and Australia.

What happened to the Global Killers Index?? Countries who have killed the most in wars or otherwise??

[member_29328]

On the 71st anniversary of the defeat of Germany in WW2,let's remember the heroic role played by the Russian armed forces and the 28 million who died due to the Nazis ,loses far outnumbering the rest of the Allies put together.

Not only that, more than 90% of German casualties occurred on the Ost-Front. German soldiers and officers that disobeyed orders were transferred to the east as punishment.
Gautam

[ramana]

When is UK BREXIt vote?

[wig]

the UK vote on brexit is on 23 June

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32810887

A referendum is being held on Thursday, 23 June to decide whether Britain should leave or remain in the European Union.

[ramana]

there is a Shangri La Dialogue 2016 going on in Singapore with tag #SLD16

Please post items of interest

[Philip]

The secretive Bilderberg group which includes the key "movers and shakers" of the Western world armeeting in Dresden for their annual conclave,with the press as usual firmly kept out of their deliberations.These "masters of the world" meet annually to determine the course of global affairs and network across continents and every kind of nation and entity to secure their interests.
Needless to say,few if any from Asia (perhaps a few Japanese,etc) are admitted as "guests".The group was founded after WW2 by price Bernhard of the Netherlands,why the Dutch royal family always heads the group in similar fashion to the Queen being head of the Commonwealth.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/j ... bilderblog

Charlie Skelton's Bilderblog

Bilderberg: still powerful but perhaps a bit more anxious this year
The spectre of Brexit looms large as the financial, industrial and high-tech establishment gathers in Dresden

Henry Kissinger will be holding court as always at the Bilderberg conference in Dresden. Photograph: Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images

Charlie Skelton
Tuesday 7 June 2016

Prime ministers, finance ministers, leading entrepreneurs and a former spy chief are among the attendees at this year’s influential Bilderberg conference, but one regular guest, George Osborne, will be absent.

The guest list for the conference, which begins on Thursday in Dresden, was released on Tuesday and includes a large number of senior politicians and policymakers, dozens of bank bosses and high-finance billionaires who will gather inside the newly erected security fence around the Hotel Taschenbergpalais.

Two prime ministers, four finance ministers, the head of the IMF and a vice-president of the European commission are all listed as attendees. With so many politicians present, including three members of the German cabinet, the German military has been drafted in to oversee security.

Army officers have been meeting conference staff, scouting the round the hotel and taking photos of the entrance. They’re working with corporate security from Airbus to make sure the politicians are kept safely away from the press for the entire three-day conference.

Workers erect a security fence outside of the Hotel Taschenbergpalais ahead of the Bilderberg conference

No one wants the Danish minister of justice or the deputy prime minister of Turkey to have to field awkward questions, such as: “Where do you stand on corporate lobbying?” Especially when they’re standing between the chairman of HSBC and the president of Siemens.

Airbus is also responsible for an elaborate arrangement of bubble tents and staging being put up in the courtyard of the hotel, according to some of the workmen.

The aerospace manufacturer and seventh biggest arms company in the world is a key player at Bilderberg 2016. Every year, a major corporation with links to the Bilderberg steering committee coordinates security for the event with the police: at Watford in 2013 it was Barclays. This year it’s Airbus. Which makes the whole conference even more obviously the corporate lobbying event that it is –with giant corporations handling everything from security to dry ice. And it makes the silence of the politicians who attend even more egregious.

Even a cursory comparison between the guest list and the conference agenda raises red flags. All those finance ministers sitting round discussing the “geopolitics of energy and commodity prices” with the group chief executive of BP, the vice-chairman of Portuguese petroleum giant Galp Energia, and the CEO of Royal Dutch Shell. And then afterwards saying nothing to their respective parliaments about what they discussed. It’s so off-the-chart inappropriate that it beggars comprehension.

On the subject of Royal Dutch Shell, the king of the Netherlands is due to attend this year’s conference, replacing his mother, Beatrix, at the heart of Bilderberg. Given his family’s long-standing interest in big oil, King Willem-Alexander will doubtless have lots to talk about with the Dutch environment minister, Sharon Dijksma.

King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands
King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands will replace his mother, Beatrix, at the heart of Bilderberg. Photograph: Remko de Waal/EPA

It’s great for everyone that these high-level talks between policymakers and the heads of transnational oil companies get to take place in heavily guarded privacy, with no press oversight whatsoever. Especially great if you’re on the board of BP.
Like, for example, Sir John Sawers. As well as being a director of BP, the silken, Blairish former MI6 boss is a member of Bilderberg’s steering committee, and the chairman of Macro Advisory Partners, a global advisory group with heavy links to the transatlantic intelligence community, very much in the style of Kissinger Associates.

And speak of the devil! The ageless 93-year-old former US secretary of state will be holding court at Dresden, croaking out his wisdom from the throne of bones he has shipped everywhere he goes. You just can’t keep a bad man down. Henry Kissinger still meets with George Osborne to advise the chancellor on geopolitics, and recently had a much publicised meeting with Donald Trump. I would say I’d like to have been a fly on the wall of that room, but I fear Kissinger’s tongue would have had me off the wall in seconds.

Kissinger must be thinking harder than usual about the future, which perhaps explains Bilderberg’s recent interest in artificial intelligence. Henry must be desperate to upload his consciousness into a Pentagon drone, so he can flit more easily between geopolitical summits, and drop the occasional bomb on a village for old times’ sake. In Dresden, Kissinger will be getting tips on where to have his USB sockets fitted from the AI expert Demis Hassabis, the director of Google’s DeepMind project, as well as the co-chairman of OpenAI, Sam Altman.

With Reid Hoffman, the founder of LinkedIn, back at the buffet this year, it seems that Bilderberg’s love affair with Silicon Valley is flourishing. And with cybersecurity high on the conference agenda, we have to spare a mention for Alex Karp, the CEO of the surveillance and data-mining giant Palantir.

A rising star of big business, Karp is the qigong-loving lieutenant of Bilderberg regular Peter Thiel (director of Facebook, founder of PayPal). The steely-eyed Karp is a bit like a younger, more hippyish Kissinger, and was recently welcomed to the board of the Economist Group, a sure sign of being accepted by the establishment.

Peter Thiel, the founder of PayPal, is a Bilderberg regular. Photograph: Neilson Barnard/Getty Images for New York Times

And that’s what this year’s Bilderberg looks like: the financial, industrial and high-tech transatlantic establishment. Still powerful enough to have ministers and European commissioners come running when they open their doors, but perhaps a bit more anxious than in recent decades. Russia and China are still bubbling around their agenda, and now there’s a new concern: Brexit.

Many of the participants at this year’s Bilderberg have spoken out publicly against it. And on this year’s agenda we find the intriguing topic: “Europe: migration, growth, reform, vision, unity”. Since it began back in the 1950s, Bilderberg has been pushing for the unity of Europe, and it’s not about to stop now.

Thomas Enders, the CEO of Airbus, said recently: “The aerospace industry – I think amongst others – will lobby... for a yes vote of the British electorate on the EU.” Whatever happens in the days leading up to the referendum, you can be sure Bilderberg will be lobbying hard. After all, it’s what they do best.

[habal]

PEPE ESCOBAR, WATCHING THE NWO [never turn your back to the sounding board of the empire]

BILDERBERG UPDATE
Bilderberg starts today behind these closed doors – and fence – at the Hotel Taschenbergpalais Kempinski in Dresden. This is a totally sealed/secured space.
The usual Masters of the Universe – and their selected paperboys - are there, in a jolly Goldman Sachs-Google mix. I have a (European) mole quite well placed – and will probably be shelling out a column earlier next week.
What REALLY matters at Bilderberg is what is discussed only by the Masters behind closed doors – not those “sessions” with invited guests (and that includes The Economist, FT, etc..)
This year there are some key items in the NWO agenda, such as how to block both Trump and Brexit – by all means necessary. And how to shove TTIP over European public opinion’s throats – also by all means necessary.
But other globalist stuff is much juicier, such as the creation of a virtual online passport – an Internet ID - without which no one will be able to do anything. The excuse for it is “cybersecurity”. Guess who came up with the idea: the Orwellian European Commission (EC).
Bilderberg’s official candidate in the US presidential is of course The Hillarator. ''

[AbhiJ]

But other globalist stuff is much juicier, such as the creation of a virtual online passport – an Internet ID - without which no one will be able to do anything. The excuse for it is “cybersecurity”.

This sounds too much like the carbon tax and all green taxes which are imposed on populations apparently for us being responsible for pollution and climate change. The fact is it is a natural cycle. Human activities have a very small effect on natural cycles.

In the 1970s, the public pro-poo-gandu was the world will get cooler by 2000. Did anything happen?

Today they are saying many coastal areas of world will be under water by 2050 due to the rising sea levels and melting of ice in the polar regions.

This is a new agenda of the leftist globalist (Jewerine) to control and extort the world.

[kmkraoind]

Does Bilderberg Really Run The World? One Chart To Help You Decide - Zerohedge

[A_Gupta]

^^^ Sorry, but what is "Jewerine"?

[chanakyaa]

Well, the world war III hasn't officially started, but here is a preview of how much love is in the air.

Battle of Marseille: Violent fans hurl missiles, clash with police ahead of Russia-England match

This should make FIFA 2018 in Russia very interesting.

[svinayak]

Obama approves US troops’ broader role in Afghanistan, breaks promises

Commentrator says that Uncle wants to keep the Af Pak destabilized for a long time for geo political advantage.