Seasonally adjusted GDP remained stable in the euro area (EA18) and rose by 0.2% in the EU28 during the second quarter of 2014, compared with the previous quarter, according to flash estimates published by Eurostat, the statistical office of the European Union.

In the first quarter of 2014, GDP grew by 0.2% in the euro area and by 0.3% in the EU28.

Compared with the same quarter of the previous year, seasonally adjusted GDP rose by 0.7% in the euro area and by 1.2% in the EU28 in the second quarter of 2014, after +0.9% and +1.4% respectively in the previous quarter.

During the second quarter of 2014, GDP in the United States increased by 1.0% compared with the previous quarter (after -0.5% in the first quarter of 2014). Compared with the same quarter of the previous year, GDP grew by 2.4% (after +1.9% in the previous quarter).

The post GDP Stable In Euro Area And Up 0.2% In EU28 appeared first on Eurasia Review.

(EurActiv) — The European Union failed on Tuesday (12 August) to agree on a joint position on supplying weapons to Iraqi Kurds battling Islamic State militants, but said individual members could send arms in coordination with Baghdad.

Iraqi Kurdish President Masoud Barzani asked the international community on Sunday to provide the Kurds with weapons to help them fight the militants, whose dramatic push through the north has startled world powers.

EU ambassadors, holding an extraordinary meeting to discuss the crises in Iraq, Ukraine and Gaza, gave the green light for individual governments to send arms under set conditions.

“The (ambassadors) noted the urgent request by the Kurdish regional authorities to certain member states for military support and underlined the need to consider this request in close coordination with the Iraqi authorities,” a spokesman for EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said.

Diplomats said some EU states opposed sending arms, meaning there was no EU-wide agreement to do so, but that they could not prevent other countries from doing so, if they wished.

Amongst the countries in favor of supplying weapons were France, Italy and the Czech Republic, diplomats said. However, there was no immediate indication that they were about to do so.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, earlier raised the possibility of sending military assistance to the Iraqi government, saying he would discuss further steps with European partners.

The European Commission also activated the EU’s Emergency Response Coordination Centre, enabling it to coordinate aid on behalf of all 28 EU members states which should allow a more efficient delivery of aid to refugees inside Iraq.

The EU’s diplomatic service will hold talks with Iraq’s neighbors before drawing up options for further EU action to help in the crisis, said Ashton’s spokesman, Sebastien Brabant.

The EU ambassadors called for urgent and increased international humanitarian support for people driven from their homes by the conflict and welcomed U.S. efforts to stop the advance of Islamic State fighters, Brabant said.

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, who visited Iraq on Sunday, had called for an urgent meeting of EU foreign ministers in response to Kurdish appeals for humanitarian aid and arms.

Italy, which currently holds the EU’s presidency, has also called for a special EU foreign ministers’ meeting.

Ambassadors took no decision on Tuesday on whether to call such a meeting, but diplomats said it could be held next week.

The EU’s executive Commission announced 5 million euros in new aid for displaced people in Iraq on Tuesday, bringing the total for 2014 to 17 million.

The post EU Gives Go-Ahead To States Sending Arms To Iraqi Kurds appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Jayshree Sengupta

Has India changed for the better by this Independence Day? Even though there are some positive news on the economic front such as the revival of industrial growth and core sector growth, much of India remains the same. Every so often one sees awful photos of Indian slums and cities, open defecation and garbage dumps in the western media. Around 600 million people defecate in the open and children contract diseases related to open defecation.

Many of us, like the western media, cannot understand how such things like lack of toilets coexist with modern India full of cars, shopping malls, flashy skyscrapers and a booming service sector. It is also difficult to understand why these problems which have been solved in the west a century ago cannot be solved in a country which is one of the important emerging countries in the world and a leading IT giant. It has pockets of dazzling wealth and talent.

India not only has established and famous business houses that possess internationally recognized brands, but Indian business also is increasingly becoming a big foreign investor. Indian business has spread its wings far and wide. Indian industrialists have production units in Africa, Europe, Latin America and the US. So many people of Indian origin have distinguished themselves in different countries across the globe. Yet the underbelly of India is sordid and shameful. It is lack of sanitation and toilets, extreme poverty and squalor in Indian villages and towns which shocks outsiders and even though most of us are used to living with this situation, often some terrible news item about the excluded population disturbs and shakes us all.

All that the government has to do is to focus on providing basic goods–high quality primary education and healthcare, toilets for all and housing for all. When there is so much money in India in private and public hands, why is it taking so long for the government to do something to change the lives of millions of people?

In fact, successive governments have attempted to grapple with the problems of lack of sanitation in cities and villages, lack of affordable housing for all and the growing problem in accessing reliable and good healthcare. There is a 15 million affordable housing deficit today. All past governments have allocated increasing amounts of money for social sector every year in their annual plans but even though there has been some change, the big picture remains the same. Despite increases in the allocated money, major economic problems of India not related to GDP growth but to the quality and the dignity of human life have not been solved. Perhaps it is the endemic corruption in the system that has led to money literally going down the drain.

It is not the responsibility of the government alone. People in the civil society also should work to ensure that fellow citizens have the basic needs. There seems to be much apathy among people towards the less fortunate otherwise the dismal standard of living of the slum dwellers would have improved. People splurge on themselves and indulge in fine food and the lifestyle among the upper classes in India is on par with their peers abroad but there is less and less of philanthropy to be seen. It is increasingly a selfish world. People living next to drains and garbage dumps do not evoke much sympathy from passers-by who can see the filthy surroundings from their cars. Perhaps we believe it is the fate of the poor to live in sub-human conditions.

Whatever it is, the image of India is getting tarnished all the time and Prime Minister Modi, who is very sensitive to the image of India, would perhaps be inclined to react fast. He has promised housing and toilets for all. He may even promise inclusive banking from the ramparts of the Red Fort in his maiden Independence Day speech. But people are aware of the slowness in which things move in India. He would do well to act fast and see to it that there is effective implementation of his plans for the common person. Inclusive banking will allow many deprived people to access money from the banks. Only 58 per cent of India’s population has bank accounts. Of course, there are sceptics who think that the loans could lead to more NPAs with public sector banks which are already reeling under their burden. The banks badly are in need of recapitalization and the government may have to give Rs 2.4 lakh crore in fresh capital to banks. If there is inclusive banking indeed then direct cash transfers instead of subsidies could be made to farmers and the very poor.

By his exemplary style of no nonsense, corruption free governance, Modi can indeed bring about a change in the country’s image. There has to be faster poverty reduction and India has to reduce the percentage of people living under multi-dimentional poverty which includes many other indicators of progress like health, education, floor of the house, water etc. This can only happen if there is grass roots level monitoring of all central poverty alleviation programs. The states are responsible for many of the public goods and hence they have to be made accountable and Prime Minister Modi will have to increase his leverage on state policies and governance.

The low status of women in India and their vulnerabilities are also exposed by the western media regularly. Empowerment of women and increasing their share in the labour force from a mere 23 per cent which is below the Millennium Development goal, to at least 50 per cent. If women earn their living, they can achieve financial freedom. Jobs for all should not be a slogan only but should be an aim which is achievable by encouraging manufacturing growth. As is well known, the demographic dividend can become a liability if the 10 million annual job seeking youth are left without jobs. The level of frustration would be colossal and could lead to problems of law and order.

(The writer is a Senior Fellow at Observer Research Foundation, Delhi)

The post Can Modi Turn Slogans Into Concrete Actions? – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Larry Birns

Since the 1960s, Washington has tirelessly striven to marginalize, undermine, and destroy the Castro regime, even attempting to assassinate Fidel Castro; first through mercenaries, then psychological operations, and now the pathetic use of spies and soft power. It has been a battle with no quarter given or honor won. One of the techniques that Washington relied on was the use of acts of violence that occasionally enlisted a mixture of physical damage and human jeopardy, then waiting to see what had been brought about. The resulting consequence was that the Cuban population circled the wagons to defend their island from a giant ninety miles away. Washington never rested. In fact, the White House commissioned a non-stop series of illegal warfare to bring down the Castro regime. This process continued to just hours ago when Washington tried to buy off a score of Latin American youth in order to join the anti-Castro core, just as President Raúl Castro was in the midst of a very deep series of economic and political reforms.

The Obama administration’s policy towards Cuba is characteristic of historical U.S. policy despite the “sea change,” which promised a dramatic turn around from the scheming dirty tricks of the past, but has not yet come to pass. Even as John Kerry announced the end of the Monroe doctrine, Washington continued the orthodoxy that had always marked its strategy towards the Cuban nation.

Although Obama’s representatives intermittently exchanged words about a “progressive dividend,” these words were empty calories that bore no energy. Instead, Washington’s strategy toward the island has been extreme, one-sided, and has lacked a sorely needed sense of balance from the start. To insist that the United States has anything like the makings of a coherent policy would represent a notable stretch of imagination. Indeed, Obama’s Latin America policy is also foreboding in that it reflects neither an overall direction toward enlightenment nor a collection of reliable and sincere components. The only thing in this mosaic of a long history of disappointing policies that remains consistent is the fact that it has brought a good deal of harm to Cuba with the inglorious result of satisfying the still powerful anti-Castro caucus in Congress and a part of the electorate in Florida.

Unfortunately, Washington’s Cuba policy continues to be heavily propagandized by Florida’s cadre of right-wing spear-carriers. This body of ideological warriors has led to the polarization of the U.S. Congress on Cuba policy, and has led to the growing isolation of the United States each time the United Nations casts an almost unanimous vote to lift the antiquated and ever unwise embargo against the island. The poisoning of the troposphere when it comes to the subject of Cuban—U.S. relations never seems to falter. The maintenance of the harsh and ideologically driven rhetoric that has radicalized the domestic opposition to the Castro regime has made any sort of prospect of change regarding Washington’s Cuba policy in Congress not only a non-starter, but also an almost certain gesture without prospects. Actually, countries that intersect with the United States, and which must face this type of hyperbolic demonization as a feature of U.S. policy, are few and far between.

Washington is an unremitting adversary toward the Cuban revolution and has been so for several generations. This has left little hope that the situation is likely to improve in the near future. No U.S. President, Democratic or Republican, liberal or conservative, has been able to break out of this mold. Obama’s early promises about change and cooperation with Cuba quickly evaporated. Over the past few years Cuba has been implementing reforms that should have inspired more dialog with the United States, not less. Washington has basically succumbed to the ever-present musings of the neo-conservative Washington establishment—including such right-wing oddities of the likes of Senator Marco Rubio and other single-factor Florida extremists—and for this reason all potential hope for cooperation with Cuba inexorably fades into a permanent state of far-fetched wishful thinking.

It appears that Washington, for the foreseeable future, will continue to follow this pitifully omnipresent default policy of double standards when it comes to Cuba. Washington still has not seen the greatest irony of its actions: in acting to sway Cubans through planting spies in their midst and being shocked when disclosure of these antics leaks to the public, Washington has betrayed its own possibilities for a mutually respectful dialogue with Havana.

Larry Birns, Director of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

The post Gunning After Havana: The Low Point Of US – Cuba Policy – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has agreed to renounce power, telling the Iraqi people he will give up his post to his replacement, moderate Shi’ite Haider al-Abadi.

Appearing on state television late Thursday flanked by Abadi and other Shi’ite politicians, Maliki said he was withdrawing his candidacy in favor of Abadi in order to “ease the movement of the political process and the formation of the new government.”

Maliki had faced enormous pressure at home and abroad to step aside, dropping his bid for a third term as prime minister of Iraq and ending a legal challenge to Abadi’s nomination by Iraqi President Fouad Massoum, which took place on Monday.

The White House praised the development, saying Maliki’s backing of nominee Abadi marks “another major step forward in uniting the country.” National Security Adviser Susan Rice noted statements of global support for Abadi, a member of Maliki’s Shi’ite Islamist Dawa party.

Maliki had been struggling for weeks to stay on as prime minister amid an attempt by opponents to push him out. They have accused him of monopolizing power and pursuing a narrowly pro-Shi’ite agenda that has alienated Iraq’s Sunni and Kurdish minorities.

The Maliki resignation comes just three days after he took to the airwaves to announce he would not accept the Abadi nomination. Maliki and his backers argued that he was entitled to the nomination for a third term by law because his political bloc is the largest in parliament.

Western governments and Iran, along with Iraq’s Sunni and Kurdish parliamentary factions, have for days urged Maliki to resign.

Fighting rages

Pressure mounted as Islamic State militants press their ongoing military onslaught in the northern and western parts of the country, with little opposition from outmanned Iraqi forces.

U.S. Central Command said Thursday that U.S. fighter jets and drones attacked and destroyed two heavily armed vehicles operated by militants who had been firing on Kurdish forces in the north.

Authorities said one of the two airstrikes targeted an armored truck thought to have been supplied by U.S. forces to the Iraqi military and later captured by militants.

The latest U.S. strikes are the second such action in as many days. President Barack Obama said the strikes have broken the militant group’s siege on a northern mountain where members of Iraq’s religious and ethnic minorities had sought refuge.

Obama said the situation on Mount Sinjar has greatly improved, and said he does not believe an additional operation will be needed to evacuate the refugees.

A team of fewer than 20 U.S. military and civilian advisers who’d inspected the area Wednesday informed the president that many of the thousands of Yazidis fleeing Sunni extremists already had left the mountain and that those who remained were in satisfactory condition.

Of an estimated 4,500 people still on Sinjar, half are herders who intend to remain, the Associated Press reported earlier Thursday, citing two U.S. officials.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the herders had lived on Sinjar before the siege and were not interested in evacuating.

At a news briefing Thursday, Obama said that, given the progress, “the bulk of military forces will be leaving in the coming days.” He praised U.S. troops for executing airstrikes and humanitarian airdrops “almost flawlessly.”

But, the president said, “the situation remains dire” in other Iraqi regions where the insurgents at times have overwhelmed Iraqi and Kurdish militia and terrorized civilians.

“We’re going to be working with our international partners” to continue support for Iraqis, he said, again stressing that would be done without the use of ground combat troops.

Humanitarian crisis

Attacks by Sunni militants since June have displaced thousands of minority Iraqi Christians and Yazidis as IS expands its self-declared caliphate in parts of Iraq and Syria.

Elsewhere, in western Iraq, Sunni insurgents battled Iraqi government troops in the city of Fallujah, with at least four children and a woman killed in the fighting, the Associated Press reported.

The attack underscores the ongoing humanitarian crisis in the country, which the United Nations on Wednesday labeled at its highest level of emergency.

Thursday’s fighting in Fallujah took place only 65 kilometers, or 40 miles, west of Baghdad. The city has been under the militants’ control since early this year.

VOA’s Victor Beattie contributed to this report

The post Iraq’s Prime Minister Agrees To Renounce Power appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Israel’s offensive in Gaza and the tremendous toll of civilian casualties it has caused has prompted the United States government to more carefully scrutinize requests for weaponry.

Last month, Israel requested “through military-to-military channels a large number of Hellfire missiles,” according to the Wall Street Journal. The batch was to be the first released to Israel from the Pentagon, Israeli and US officials said.

But White House officials ordered the Pentagon to halt the transfer and instructed US defense agencies to consult with the White House and the State Department following any further Israeli requests for weaponry, according to the report.

The order to tread carefully in the event of any future requests was “the United States saying ‘The buck stops here. Wait a second…It’s not OK anymore,” a senior Obama administration official said.

The decision to hold the weapons came at a time of increasingly poor relations between President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, according to the report.

The move also marked a White House and State Department “increasingly disturbed by what they saw as heavy-handed battlefield tactics that they believed risked a humanitarian catastrophe,” in Gaza, the Journal said.

The Journal had previously reported attempts by Israel to sidestep the White House and its influence on events in Gaza, not only by appealing directly to the Pentagon for arms, but by working with Egypt to broker ceasefire deals between Israel and Hamas.

On Thursday, US State Department spokesperson Marie Harf confirmed that the government is going differently about Israel’s requests for American weaponry after recent waves of attacks directed at Gaza led to tremendous civilian casualties.

“We thought Israel could do more to prevent civilian casualties,” Harf said at a scheduled press conference Thursday afternoon, according to Haaretz. “Due to the crisis in Gaza we took additional care like we would take in any crisis. We took steps to look at (munitions) deliveries. … We wanted to look at things a little bit harder.”

Harf stopped short of saying the State Dept. was making a major about face, however, and added that there was “no change in policy” about the supply of arms to the Israeli Defense Forces.

“The additional care we are taking is not permanent,” she said. “…The US commitment to Israel’s security is unshakable.”

Israel’s Operation Protective Edge started in retaliation to supposed Hamas rocket fire from Gaza strip on July 8. Nearly 2,000 Palestinians have been killed in the month-long fighting, almost 75 per cent of them civilians, according to UN preliminary information.

On the Israeli side, at least 67 people have been killed, mostly soldiers. The number of Palestinian deaths includes 459 children – that figure is higher than the number of children killed in Gaza in the previous two conflicts combined, said the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon on Tuesday.

The post White House Halted Missile Transfer To Israel Over ‘Catastrophe’ In Gaza appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Jim Miles

Israel reveals its true colors and true aspirations every time it attacks Gaza (or any other self-perceived enemy) as being the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, even to the degree – as the references above indicate – to the act of genocide. The western world/Washington consensus group are guilty of enormous war crimes in their full complicit support of Israel, regardless of the rhetoric expressing their concern over the deaths, while they continue to supply Israel with its military needs.

From all the terror inflicted by Israel on the Gaza Palestinians I can only ask what kind of God would permit this? Is this permitted by the God that ‘gave’ the land to Israel? For a people who were to be a shining light for others? Could God not as equally well take the same land away as the atrocities against other human beings increase in magnitude and frequency?

How many rationalizations does it take to blind oneself to the savagery and murder of innocent citizens, women, and children? How is it that the Gospel of Israel is so readily inculcated into a whole nation such that they cheer the deaths of the ‘other’? And how does that same Gospel spreads its wings over many in the western Washington consensus who somehow remain blind to the human savagery and misery of Israeli actions?

Israel will certainly survive militarily as they have many nuclear weapons with various delivery systems. But can such a militarized racist society survive its own internal contradictions for long? Can the false rhetoric of wanting peace, of being the eternal victims, of being surrounded by hateful ‘others’ continue to over-ride the obvious brutality of the various Gaza operations? What can the world not see about the past seven decades of Israeli intentions to ethnically cleanse ‘their’ land of the Palestinian people?

The current “Defensive Edge” operation is not an anomaly, but part of the ongoing demonization of the people of Gaza, with the mainstream media/political rhetoric trying to create a split between the citizens and Hamas. It is all a part of the ethnic cleansing process, really having very little to do with defending themselves against Hamas’ errant rockets, or protecting themselves from terrorists of any stripe. The West Bank has been subdued, aided and assisted by the Vichy dictatorship rule of Abbas working along with the Israeli forces. Gaza has refused to accommodate the wishes of Israel by folding its hands and acquiescing to all the Israeli demands; instead, with nowhere to go, and resistance obviously not being futile, they struggle against the overwhelming firepower of Israel.

The many demonstrations around the world indicate two significant trends. The first is the obvious that Israel does not really care about anyone else’s opinion and will operate mainly within the needs of their internal political structures and their long term goals of occupying all the lands of Palestine. The second is that perhaps the world is waking up with abhorrence to the atrocities committed by Israel against the people of Gaza, an awakening that has slumbered for years, but with this renewed violent episode in a time when western/Washington consensus rule is fully showing its true colors of political-economic-military dominance of the rest of the world. This has led to increased awareness globally about the militarization and domination of people’s lives, about the racist nature of the Israeli attacks, and about the lack of validity about Israel’s claims of victimhood and its desire for peace.

Perhaps the fall-out from this will be in terms of ‘blow back’. The boycott, divestment, sanctions (BDS) movement will very likely receive more attention, not so much from governments, but from an increasing number of concerned citizens. With that will go the recognition that what Israel says, its ‘hasbara’ attempts to persuade others what a wonderful place Israel is, will fall now upon ears deafened by the rockets, missiles, and bombs that have fallen on Gaza – and the resulting screams, tears, and cries that are seldom heard within mainstream media.

A highly militarized Israeli society guarding Palestinians in bantustan like areas could survive for quite some time. Hope carries forward that somehow the Israelis will create their own fully dysfunctional state that will be forced to change its actions (BDS, pariah status…..) and seek a non-violent solution by accommodating all peoples within its boundaries.

- Jim Miles is a Canadian educator and a regular contributor/columnist of opinion pieces and book reviews for The Palestine Chronicle. Miles’ work is also presented globally through other alternative websites and news publications. He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com.

The post Israeli War Crimes In Gaza – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) concluded its meeting at Myanmar’s capital of Naypyidaw on 9-10 August 2014. One core objective of the forum included fostering dialogue and consultation in the region and promoting confidence-building preventive diplomacy. This year’s meeting is significant because it took place amid impending threats from North Korea’s nuclear weapons ambitions, the firing of missiles close to Japan and South Korea, and growing territorial disputes in the South and East China Seas.

The ARF is a formal, multilateral dialogue in the Asia- Pacific region consisting of 27 countries, and it acts as a regional security forum. The meeting at Naypyidaw represented an important opportunity for the entire Asia-Pacific to discuss issues of mutual interest and identify opportunities for cooperation and the management of tension. The ARF draws senior officials from a wide variety of nations across the Asia-Pacific, including the ten members of the ASEAN, plus Australia, China, India, Japan, New Zealand, Russia, South Korea, and the United States.

In the lead up to the ARF, US Secretary of State John Kerry co-chaired the ASEAN-US Ministerial Meeting, as well as two meetings aimed at enhancing cooperation on environmental and health issues in the Lower Mekong. The meeting discussed several key issues impacting regional dynamics, including maritime security and sovereignty disputes in the South and East China Seas, cyber security, and nuclear non-proliferation, in particular the recent missile launch and rocket firing by North Korea.

Previous ARF meetings also discussed the issue of sovereignty disputes in the South China Sea, but all failed to achieve a code of conduct as significant divisions remained among ASEAN members on how best to respond to Chinese assertiveness and on what many considered to be inconsistent attention to Southeast Asia from the US.

The meeting at Naypyidaw took place against the back-drop of ASEAN’s preparations to launch its integrated economic community in 2015, which would ease tensions on trade and labor across borders. As expected, the South China Sea was high on the agenda.

In fact, China’s temporary positioning of an oil platform in waters also claimed by Vietnam has further exacerbated tension in the region of late. In view of China’s massive military strength, one might expect for Beijing to exercise restraint, lest its moves send the message of intimidation to the weaker neighbors. Unfortunately, this has not been the case. None of the countries with claims are prepared to surrender an inch of the areas they claim as their own.

Therefore, so long as historical legacies remain, progress on resolution of disputes will remain slow. The problem is compounded because the nations in the region are suspicious of the other parties’ intent and lack trust. The sense of insecurity is increased as China enhances its military capability and shows intent to project power. The many decades of turmoil during the colonial period and later during the Cold War has stiffened the positions of many nations with no sign of flexibility.

In the political domain, the ASEAN region continues to remain in turbulence. While the long period of military rule in Myanmar has ended, ushering in the restoration of ‘managed’ democracy, Brunei’s recent decision to impose Sharia law drew flaks in many world capitals. Then the military coup of 22 May in Thailand led to diplomatic pressure from the West and Thailand had to face cuts in military assistance for suspending democracy. This led to concerns that the military leader in Thailand might be drawn closer to Beijing. It would be in Thailand’s long-term interest that the military pursues a balanced approach and remain engaged with other ASEAN member countries and learn some lessons from Myanmar and Cambodia, or else disunity amongst the ASEAN nations will be against everyone’s interest.

Though Myanmar chairing the ARF meeting for the first time was a welcome development, the Myanmar leadership continues to face problem of dealing with communal violence and insurgencies even while transiting away from absolute military rule. One of the founding principles of the ASEAN since 1967 has been non-interference in another member country’s internal affairs. This has remained a strength as well as a weakness of the organization.

While this has been in accordance with the principle of non-interference, it has at the same time deterred, if not prevented, consensus on critical issues, which raises questions on how effective ASEAN has been in coping with the changing world.

India’s Position

Since Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao launched the Look East policy in the early 1990s, Indian governments have pursued the same engagement strategy with the region with a view toward integrating India’s economy with the world. Reaching out to the ASEAN corridor has been the first step. The Modi government has too been keen to pursue the same policy, while at the same time strengthening India’s neighborhood policy. Prime Minister Modi chose Bhutan as the country for his maiden visit abroad, and then he visited Nepal. Both visits were seen as attempts to wean away both the nations from the possible Chinese “embrace”. External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj visited Nepal and then Myanmar to attend the ARF meeting.

Seeking to deepen ties with the ASEAN, the Modi government has initiated measures to draft a five-year action plan starting in 2016 to take the “trajectories” of common interests with the 10-member grouping to a new level. The main focus of this plan is to improve connectivity in the region and boost trade. The region has had maritime relations for centuries and the Modi government’s policy is appropriate for reinvigorating old ties, as they are more relevant today than ever before. Promoting cultural diplomacy is another step to bring the peoples of the region together. In her first speech at a multilateral forum, Sushma Swaraj assured India’s commitment to take the “trajectories” of common interests higher in the coming years, “both in terms of achieve- ment and relevance” to India’s ties with the ASEAN and also, “in terms of the multilateral ambition at the regional and global levels”. Such an action plan shall complement with the organization’s goal of forming the ASEAN Economic Community by 2015 and a move forward to fulfilling people’s aspiration of growth and development.

While addressing the 12th India-ASEAN Foreign Ministers meeting, Sushma Swaraj suggested that India, Myanmar and Thailand begin negotiations on a Transit Transport Agreement “at the earliest so that this can be concluded by the time the Trilateral Highway completes in 2016”. India has always stressed connectivity as an important move in its economic engagement strategy with ASEAN nations. In this endeavor, Myanmar has an important role to play as the only member of ASEAN that shares a border with India. Pitching strongly for improvement in connectivity, Sushma Swaraj emphasized that India wanted connectivity in all its dimensions – geographic, institutional and people-to-people. Referring to 5Ts of government of India, she observed: “To the 5Ts of the Government of India – Tradition, Talent, Tourism, Trade and Technology, I would like to reiterate the value of a ‘C’ before them all in foreign policy – the ‘C’ of connectivity in all its dimensions, geographic, institutional and people-to-people. I would like this ‘C’ of connectivity to translate into tangible and urgent action on the ground, bringing our capacities together to mutual benefit”.

In the economic realm, India’s bilateral trade has shown signs of upswing. It grew by 4.6% from US$68.4 billion in 2011 to US$71.6 billion in 2012. While ASEAN’s exports to India totaled US$43.84 billion, its imports from India amounted to US$27.72 billion in 2012, which means India has a negative balance of trade with the region as a whole, though it is not the same in case of individual countries. A target has been set at US$100 billion by 2015 for ASEAN-India trade.

At another level, India is also seeking to deepen economic ties with China and Russia. There already exists a trilateral meeting forum between the foreign ministers of the three countries to deepen understanding on bilateral, regional and global issues. While in Naypyidaw, Sushma Swaraj met with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, her second meeting with him since Modi took office in June. She also met with her counterparts from Australia, Brunei, Canada, Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam. While she discussed with her Australian counterpart Julie Bishop the proposed Indo-Australian civil nuclear agreement, she discussed possibilities of greater cooperation with Brunei in the petroleum sector especially export of LNG from Brunei to India. The Philippines shared with her its action plan and approach to the South China Sea. Sushma Swaraj will travel to Beijing to participate in the trilateral meeting on 29 August with Wang Yi and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

Coping with Perceived Threats

Even while multilateral initiatives continuing to serve as confidence-building measures, there still exists fear of a military conflict over territorial sea claims. China’s neighbors are increasingly anxious that Beijing’s maritime disputes with countries like Vietnam and the Philippines could lead to military conflict. A Pew Research Centre study conducted in 44 countries shows that even in China itself, 62% of the public are worried that territorial disputes between China and its neighbors could lead to an armed conflict. According to the study, at 93%, Filipinos were most concerned, followed by the Japanese at 85%, Vietnamese at 84% and South Koreans at 83%.

While Beijing and Hanoi are embroiled in a territorial row over China’s positioning of a major oil rig in waters claimed by Vietnam, China has also seen tensions rise with Japan and the Philippines, both of which claim Beijing has taken inappropriate steps in the East and South China Seas, where claims of several island chains are under dispute. According to the Pew report, Japan, the Philippines and Vietnam see China as the greatest threat. Interestingly, China, Malaysia and Pakistan list the United States as the biggest threat. Every other Asian nation surveyed, including Bangladesh, India, Indonesia and Thailand, see the United States as their greatest ally – although Indonesia also sees America as its greatest threat.

China’s “Cabbage Strategy”

In a recent article in Epoch Times,1 Joshua Philipp came out with some interesting information about how China is spreading its control over the South China Sea. According to the article, China’s navy consists of hordes of fishermen whose boats are fitted with military-grade satellite navigation systems that link up with the Chinese coast guard. While the fishermen cover only about 10% of the cost, the Chinese regime shoulders the rest. After installing the system, the regime also offers subsidies as the fishermen help the regime enforce its territorial claims.

The regime encourages fishermen in Hainan to sail into the disputed area where, besides fishing, they are expected to report sightings of foreign ships. The Beidou satellite system (BDS), similar to a GPS location system, comes with an alarm and short message system (SMS), which allows fishermen to alert authorities and nearby vessels. China has vastly increased both its naval reach and its ability to locate and deny access to ships from other countries. The BDS system used by the fishermen has facilitated this process.
China has adopted this strategy as a part of its Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ). Announced on 23 November 2013, ADIZ established a no-fly zone over international waters in the East China Sea, which also includes Japanese territory. Using this ADIZ, China then announced a “no-fishing” zone in the South China Sea and then as legal excuses to harass ships from other nations.

Chinese fishermen are thus emboldened to not only respond to the regime’s strategy, some even volunteer to take part in China’s military maneuvers to capture and control new territory in China’s growing bid to rule the South China Sea.

When China moved an oil rig into Vietnam’s Exclusive Economic Zone, far south of Hainan, in May 2014 it was not only was accompanied with an armada of close to 80 ships but coast guard ships and the fishing vessels also played their part in harassing and allegedly rammed Vietnamese ships. The Chinese military is not shy to admit the use of the fishermen as a part of the country’s military strategy to snatch new chunks of territory. As a part of this “cabbage strategy”, China plans to take one layer of sea at a time, first by sending fishing ships to the area, then marine surveillance ships, and finally warships. “The island is thus wrapped layer by layer like a cabbage”, Maj. Gen. Zhang Zhaozhong remarked, according to Philipp’s article. It is believed that by December 2013, more than 50,000 Chinese fishing boats had installed the BDS system.

If Philipp’s claims are true, then Beijing is playing a dangerous game. Besides Vietnam, which reacted sharply to the oil rig issue, other nations are not expected to take the Chinese position kindly.

Vietnam is determined to fight Chinese advances even if no external military help comes in its time of need. The Philippines has already taken the case to The Hague court for arbitration. Just before the ARF summit meeting at Naypyidaw, the Philippine court found 12 Chinese fishermen guilty of illegal fishing in Philippine waters and sent them to jail.2 These were the first convictions since tensions flared over rival claims in the South China Sea. Philippine rangers caught the fishermen after their boat ran aground on Tubbataha Reef in April 2013. The reef is not claimed by China. Beijing insisted the fishermen drifted into the Philippine waters because of bad weather, and therefore they were innocent. The fishermen were also allegedly carrying a cargo of pangolins, an endangered mammal like an anteater, which are eaten in China. Such incidents are likely to strain already tense ties.

Japan’s Position

Like Vietnam and the Philippines, Japan wants a peaceful environment in the region but at the same time it is readying for undesirable developments. While beefing up its own strength, Japan has been cooperating with others that face the Chinese challenge.

Since coming to power in December 2012, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has already travelled to 47 countries, where he articulates Japan’s view of the world. Japan has been extending economic assistance to many of the ASEAN member countries with a view toward deepening economic ties and spreading economic prosperity. For example, while in Naypyidaw for the ARF meeting, Foreign Minister Fu- mio Kishida offered his Myanmarese counterpart, Wunna Maung Lwin, ¥10.5 billion in low interest loans in order to improve Myanmar’s communications network. With this loan, Myanmar will be able to strengthen its communication network involving Yangon, Mandalay and the capital Naypyidaw, as well as improve Internet access in Yangon, the country’s largest city.

With a view toward facilitating business travel, Myanmar announced the issuance of one-year multiple-entry visas for Japanese businesspeople as part of relaxation measures sought by Tokyo. As the chair of the ARF in 2014, Wunna Maung Lwin promised Myanmar’s commitment to promote regional security through measures such as strengthening the rule of law and curbing North Korea’s nuclear aims. Amid China’s growing territorial ambitions in the South China Sea, Japan is also expanding cooperation with ASEAN in enhancing the groups’ coast guard capability and training coast guard personnel. While in Naypyidaw, Kishida vowed to increase maritime security cooperation with ASEAN by providing patrol ships, communications and other equipment.

On 1 August, Tokyo agreed to provide Vietnam with six patrol ships to assist Vietnam’s efforts to strengthen in law enforcement capability in the South China Sea. The deal for the six used vessels, worth ¥500 million, was announced in Hanoi when Kishida was on a two-day visit to Hanoi to deepen bilateral ties. Relations between Vietnam and China plummeted to their lowest point in decades in early May when Beijing moved a deep-water oil drilling rig into waters in the South China Sea claimed by Vietnam. Though China withdrew the rig in mid-July, a month earlier than expected, bitterness and suspicion about the rig’s purpose remained.

The placing of the rigs led to repeated skirmishes between dozens of Chinese and Vietnamese vessels. Hanoi accused Beijing of ramming and sinking one of its wooden fishing vessels. Meanwhile, Beijing blamed Hanoi’s fishing fleet for the incidents. The rig’s deployment also triggered a wave of violent anti-China demonstrations and riots in Vietnam, which damaged many Chinese-owned businesses.

Indeed, China’s muscle-flexing and asserting control over the land features and waters encompassed by its U-shaped “nine-dash line” in territorial disputes with Bru-nei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam, are drawing many nations in the region together. The ASEAN organization has welcomed Japan’s “constructive role” in the security field that defends the rule of law. Japan is also facing with the Chinese assertiveness with regard to the uninhabited Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands that it administers, but which is also claimed by China and Taiwan.

Japan took control of the islands in January 1895, when it says they were unoccupied. Beijing counters that the islands have always been its “inherent” territory.

In view of this situation, continuing dialogue at the bilateral as well as regional level is the ideal way to a solution. Naypyidaw offered the ideal opportunity to Kishida to have meetings with his Chinese and South Korean counterparts, Wang Yi and Yun Byung-se, respectively. In view of Japan’s frosty ties with China and South Korea, summit meetings with the Chinese and South Korean leadership with Abe have not been possible. Kishida’s meeting with his counterpart, the first in two years, may break the ice. Though the talks took place on the sidelines of a meeting of foreign ministers from the ASEAN and other countries, it was the first time the Japanese and Chinese foreign ministers have had a direct exchange since the launch of Abe’s second cabinet in December 2012.

Japan has been making sincere efforts to mend ties with its two neighbors that have remained strained over comfort women and history issues and Kishida’s meeting with his counterparts is the first significant move. Both Kishida and Wang shared their perspective on the Senkaku problem in an atmosphere of cordiality. The last time senior officials from both the countries talked was September 2012, in New York, soon after Japan placed the Senkaku Islands under state control in Okinawa Prefecture. Wang did not commit to anything, but he said that China would carefully watch the course of action taken by Tokyo to improve ties and judge Japan’s sincerity. On its side, Japan hopes the Kishida-Wang meeting will pave the way for realizing a formal summit meeting between the two nations, which last took place in December 2011.

North Korea

The leaders also discussed the North Korean issue and shared perspectives on how to deal with the threats posed by Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons program. In fact, the Naypyidaw summit commenced amid an array of North Korea’s short-range missile and rocket launches, and threats by Pyongyang to conduct a fourth nuclear test.

Japan has the long-standing abduction issue with North Korea and seeking resolution. Pyongyang has been playing a hide-and-seek game, as is its habit. Kishida used the opportunity to talk with his North Korean counterpart Ri Su-yong seeking information on Pyongyang’s investigation into the fate of Japanese abductees and other issues. North Korea is scheduled to release the first report on the results of its probe in early September. Ri, who became foreign minister in April and is believed to be an influential figure in the communist regime with close ties with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, declined to answer questions from reporters. The Naypyidaw meeting was also significant in the sense that all six countries directly involved in the North Korea denuclearization talks – the two Koreas, Japan, China, Russia, South Korea and the US – participated in the meeting. The Six-Party Talks (SPT) remain suspended after Pyongyang walked away from the table in 2008. In fact, by firing off a series of missiles and rockets, snubbing fresh UN condemnations, and threatening to conduct a fourth nuclear test, Pyongyang has brought in a new dimension to the security threats to the region. South Korea is the nation most directly impacted by Pyongyang’s antics, and Seoul is seeking international support to help end the North’s provocations.

Concluding Observations

While it is essential that peace and stability in the region are maintained, all efforts should be made to settle existing disputes “in accordance with international law by peaceful means”. This is the only acceptable route to safeguard the interests of all countries involved. There are risks of misadventure best be avoided, lest the prosperity achieved so far by sound economic planning over the years be negated overnight. The relevance of multilateral forums should be seen in this light.

Source:
This article was published by IPRIS as IPRIS Viewpoints 151 August, which may be accessed here (PDF).

Notes:
1. Joshua Philipp, “China Just Weaponized Its Fishermen” (Epoch Times, 30 July 2014).
2. “Philippines sentences 12 Chinese fishermen to jail” (Reuters, 5 August 2014).

The post ARF Summit Meeting At Naypyidaw: An Assessment appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Texas Governor and former presidential candidate Rick Perry has been indicted for allegedly abusing his power by vetoing state funding for the government watchdog group charged with investigating corruption and police scandals.

According to the Associated Press, a grand jury indicted the Republican governor on Friday for fulfilling a veto threat that consisted of withholding funds for the state’s anti-corruption group, the Public Integrity Unit.

This marks the first time in almost 100 years that a Texas governor has been indicted.

Perry was charged with felony counts of abuse of official capacity and coercion of public servant. The first charge carries a maximum punishment of five to 99 years in prison, while the second is punishable by up to 10 years behind bars.

According to local KVUE news anchor Tyler Sieswerda, the prosecutor in charge confirmed that Perry will be booked next week.

The charges come after Perry’s 2013 veto threat, which would have withheld $7.5 million in funding for the Public Integrity Office if its leader, District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg, refused to resign her post. Lehmberg was arrested for driving drunk but declined to step down, saying instead she would not seek reelection in 2016. Perry carried out his threat using a line-item veto on a state budget appropriations bill, sparking a showdown with a grand jury.

“Despite the otherwise good work of the Public Integrity Unit’s employees,” a Perry said after he issued the veto, “I cannot in good conscience support continued State funding for an office with statewide jurisdiction at a time when the person charged with ultimate responsibility of that unit has lost the public’s confidence.”

Although Perry is allowed to veto parts or all of any legislation passed by state lawmakers, his actions drew fire from the Texans for Public Justice (TPJ) watchdog group, whose ethics complaint stated the governor was effectively using his veto power to coerce Lehmberg into leaving her job.

“Threatening to take an official action against her office unless she voluntarily resigns is likely illegal,” TPJ director Craig McDonald said following Perry’s veto. “The governor overstepped his authority by sticking his nose in Travis County’s business.”

In the wake of having its funding removed, the Public Integrity Unit remained open since Travis County agreed to support a smaller undertaking, but two employees were laid off. Another 18 either retired early or were reassigned.

“It’s awfully convenient that Governor Perry vetoed money for the state’s ethics enforcement office while his administration and his cronies have a history of making ethically questionable decisions,” Emmanuel Garcia, a spokesman for the Texas Democratic Party, said in April to Bloomberg.

After the grand jury was assembled in April, though, Perry spokeswoman Lucy Nashed defended the governor and said his actions were perfectly legal.

“The veto in question was made in accordance with the veto power afforded to every governor under the Texas Constitution,” she said, “and we remain ready and willing to assist with this inquiry.”

The post Texas Gov. Rick Perry Indicted For Abuse Of Power appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The close collaboration in the fight against terrorism between the Spanish and Moroccan law enforcement agencies has led to the break-up of a Jihadi terrorist cell based in the Moroccan towns of Castillejos, Tetouan and Fez, according to the Spanish government.

This operation ended with the arrest of nine individuals of Moroccan nationality, some of them with strong ties to Spain.

According to the Spanish government, the arrests were carried out in the early hours of this morning by the National Judicial Police Brigade of Morocco following an investigation conducted by the country’s anti-terrorism service (DGST). The investigation was conducted in close collaboration with the Spanish intelligence and police forces, specifically the General Commissariat of Intelligence of the Spanish National Police Force. The operation forms part of the efforts to anticipate and combat the Jihadi terrorist threat.

The arrested individuals are responsible for recruiting, financially supporting and sending Jihadis – of Moroccan and other nationalities – to Syria and Iraq to then join the terrorist organisation known as “Islamic State”, which has links to Al Qaeda. This network operated in the Moroccan towns of Castillejos, Tetouan and Fez, as well as in the Autonomous City of Ceuta (Spain).

The investigations carried out confirm that the Jihadis recruited by the network broken up today received training on the handling of weapons, assembly and placement of explosive devices and vehicle theft for the purpose of taking part in terrorist suicide attacks and combat in conflict zones.

Some of the activists recruited and sent by the network – now broken up – would have participated in atrocious acts of violence against soldiers from the Syrian and Iraqi armies, such as decapitations, the recorded images of which were uploaded to the Internet and distributed via the social networks.

Similarly, the investigations revealed that the plans being drawn up by the dismantled terrorist cell included numerous acts of terrorism in the territory of the Kingdom of Morocco.

The investigation remains ongoing.

The post Spain And Morocco Break-Up Jihadi Cell appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Siddharth Sivaraman and Rajeswari Pillai Rajagopal

India needs to diversify its arms imports. Although it is one of the world’s largest arms importers, most of India’s weapons come from Russia. Over the last five years, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Russia accounted for about $15 billion of the $20 billion in arms that India imported, or about three-quarters. That level of dependence is unhealthy: One of the reasons why India bought the Jaguar Bomber from a European consortium in the 1970s was the concern that India was becoming dependent on Soviet weapons.

India began diversifying when it awarded a contract for advanced air force fighters to France, though negotiations for the Rafale have dragged on interminably and have yet to be completed. India also buys some significant quantities of Israeli weapons.

But New Delhi has not sufficiently tapped the U.S., without question the country with the most advanced military technology in the world. Although the U.S. is India’s second largest source of weapons, it accounted for less than seven percent of India’s arms imports in value terms over the last five years. It is time that India diversified its arms sources by getting more of its weapons from the U.S., especially when cutting-edge technology is involved, as in advanced drones.

There are multiple advantages for India in making better use of U.S. weapons options. First, New Delhi could negotiate the development of state-of-the-art drone technologies, in which the U.S. has the most experience, with drones – or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) – such as the MQ-8 Fire Scout and/or long-range drones such as the MQ-9 Reaper or even the older Predator B. This would add a new dimension to UAVs with persistent capabilities for India, and it would also help kick start investments in this sector.

A U.S. senator recently proposed the joint manufacturing of weapons system, including drones. As the Indian military moves towards network-centric warfare, the importance of UAV technology will increase as it forms an important nodal center for intelligence gathering and dissemination. Currently the fleet of Searcher and long-range Heron drones is a good one, but there are operational limitations because of Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) guidelines, which restrict the sale of unmanned systems that fly more than 300 km and can carry payloads more than or equal to 500 kg.

The drone’s sensor intelligence gathering also requires capabilities in analysis and advanced software for interpreting data. The addition of this capability will also be important for the overall drone and imagery analysis architecture. Indeed, full-fledged UAV systems would give a tremendous boost to India’s surveillance capabilities. This will require bold thinking by policymakers to launch India into the select group of countries that can field long-range UAVs at short notice. However, such cutting edge technologies are shared, they are not given away.

For advanced technologies such as the MQ-9 Reaper, India will have to give ground, as such technologies cannot be readily obtained, even with a 100 percent FDI policy in the defense manufacturing sector.

Low observable technologies, under which the most modern UAVs fall, are heavily restricted for export by the U.S. government. Long-range drone operations in international waters require interoperability and information sharing, which can be a complicated endeavor involving a Communication Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA) with the U.S., but the advantages of learning long-range drone operations could be enormous. International search and rescue operations have increasingly involved the use of drones. Drones, along with air assets such as maritime patrol aircraft (MPA), would be help fill the large surveillance gaps in India’s vast ocean territories, which it must safeguard. Surveillance and around-the-clock monitoring of activities in the Indian Ocean, where traffic has seen a manifold increase, is significant. This fits well with the 2006 U.S.-India Framework for Maritime Security Cooperation that emphasizes cooperation in areas including piracy, smuggling, and WMD proliferation through maritime routes. The procurement of drones on a strategic level is paramount, so why should India not do all it can to acquire this surveillance capability?

Could the sale of such systems mean that the two countries can finally bury antique agreements such as the CISMOA and the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for Geo-spatial Cooperation (BECA)? Much remains to be said about how the U.S. government would view such an interest by India. U.S. aircraft have already given an edge to the strategic airlift capability; can they do the same with respect to India’s strategic surveillance capability?

Technology is important, but who you get it from is even more important. U.S. drones in the Indian inventory would have a huge value in terms of messaging, to friends and foes alike. Strategic partnerships are among the best force multiplier options in an uncertain Asia, and India should leave no stone unturned.

(Siddharth Sivaraman is a Visiting Fellow and Dr. Rajeswari Pillai Rajagopalan is a Senior Fellow at Observer Research Foundation. Dr. Rajagopalan served at the National Security Council Secretariat, Government of India from 2003 to 2007)

Courtesy : http://thediplomat.com/2014/08/india-diversifying-arms-purchases/

The post India: Diversifying Arms Purchases – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The Catholic Church’s just-war doctrine allows for a military response to grave conflicts, provided that several criteria are operative. The Vatican has made it clear that the mass murder being committed by Islamic State terrorists meets that standard.

No one has been more pointed than Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Holy See’s Permanent Observer to the United Nations. He said this week that “there might be occasions in the life and in the relations between states when dialogue, negotiations, fail and large numbers of people find themselves at risk: at risk of genocide, at risk of having their fundamental, their basic rights violated.”

“In this case,” Tomasi said, “when every other means has been attempted, article 42 of the Charter of the United Nations becomes possible justification for not only imposing sanctions of economic nature on the state or the group or the region that violates the basic human rights of people, but also to use force. All the force that is necessary to stop this evil and this tragedy.”

The Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue also released a statement calling on “religious leaders, especially Muslims,” to condemn the genocide. It cited “The execrable practice of beheading, crucifixion, and hanging of corpses in public places”; “The choice imposed on Christians and Yezidis between conversion to Islam, payment of tribute or exodus”; “The imposition of the barbaric practice of infibulation” [female genital mutilation]; “The forced occupation or desecration of churches and monasteries”; and “The destruction of places of worship and Christian and Muslim burial places.” It also made it plain that “No cause can justify such barbarity and certainly not a religion.”

Kudos to the Vatican. It is speaking with greater clarity and urgency than our golf-vacationing president.

The post Vatican Okays Force In Middle East – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Col. R. Hariharan

(Answers to some of the questions on India-Sri Lanka relations and China raised by an international news agency answered on August 11, 2014 are given here.)

How do you see the diplomatic, economic, political relationship between Sri Lanka and India before the end of the war and after the end of the war?

The multifaceted India-Sri Lanka relationship has undergone subtle changes after the Eelam War ended in triumph for Rajapaksa. The main reason for this is President Rajapaksa’s failure to implement 13^th Amendment to the Constitution and trigger the political process with Tamil minority as promised to India.  His act of political expedience not only destroyed the Indian leadership’s credibility in him but also the public credibility in the Manmohan Singh coalition’s ability to handle the relations with India’s neighbours.

Its tectonic effects in Tamil Nadu politics saw the end of the Congress party’s fragile relationship with the DMK with disastrous results in the parliamentary poll for both the parties.  It provided a fillip for anti-Sri Lanka lobbies in Tamil Nadu to gain strength particularly after Sri Lanka continued to dither on carrying out impartial probe into allegations of human rights violations towards the end of the war.

At the diplomatic level, the impact was seen in hesitant swings in India’s support for Sri Lanka at the UN Human Rights Commission sessions on Sri Lanka’s accountability. However, at the functional level both India and Sri Lanka seem to be keen to maintain some balance in their responses to acts of political and public provocation on both sides.

China’s entry in a big way in Sri Lanka is dislocating India-Sri Lanka relations on the strategic and trade fronts. Strategically India has been put on the defensive after Sri Lanka signed the Strategic Cooperative Partnership (SCP) agreement with China and welcomed China’s initiative in promoting ‘Maritime Silk Route’ (MSR) through the Indian Ocean. India is likely to factor these developments while moving forward in its relations with China, set to take off shortly.

Sri Lanka’s scant recognition of India’s valuable economic and development assistance at a much lesser cost in public pronouncements show that Sri Lanka is taking India for granted. This belief is further reinforced by its skewed trade policy changes giving advantage to China over India show that pro-Chinese lobbies in Sri Lanka are firmly established.  We can expect China to gain further advantage when it signs the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with China by the end of the year, we can expect Indian trade to be affected further.

Do you really see Sri Lanka neutralizing Indian influence using China time to time or as a balancing act?

India is physically too close and too big for comfort for a small country like Sri Lanka. So it has always to factor India while mapping its relations with any other country. At the same time it makes sense for Sri Lanka to develop a parallel relationship with a big power like China to derive some comfort from its support.

So there is no question of Sri Lanka neutralizing Indian influence with its huge economic and strategic clout in South Asia and Indian Ocean Region (IOR). Sri Lanka has assiduously cultivated India over the years resulting in flourishing two-way trade particularly after the signing of FTA with India. Sri Lankan marine infrastructure is mostly dependent upon Indian shipping for survival.

While China can erode India’s influence in Sri Lanka, it is doubtful it can ever totally substitute India. Moreover, China has a bigger stake in building closer strategic and economic partnership with India. So at present there is little incentive for China to join hands with Sri Lanka at the cost of better relations with India.  So Sri Lanka can at best try to take maximum advantage for its own benefit from the developing relationship between the two Asian giants. I think this is what Sri Lanka is trying to do. But at what cost to India is the question?

This should not minimise the strategic advantage China gains from firmly establishing itself in Sri Lanka. Infrastructures controlled by China in Sri Lanka will help its strategic build up in the IOR where India is a dominant power. Sri Lanka becomes a mid way take off point for China’s naval assets to dominate the sea lanes which would not only safeguard its shipping trade but interdict others in times of confrontation.  It will also augment China’s electronic intelligence effort targeting not only India but also other powers operating in the IOR and its periphery.

Now China is going to start/back an aircraft maintenance service centre in Sri Lanka and Hambantota port is also going to be under their control at least for the next three decades. Do you see these projects are purely on economic interests?

We should not see these issues in isolation but as responses to multiple developments in India, Sri Lanka and China. These are part of Chinese effort to gain a firm hold of the strategic infrastructure in the country.  Strategic security in 21^st century is much more than the physical aspect. Every economic activity has a strategic relevance for China. So the infrastructure assets it is creating now for economic considerations will always have a strategic context in China’s power projection.

Do you see increasing Chinese influence in Sri Lanka is a security concern for India, though India does not openly say it?

Normally friendly nations do not share their security concerns about each other in public. India has been expressing its security concerns to Sri Lanka diplomatically from time to time. I am sure Sri Lanka also does it. This is what strategic dialogues are meant for.

China has actively engaged with a host of countries in the neighbourhood to rebuild the ancient silk road connecting China with Europe through the Central Asian States and trade corridors like Bangladesh, China, India, Myanmar, (BCIM) as well as direct economic corridor with Pakistan through the Pakistan Occupied Kashmir(PoK). In this context, how do you see increasing Chinese influence in Sri Lanka?

This is a bigger ball game China is playing which would call for analysis of happenings spread over a huge land mass. I would not venture to answer this in the present context.

 (Col R Hariharan is a retired MI analyst who served as the head of intelligence of the Indian Peace Keeping Force (1987-90). He is associated with the Chennai Centre for China Studies and the South Asia Analysis Group. E-mail: haridirect@gmail.com Blog: http://col.hariharan.info)

The post India-Sri Lanka Relations And China: Q & A appeared first on Eurasia Review.

On July 30, the US Department of State published a worldwide arms control compliance report that included claims that Russia violated the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty signed between the United States and the Soviet Union in 1987.

“The United States has determined that the Russian Federation is in violation of its obligations under the INF Treaty not to possess, produce, or flight-test a ground-launched cruise missile with a range capability of 500 km to 5,500 km, or to possess or produce launchers of such missiles,” the document says.

However, the report provided no evidence of the aforementioned violations.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Secretary General of NATO, also commented on the issue, urging Russia to follow the provisions of the INF treaty.

“It remains a key element of Euro-Atlantic security — one that benefits our mutual security and must be preserved,” the NATO website quotes him.

According to The New York Times, the violations were also mentioned in the letter from the US President Barack Obama to his Russian colleague Vladimir Putin.

“In his letter to Mr. Putin, Mr. Obama underscored his interest in a high-level dialogue with Moscow with the aim of preserving the 1987 treaty and discussing steps the Kremlin might take to come back into compliance,” the news agency says.

In return, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation (MFA) has published an official statement, in which it rejected all the raised accusations and stressed the fact that the USA has provided no evidence.

“Notably, the U.S. side, in its usual manner, provides no specific facts but rather replaced them, for some obscure reason, with a synopsis of the Treaty articles. Comments of the U.S. officials who refer to some ‘classified intelligence data’ also fail to clarify the essence of the U.S. claims,” says the text of the comments on the US Department of State report, which was published on the ministry website.

In addition to that, the statement notes that Washington itself is in breach of the INF treaty. Among other things, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressed its concern over the use of short-range target practice missiles and combat unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), as well as the plans to place the American Mark-41 missile platforms which can be used for launching intermediate-range cruiser missiles.

Above that, the MFA pointed out a number of other inconsistencies in the White House’s arms control policy, such as the decision to withdraw from the Antiballistic missile (ABM) treaty in 2001, expansion of the US ABM and conventional armaments, as well as other issues concerned with nuclear tests, outer space arms, and biological and chemical weapons.

In a reply to Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stressed the fact that NATO was not involved in the 1987 treaty.

“If the NATO Secretary General would seriously want to make a contribution to the reinforcement of the INF regime, we would recommend that he thinks about making this Treaty multilateral. Russia supported this idea many times,” says the ministry in a separate commentary.

The INF treaty violation accusations aimed at Moscow evoked massive response among the worldwide experts. One of them, Mikhail Krysin, a well-known Russian researcher of history of the Baltic States, author of numerous scientific publications and several books, recalled the circumstances in which the 1987 treaty was signed.

He noted that the INF treaty’s main objective was to further the disarmament of the USSR that followed soft policies towards the US under Mikhail Gorbachev. At the same time, Washington’s losses in military strength were much less notable.

“The main idea of the 1987 treaty was to specifically annihilate the Soviet land-based short- and intermediate-ranged missile (SIRM) potential, which was much bigger than those of SIRM in air and naval Soviet forces. For the US, the land-based SIRM component didn’t matter much in comparison to that used in the US aviation and navy,” the expert said in an interview to “PenzaNews” agency.

He added that several high-ranking Russian politicians consider the INF treaty not corresponding to the current reality.

“As early as February 10, 2007, the Russian President Vladimir Putin said this treaty facilitates the US plans to place their missile platforms in Poland and the Czech Republic. Sergei Ivanov, back then the country’s Minister of Defense, called the treaty ‘a Cold War relic,’ adding that many of the Russia’s neighbors have SIRM in their forces, and therefore it would be a logical step for Russia to have these armaments too,” the historian recalled.

In his opinion, a number of events in military and political areas were behind the claims by the US Department of State.

“The SIRM which are in service with Russia and the US are not land-based. One of the reasons behind the accusations could have been Russia’s motions throughout the last few years to expand its non-land-based SIRM potential. However, it is certain that the main cause lies in the Ukrainian issue,” the expert emphasized.

From his point of view, the claims could be a part of the current “psychological warfare” against Russia.

“After Crimea, Russia is accused of everything bad that happens in the world. It is thought that Russia is to be blamed for starting the civil war in Ukraine, for the Odessa arson which led to many deaths, for the MH17 crash, and that it is a threat to the whole Europe,” Mikhail Krysin said.

In his opinion, the US authorities refrain from withdrawing from the treaty in order to use it in a defamation campaign against Moscow, while Washington’s violations may end up hidden from the public eye.

However, the historian suggested that Russia should nevertheless remain in the 1987 treaty and invest as much effort as possible in order to resist the White House policies.

“Perhaps we too shouldn’t abandon the treaty; and in the meanwhile, use it as much as possible as a trump card in the Russia-US ‘psychological warfare,’ and at the same time expand our air and naval SIRM potential like the US does,” Mikhail Krysin explained.

Further discussing the topic of the US-Russia confrontation, Igor Sutyagin, Research Fellow at Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies (RUSI), noted that the chances to find a diplomatic solution to the conflict are currently very slim.

“36 months ago they said Russia will withdraw from the treaty. For the last three years, the press have been publishing the calls to cross out the INF treaty and start constructing the intermediate-range missiles. All this had been accumulating, and the red line was crossed, as far as I can recall from the Western media, last October or November — long before the events in Ukraine,” the expert said.

In addition to that, he found the remarks made by the Russian MFA baseless and inconsistent, since the target practice missiles are used by both Washington and Moscow, while the deployment of American Mark-41 missile platforms is formally not a violation of the treaty.

Speaking of the US combat drones, Igor Sutyagin stressed the fact that they are remote-controlled vehicles that do not self-destruct after reaching the target, which, in his opinion, makes them not covered by the provisions of the INF treaty.

Igor Sutyagin also noted that the officially published data on the Russian Iskander-K guided missile system, which can be fitted with longer-range (above 2,000 km) cruiser missiles, also speaks in favor of the US claims.

From his point of view, the facts listed above, along with the statements made by the high-ranking Russian officials, force NATO to see every Russian military decision or development as a potential assault, even if such steps do not endanger the North Atlantic community.

“In such situation, any SIRM-related movements by Russia will be seen as a threat to NATO,” the analyst added.

Pavel Baev, Research Professor at the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO), also noted that the circumstances surrounding the 1987 treaty may lead to noticeable increase in tension on the international level.

“The developing confrontation is no joke, and things that are tied with the Cold War legacy have troubles matching the situation. In my opinion, it is wrong to speak of a new Cold War — the situation is radically different. But certain elements of the past are surprisingly fitting for the new confrontation, which yet has no appropriate title, and become serious factors that destabilize the situation,” he said.

According to the expert, in the current circumstances make Washington’s claims very serious.

“The violations pointed at by the US appear to be much more direct, grave and undebatable, than those listed by Russia. This looks like a traditional attempt to parry the accusations with counter-accusations. However, if what the Americans claim to be true is true, no counter-arguments will protect against it,” the researcher stressed.

At the same time, Pavel Baev admitted that the US Department of State provided almost no evidence of the alleged Russian violations.

“There are some things, some technical data, which is never revealed by default, since it has a different secrecy label. I find the published information lacking as well. It’s not enough for a study. It would be good to know more what missile they were talking about, at least in the very basics,” he said.

In the analyst’s opinion, it would be difficult to ensure the actual adherence to the INF treaty would be highly difficult in the current worldwide situation; however, the state of affairs is not beyond all hope.

“I think that if the situation overall would have been different, the issue would be solvable, since Russia certainly wouldn’t benefit from destroying this treaty, and it’s clear that the US doesn’t want it either. The treaty is one of the few active bases for the European security system. Everybody would prefer to keep it,” he stressed.

The analyst also spoke of the issue of developing and using military UAVs. In his opinion, this type of armaments requires its own regulation for a variety of reasons; however, the 1987 treaty does not cover the combat drones.

Alexei Arbatov, Resident Scholar at Carnegie Moscow Center, agrees with that.

“The UAVs are aerial vehicles, planes, which are remote-controlled. They are not like cruise and ballistic missiles, which receive the target coordinates, fly up, reach the target and strike it down. Obviously, drones are not the same,” the expert said.

At the same time, he noted that using combat drones in the war may lead to a number of grave issues, such as deaths of innocent civilians.

“It is a separate issue, very serious and very difficult in technical terms. If the sides had good relations, they would obviously be able to solve it with reasonable technical limitations, warnings and means to check the transparency,” Alexei Arbatov stressed.

Dwelling on the current INF treaty confrontation, the analyst suggested that its possible solution also lies in establishing the relevant examination and verification system, but achieving this objective currently seems impossible.

“In the light of the grave crisis in Ukraine, everybody understands that no one would go to such lengths,” he said.

At the same time, Alexei Arbatov noted that giving a definitive opinion on the alleged 1987 treaty violations by Russia and the US is a very difficult task.

For example, he said that the use of the ABM platforms and target practice missiles by the US is highly ambiguous.

“The USA employ the elements of intermediate-range missiles as targets for their ABM system. The treaty says that the intermediate-range munitions, which are not designed for striking ground targets, do not fall into the SIRM classification. Among such cases are S-500 missiles and American ABMs. They may have the range of above 500 km (the minimum distance), by they are not designed for striking down ground targets and are therefore not banned by the treaty. On the other hands, these target practice missiles, since they are not destroyed, may be fitted with warheads for ground-to-ground strikes,” the expert explained.

“The same can be said of the ABM platforms. If they have the range of over 500 km — and such systems exist in the US, in Europe, on Alaska — they can also theoretically be used for striking ground-based targets. A great many anti-air and anti-missile munitions may in theory be used in such way, but they were not designed for that,” Alexei Arbatov continued.

In his opinion, giving a quick and definitive verdict over the Russian system in the core of the confrontation would also be impossible.

“R-500 missile which caused this argument is used on the ‘Iskander-M/K’ launch complexes, and they were tested. Russia says their range is below 500 km, the US says it’s above 500 km. How do you exactly determine a missile’s range? A cruise missile may fly not in a straight line like ballistic missiles do, but use a complex trajectory. What is its general range? This is a difficult kind of question fit for the technical experts,” the analyst concluded.

At the same time Said Aminov, military expert and editor of “Vestnik PVO” web-based media, suggested that in the current circumstances, the accusations by the US administration are just a part of political pressure campaign to make Russian authorities yield in a number of issues, including Ukraine.

“There are almost no facts, and this is just an attempt to drag in various events to cause a worldwide-scale political pressure on the country, aiming to change the authorities’ position on Ukraine,” he emphasized.

In the expert’s opinion, Washington’s declamations only escalate the current disagreements with Moscow and hinder the search for a political resolution.

At the same time, the military expert found the response by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs sound and substantiated.

In his opinion, the best way out of the INF treaty confrontation lies in cooperation between Moscow and Washington.

“Political dialogue, mutual discourse and trust, and search for the compromise: these are fundamental truths, and both sides and first of all the US must use these means to find a way to ensure the treaty works,” Said Aminov summarized.

This article was published at Penza News.

The post US-Russia Diplomatic Controversy Surrounding INF Treaty Requires Dialogue – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Admiral Arun Prakash (Retd)

‘…I feel personally responsible for each and every one of you, as if you were my own sons and daughters. And so my only prayer is that you serve with honour and return home safely.’ Thus spoke former US Secretary (Minister) of Defence, Robert Gates addressing the West Point Military Academy class of 2008.

In a few days, it will be one year since the Indian Navy (IN) submarine Sindhurakshak suffered a catastrophic explosion and sank in the shallow waters of Mumbai dockyard on Aug 14 last. This was followed by an equally traumatic event as the Navy Chief, Admiral D.K. Joshi, accepting moral responsibility for a series of mishaps, offered to resign from his post. The alacrity with which his resignation was accepted spoke of relief in the Ministry of Defence (MoD) that a sacrificial lamb had offered itself. Apart from this, not a leaf stirred in South Block.

Even as the IN grieves over the loss of 18 gallant sailors and officers, who went down with the Sindhurakshak, it is notable that no functionary in our politico-bureaucratic establishment has ever felt or conveyed the kind of angst and concern for servicemen, expressed so publicly by Robert Gates. India’s 100% civilian MoD, has acquired a reputation for its lethargic and inept management of national security, but let me dwell on the Sindhurakshak tragedy to highlight a few examples of the indifference, bordering on callousness, it displays towards India’s fighting men and women.

Forty-seven years after acquiring its first submarine, in 1967, the IN still lacks a submarine rescue vessel (SRV) which can enable the crew to escape from an incapacitated submarine without suffering the severe effects of decompression. The IN has been grappling for nearly two decades with the MoD bureaucracy to acquire a SRV, but one does not seem to be yet on the horizon. During the 2006 Fleet Review in Vishakhapatnam, when then president A.P.J. Abdul Kalam spent six hours underwater (coincidentally, on the Sindhurakshak), we had to ask the US Navy to provide rescue cover in case of an accident. In stark contrast, tiny Singapore, built its own SRV within a few years of acquiring its first submarine. Our MoD is either ignorant of the gravity of this lacuna or simply does not care.

Very soon after the horrific explosion which ripped through Sindhurakshak, it became obvious that chances of any crew members having survived the inferno were very slim. The priority now was to quickly access the wreckage so that bodies of the crew could be handed over to grieving families and an investigation commenced, expeditiously. In a Kafkaesque demonstration of languid functioning, the MoD took a full six months to float international tenders and to select a company to salvage the submarine. It was another four months before the hulk of the submarine could be raised. During this ten month interregnum, no signs of concern, anguish or urgency were visible in South Block.

There are media reports that a naval Board of Inquiry has completed investigations and submitted its findings to the appropriate authority. That these findings have not yet been made public is understandable; given the security implications of the matter. However, it bears recall that former Raksha Mantri (RM) A.K. Antony had delivered a stinging rebuke to the navy for this accident in November 2013; accusing it of ‘frittering national resources’. The RM did not seem to realize that he was referring to a serious and perplexing mishap and that his premature indictment was not founded on any facts available at that juncture.

The irony of his words obviously escaped Antony; by publicly berating the navy he was actually castigating himself because Naval Headquarters (NHQ) is now termed as ‘Integrated HQ of MoD’. This also exposed the huge chasm that persists between the military and the politico-bureaucratic establishment; cosmetic ‘integration’ notwithstanding. Had Antony during his long tenure ensured the actual incorporation of NHQ into the MoD, the responsibility for these accidents would have devolved collectively on the shoulders of an integrated ministry. A bold, proactive and well-informed RM could have also deflected unfair media criticism of the navy – a major cause for the despondent Navy Chief to resign.

Speculation about causes of the accident would be inappropriate because the IN has a time-tested system of investigation and analysis which would have pinpointed the causes of this accident; whether material defect, system malfunction or human error. The Service will thereafter implement remedial measures to eliminate the possibility of recurrence.

However, an aspect that bears the closest scrutiny and review is the continued reliance of all three Services on equipment of Soviet/Russian origin. In an August 2000 mishap, which bore uncanny resemblance to the Sindhurakshak accident, the Russian nuclear submarine Kursk suffered an explosion and sank with the loss of all hands. The final report on the disaster concluded that the explosion was due to failure of one of Kursk’s hydrogen peroxide-fuelled torpedoes. The collapse of the Soviet Union dealt a severe blow to its military-industrial complex from which it has not yet recovered. The steep decline in quality control as well as poor product support of Russian systems is being acutely felt by India’s armed forces; on land, at sea and in the air.

As we recall with sorrow and pride the sacrifice of Sindhurakshak’s brave sailors, let us remember that the most deleterious impact of the last regime’s inefficiency and indecision was on India’s national security. Consequently, the MoD faces huge accumulated problems and challenges which could take decades to resolve.

It is indeed unfortunate that the new government should have assigned half a minister to a ministry where three would find their hands full.

(Admiral Arun Prakash (Retd is a former Naval Chief and can be contacted at southasiamonitor1@gmail.com)

The post The IN Sindhurakshak Tragedy: Has India Learnt Any Lessons? – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Obja Borah Hazarika

Cultivating strong ties with its neighbours, including Myanmar, has been seen as one of the most discernible foreign policy choices of the newly formed Narendra Modi government.

For instance, India’s External Affairs Minister, Sushma Swaraj was on a visit to Myanmar from Aug 8-10, 2014 to attend the India-ASEAN Foreign Ministers’ meeting. During this visit Swaraj will attend the East Asia Summit meeting for Foreign Ministers and also the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF). Since taking over as the external affairs minister in May, Sushma Swaraj has already visited Bhutan, Bangladesh and Nepal. Prime Minister Narendra Modi is expected to visit Naypyidaw, the capital of Myanmar in November 2014.

Moreover, the Fifth Indo-Myanmar Regional Border Committee (RBC) meeting between India and Myanmar was held on July 25, 2014 in Imphal. The purpose of the meeting was to enhance understanding and cooperation between both the countries with regard to specific border related issues. The Indian delegation was led by Lt. Gen. SL Narasimhan, GOC 3 Corps, and comprised of members from ministries of defence, home affairs and external affairs.

Additionally, on May 8, 2014, India and Myanmar signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on Border Cooperation. This MoU provides a framework for security cooperation and exchange of information between Indian and Myanmarese security agencies.

The above-mentioned overtures to Myanmar should be seen as efforts by India to pursue its strategic targets outlined under the Look East Policy. Launched in the early 1990s, India’s Look East policy has now acquired substantive economic and strategic ground. India- Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) ties have now entered a new high-speed phase, which experts are rightly calling “Enhanced Look East” policy or “Look East Policy: 3.0.”

Economically, India-ASEAN relations are burgeoning. India-ASEAN trade has crossed $80 billion. The signing of a Free Trade Area in goods in 2009 provided new impetus to India-ASEAN relations and the India-ASEAN Free Trade Agreement on Services and Investment will be formalized soon. Improving connectivity is a related pillar of India’s economic vision in this region.

India has pursued connectivity projects and has supported the Master Plan on ASEAN Plus Connectivity (MPAC) to improve regional integration. India is eagerly anticipating the completion of the Tamu-Kalewa-Kalemyo sector of the India-Myanmar-Thailand Trilateral Highway as it will enable India to realize its connectivity related visions in this region. India has backed the extension of this highway to Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam and its integration with Special Economic Zones as it will lead to enhancing connectivity which is critical to harnessing the economic potential of north east India and the ASEAN region.

Apart from the economic facet, India’s Look East Policy also has an oft-understated and oft-overlooked strategic angle. Pursuing cooperative relations with Myanmar helps India realize several of its strategic interests, including and not restricted to – fighting insurgency, controlling trafficking, illegal cross border activities, and creating communicative lines and transport. For the security of the north eastern parts of India and as a gateway to the rest of South East Asia and beyond, Myanmar remains crucial for India.

The ‘China factor’ looms large in most of India’s overtures. Myanmar is the place where Indian and Chinese influences and interests intersect, therefore lending Myanmar a unique spot in Indian strategic thought. India is aware that China has many designs on Myanmar. Myanmar’s natural resources of oil, gas and timber which are in great demand in China and Myanmar’s ability to provide China with access to the Bay of Bengal and the Andaman Sea are two of the most important Chinese intentions with regard to Myanmar. India is also concerned about the zero-sum nature in which China and India may be pitted against each other with regard to overlapping economic and strategic interests of both nations.

India’s “Enhanced Look East” policy or “Look East Policy: 3.0 is key to promoting economic and strategic interests of India in the Southeast Asian region. This policy should increase the intensity of engagement of India with the neighbouring countries as well as initiate people-to people contacts over and above high level visits between both nations. The countries of the region welcome an increased role of India. However, if this leads to a zero-sum game between China and India, it could end up to be counterproductive for both countries.

If China and India cannot cooperatively and amicably deal with each other’s presence in the region it will not only hamper them from realizing their economic goals but will lead to greater security threats for the regions like the northeast of India and the areas on the borders of these nations. This makes it mandatory for the latest phase of the Look East Policy not to envision Myanmar in zero-sum terms and instead fashion a policy which prevents the emergence of a great game like situation in Myanmar.

(Obja Borah Hazarika is Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Dibrugarh University, Assam, and can be contacted at southasiamonitor1@gmail.com)

The post Myanmar: Central Pillar Of India’s Look East Policy 3.0? – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

“Hillary works for Goldman Sachs and likes war, otherwise I like Hillary,” a former Bill Clinton aide told me sardonically. First, he was referring to her cushy relationships with top Wall Street barons and her $200,000 speeches with the criminal enterprise known as Goldman Sachs, which played a part in crashing the U.S. economy in 2008 and burdening taxpayers with costly bailouts. Second, he was calling attention to her war hawkish foreign policy.

Last week, Hillary-The-Hawk emerged, once again, with comments to The Atlantic attacking Obama for being weak and not having an organized foreign policy. She was calling Obama weak despite his heavy hand in droning, bombing and intervening during his Presidency. While Obama is often wrong, he is hardly a pacifist commander. It’s a small wonder that since 2008, Hillary-The-Hawk has been generally described as, in the words of the New York Times journalist Mark Landler, “more hawkish than Mr. Obama.”

In The Atlantic interview, she chided Obama for not more deeply involving the U.S. with the rebels in Syria, who themselves are riven into factions and deprived of strong leaders and, with few exceptions, trained fighters. As Mrs. Clinton well knows, from her time as Secretary of State, the White House was being cautious because of growing Congressional opposition to intervention in Syria as Congress sought to determine the best rebel groups to arm and how to prevent this weaponry from falling into the hands of the enemy insurgents.

She grandly told her interviewer that “Great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle.” Nonsense. Not plunging into unconstitutional wars could have been a fine “organizing principle.” Instead, she voted for the criminal invasion of Iraq, which boomeranged back into costly chaos and tragedy for the Iraqi people and the American taxpayers.

Moreover, the former Secretary of State ended her undistinguished tenure in 2013 with an unremitting record of militarizing a Department that was originally chartered over 200 years ago to be the expression of American diplomacy. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton made far more bellicose statements than Secretary of Defense Robert Gates did. Some career Foreign Service Officers found her aggressive language unhelpful, if not downright hazardous to their diplomatic missions.

Such belligerency translated into her pushing both opposed Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and reluctant President Obama to topple the Libyan dictator, Muammar Gaddafi. The Libyan dictator had given up his dangerous weapons and was re-establishing relations with Western countries and Western oil companies. Mrs. Clinton had no “organizing principle” for the deadly aftermath with warring militias carving up Libya and spilling over into Mali and the resultant, violent disruption in Central Africa. The Libyan assault was Hillary Clinton’s undeclared war – a continuing disaster that shows her touted foreign policy experience as just doing more “stupid stuff.” She displays much ignorance about the quicksand perils for the United States of post-dictatorial vacuums in tribal, sectarian societies.

After criticizing Obama, Mrs. Clinton then issued a statement saying she had called the president to say that she did not intend to attack him and anticipated “hugging it out” with him at a Martha’s Vineyard party. Embracing opportunistically after attacking is less than admirable.

Considering Hillary Clinton’s origins as an anti-Vietnam War youth, how did she end up such a war hawk? Perhaps it is a result of her overweening political ambition and her determination to prevent accusations of being soft on militarism and its imperial Empire because she is a woman.

After her celebrity election as New York’s Senator in 2000, she was given a requested seat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. There, unlike her war-like friend, Republican Senator John McCain, she rarely challenged a boondoggle Pentagon contract; never took on the defense industry’s waste, fraud and abuse; and never saw a redundant or unneeded weapons system (often criticized by retired Generals and Admirals) that she did not like.

The vaunted military-industrial complex, which President Eisenhower warned about, got the message. Hillary Clinton was one of them.

Energetically waging peace was not on Secretary of State Clinton’s agenda. She would rather talk about military might and deployment in one geographic area after another. At the U.S. Naval Academy in 2012, Generalissma Clinton gave a speech about pivoting to East Asia with “force posture” otherwise known as “force projection” (one of her favorite phrases) of U.S. naval ships, planes and positioned troops in countries neighboring China.

Of course, China’s response was to increase its military budget and project its own military might. The world’s super-power should not be addicted to continuous provocations that produce unintended consequences.

As she goes around the country, with an expanded publically-funded Secret Service corps to promote the private sales of her book, Hard Choices, Hillary Clinton needs to ponder what, if anything, she as a Presidential candidate has to offer a war-weary, corporate-dominated American people. As a former member of the board of directors of Walmart, Hillary Clinton waited several years before coming out this April in support for a restored minimum wage for thirty million American workers (a majority of whom are women).

This delay is not surprising considering Hillary Clinton spends her time in the splendors of the wealthy classes and the Wall Street crowd, when she isn’t pulling down huge speech fees pandering to giant trade association conventions. This creates distance between her and the hard-pressed experiences of the masses, doesn’t it?

See Progressives Opposed to a Clinton Dynasty for more information.

The post Ralph Nader: Hillary-The-Hawk Flies Again – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Kester Kenn Klomegah

By ‘resetting’ some strategies, Russia and Africa have entered a new phase of growth in their economic diplomacy mainly due to rising interaction by high ranking government officials from some African countries with their Russian colleagues during the first half of 2014. Undoubtedly, Russia’s intensified move to invite delegations has often been interpreted among academics and policy experts as a result of escalating competition and increasing economic influence by many foreign players in Africa.

Professor Georgy Toloraya, Chair of the Regional Projects Department, Russkiy Mir Foundation, and Executive Director, BRICS National Research Committee in Russia, explained that ‘in the wake of increasing conflict with the West and European Union, Russia has to turn its attention (especially in economy) elsewhere and Africa is the obvious choice. The time has come to make meaningful efforts to implement agreements on bilateral basis. Furthermore, Russia is a part of the BRICS efforts in Africa, which might be one of the areas of investment activities by the newly created New Development Bank of BRICS.’

As media reports have indicated, Russia will assume the BRICS presidency and prepare the 7th Summit in 2015, President Vladimir Putin may attempt to use the group to strengthen its policy in Africa. Observers also noted Russia considers the grouping an absolute foreign policy priority. Brazil, India and China are very visible on the continent, but can they also have a meaningful unified BRICS foreign policy in Africa? Foreign players have their individual interests and varying investment.

Some experts acknowledge that it is never too late for Russia to enter the business game but what it requires here is to move beyond old stereotypes, prioritize corporate projects and have a new policy strategy for the continent – a market of some 350 million middle-class Africans. Of course, Russia has to risk by investing and recognize the importance of cooperation on key potential investment issues and to work closely with African leaders on the challenges and opportunities on the continent, Andy Kwawukume, an independent policy expert told me from London, noting that Russians were trying to re-stage a come-back over the past few years, which was a commendable step forward.

Kwawukume, a Norwagian trained graduate, pointed out that ‘there is enough room and gaps in Africa for Russians to fill too, in a meaningful way, which can benefit all parties involved. The poor and low level of infrastructural development in Africa constitutes a huge business for Russian construction companies to step in. Energy is another sector Russians can help in developing. Over the past few years summits have become increasingly common and interactive dialogue is also very helpful that Russian officials should consider using its Russian trained African graduates as bridges to stimulate business cooperation. Really, what Russia needs is a multilayered agenda for Africa.’

But, John Mashaka, a Tanzanian financial analyst at Wells Fargo Capital Markets in the U.S., argues that Russia is going to remain relevant in Africa if its leaders can design a policy or mechanism that will enable its people and corporations to secure credits – loans – with favourable terms including payment. It must counter China’s increasing economic influence with much better packages such as concessional and low-interest loans. There are chances to turn the business tide and if Russians can come with a different mix of economic incentives, without doubt, they will be taking off from the track where the former USSR left after the collapse of the Soviet era.

DECLARATION ON STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP

During the first half of 2014, African delegations at various levels visited Moscow from Algeria, Angola, Egypt, Mauritania, Morocco, Mozambique, State of Eritrea, Sudan, South Sudan, Uganda and Zimbabwe.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov pointed out that the purpose of the visits was ‘to develop a trustworthy political dialogue and strengthen mutually beneficial bilateral cooperation in accordance with the declaration on strategic partnership and to forge cooperation in mutually beneficial economic spheres,’ – an official phrase that has run throughout (nearly all) his speeches, summarizing the results of the negotiations with African officials and posted to the ministry’s website.

Lavrov further stressed the situation in different African regions, including to the north of the Sahara, in the region of the Horn of Africa, including the situation in Somalia, in the Republics of Sudan and South Sudan, the Central African Republic, in the Great Lakes Region, which is the key focus of attention in the foreign policy. ‘We would like to contribute to the normalization of all multifaceted ties, as well as the settlement of other problem issues in the African continent,’ said Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

In May, while addressing African diplomatic representatives, Lavrov said: ‘We will continue to assist states of the continent in other areas both bilaterally and within multilateral formats. As it is known, Russia has written off over US$20 billion debt of African states. We are undertaking steps to further ease the debt burden of Africans, including through conclusion of agreements based on the scheme debt in exchange for development.’

In an article headlined: ‘Russia and Sub-Saharan Africa: Time-proven Relations’ published in the magazine Russian View in May, Sergey Lavrov gave additional information on gains made in policy implementation in Africa. It says that the economic forum ‘Urals–Africa’ held in Yekaterinburg in July 2013 and attended by delegations from about 40 African States confirmed broad opportunities for enhancing cooperation with Africa.

‘Our country takes significant practical steps to assist sustainable development of African states. Russia provides African countries with extensive preferences in trade and contributes to alleviating their debt burden – the total amount of debt relief exceeds US$20 billion. Debt-for-development agreements for a total amount of US$552 million were concluded with certain States,’ Lavrov wrote in the article.

He added that ‘the training of highly qualified specialists for various sectors of the economy, as well as healthcare, is another aspect of our efforts. Currently, more than 6,500 Africans study in Russian higher educational institutions and nearly half of them at the expense of federal budget funds. More than 960 Russian government grants are provided annually to countries of the region. Russia takes an active part in establishing the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria and has joined the Global Polio Eradication Initiative.’

Obviously, Russia continues providing the necessary politico-diplomatic follow-up for the African activities of leading Russian companies such as Alrosa, Gazprom, Lukoil, Rusal, Renova, Gammakhim, Technopromexport and VEB and VTB banks, which are engaged in large-scale investment projects on the continent. Positive dynamics are evident in the development of Russian-African cooperation in the minerals and raw materials, infrastructure, energy and many other spheres.

As an illustration, Russia has shown interest in strengthening close ties with Libya in trade and energy and expanding military and technical cooperation. ‘We are closely examining developing relations with Libya. We support the efforts taken by the Libyan authorities to stabilize the situation in the country and ensure national reconciliation,’ Russian President Vladimir Putin reiterated this fact in June during a diplomatic accreditation ceremony for 14 foreign ambassadors to Russia broadcast on Rossiya-24.

CRITICISMS AND ADVICE

Some experts have offered both criticism and expert advice, often comparing Russia’s economic investment and influence to other foreign players. As Dane Erickson, a lecturer at the Graduate School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado and formerly a visiting scholar at the Africa Studies Center at Beijing University, argues in his recent article published in July: the reality is that China is among many international players that have increased their attention to Africa in recent years.

Largely due to Africa’s growing reputation as a region for commerce, over the past few years China, India, Japan, and the European Union all have hosted regional meetings similar to the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit. Africa’s fractional share in global foreign direct investment (FDI) is on the rise, and trade between Africa and a multitude of nations is also increasing rapidly.

China’s trade has increased rapidly. For example, China is the most conspicuous among these actors. China’s first Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) occurred in 2000 and larger conferences have taken place every three years since. And while China’s official FDI is only 25 percent of that of countries like the U.S. and France, its trade dwarfs the figures of other nations. Up from just $10 billion in 2000, Chinese-African trade came to nearly $200 billion in 2012, double that of the United States, the continent’s second largest trading partner.

‘The most conspicuous aspect of Russia’s involvement in Africa is its absence,’ says John Endres, Chief Executive Officer of Good Governance Africa from South Africa, adding comparatively that ‘whereas the Soviet Union was quite extensively engaged in Africa in the form of proxy wars, as a promoter of communist ideology and as a supporter in the anti-colonial struggles, Russia has almost entirely abandoned the field to others during the past two decades.’

But maybe, Endres argues further, this is not entirely surprising, considering that Russia is itself a resource-rich country – in contrast to China, for example, it does not need to go searching abroad for most of its necessities. And Africa is still very small as a factor market and as a demand market, so Russia can afford to ignore it. Nor does Russia have an ideology that it would want to peddle around the world.

OUTCOMES REMAIN INVISIBLE

Professor Gerrit Olivier at the Department of Political Sciences, University of Pretoria, and former South African Ambassador to the Russian Federation, wrote that when President Dmitry Medvedev visited Africa in 2009 (Egypt, Angola and Namibia), mainly to boost business, South Africa was left out rather conspicuously.

‘What seems to irk the Russians, in particular, is that very few initiatives go beyond the symbolism, pomp and circumstance of high level opening moves. It is also still not clear how South Africa sees Russia’s willingness (and intention) to step up its role in Africa, especially with China becoming more visible and assertive on the continent,’ Professor Olivier added.

As an important role player, it would seem to be in South Africa’s interest to promote and cultivate a new Russian presence in Africa, something very different from the Cold War role of the Soviet Union, but a role that could promote development and stability in Africa by introducing more healthy competition, partnership, and greater responsibility among the major powers active on the continent.

Important though is the fact that the Soviet Union never tried to colonize Africa. Soviet influence in Africa disappeared almost like a mirage with the collapse of the Soviet system in 1991. And today Russian influence in Africa, despite efforts towards resuscitation, remains marginal. While, given its global status, it ought to be active in Africa as Western Europe, the European Union, America and China are, it is all but absent, playing a negligible role, according to the views of the retired diplomat.

‘Russia, of course, is not satisfied with this state of affairs. At present ‘paper diplomacy’ dominates its approach: a plethora of agreements are being entered into with South Africa and various other states in Africa, official visits from Moscow proliferate apace, but the outcomes remain hardly discernible. Be that as it may, the Kremlin has revived its interest in the African continent and it will be realistic to expect that the spade work it is putting in now will at some stage show more tangible results,’ Professor Olivier wrote from Pretoria in South Africa.

According to a recent research survey conducted between January and June 2014 by Buziness Africa, both Russian and African policy experts suggested that the existing Memorandum of Understanding (MoUs) Russia has signed with African countries and together with various economic agreements reached by the joint business councils over the past few years provide solid framework for raising vigorously its economic influence as well as strengthening bilateral relations to an appreciable levels between Russia and Africa.

Kester Kenn Klomegah is a keen foreign policy observer and an independent researcher on Russia and Africa. In 2004 and 2009, he won the Golden Word Prize for series of analytical articles highlighting Russia’s economic cooperation with African countries.

* THE VIEWS OF THE ABOVE ARTICLE ARE THOSE OF THE AUTHOR/S AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE PAMBAZUKA NEWS EDITORIAL TEAM

The post Russia’s Investment In Africa: New Challenges And Prospects – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Claudette Roulo

Despite recent events in the Middle East, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and the Defense Department remain dedicated to the U.S. rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region, Pentagon Press Secretary Navy Rear Adm. John Kirby told reporters today.

“Given the fact that there’s a lot going on in the world, that we’re still making these visits and still having these discussions, speaks volumes about how important we believe the Asia-Pacific theater is,” he said at a Pentagon news conference.

With more than 350,000 American troops based in the Pacific — including the majority of Navy assets — and with five of the seven U.S. treaty alliances there, DoD is very committed to the region, Kirby said.

“It doesn’t mean that we take our eye off the ball of the rest of the world,” he said. “We know we have security commitments around the world in the Middle East, in Africa [and] in Europe, and we continue to work mightily on those commitments. And there’s been no slackening in that regard.”

But, Kirby noted, if sequestration remains the law of the land, “it’s going to be harder and harder for us to meet those commitments.” Unless Congress acts to change the law, sequestration spending cuts will return in fiscal year 2016.

“The defense strategy that we put forward, which allows us to conduct this rebalance and still focus on those parts of the world, will be put in jeopardy” under sequestration, Kirby said.

Hagel returned yesterday from a trip that included a stop in India, where he met with Prime Minister Narendra Modi and External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj to discuss the importance of continuing robust defense cooperation.

“It was a very successful visit. … There are opportunities here for co-development and co-production that we hope will come to fruition here in the future, particularly with the Javelin anti-tank missile, shows great promise,” Kirby said. “But we were warmly received by Indian officials, came away from it feeling very, very positive. In fact, the secretary was talking about that this morning to the staff about the trip and feeling very, very encouraged by it.”

The department is looking forward to continuing to develop the defense relationship with India’s new government, he said.

“We had a great set of discussions. We believe the relationship is on a good, strong path forward, and that’s the secretary’s focus — it’s on the future,” he added.

The post Asia-Pacific Rebalance Remains Central To US Strategy, Says Pentagon appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Syed Muhammad Ali

Not many people know that India has the fastest growing nuclear program in the world. With wide-ranging international help, India is massively expanding both its nuclear arsenal and civilian nuclear program and building large nuclear facilities across the country. In contrast, since 1970, a small uranium enrichment facility on the outskirts of Islamabad, the Pakistani capital, has been under the constant spotlight of western leaders, diplomats and journalists alike.

India, however, does not receive such ‘unfriendly’ world attention. The international nuclear pundits and non-proliferation proponents remain conspicuous by their silence on the ambitious Indian nuclear drive. In the case of New Delhi, both profit and politics makes the international community look the other way and non-proliferation norms and international law to be interpreted differently. Helping India rise strategically, by deliberately compromising both international norms and regional balance of power, means the global drivers of power politics and nuclear trade have learned little from world history. While injustice in international politics is not new, this nuclear apartheid is not without grave dangers to the crisis prone and nuclear-armed South Asian region, changing Asia-Pacific power structure and the emerging world order.

The Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) is a Washington based think tank, which closely monitors the technical aspects of nuclear programs of various states. It recently released an assessment, which provides compelling evidence that India is covertly building a new and large industrial scale Uranium Enrichment Plant in Karnataka, with foreign help. This plant is expected to produce large quantities of highly enriched Uranium, useful for both powering Indian future ballistic missile nuclear submarine fleet and producing thermonuclear bombs.

A most interesting aspect of the ISIS report is not the size or capacity of this new Uranium Enrichment Facility, but the warning by a leading US nuclear expert David Albright that it is being built clandestinely with illegal means, a reference to international nuclear black market. One wonders who is currently running this international nuclear black market and how come India is building not one, but two Uranium Enrichment Plants at Mysore and Karnataka with its help. Was Dr. A. Q. Khan merely a fall guy to divert world attention from the suppliers and real movers and shakers of the multi-national nuclear black market, which continues to thrive, thanks to its biggest current customer, India? After all the U.S.-based analyst Pollack aptly quipped in his Playboy article two years ago that Pakistan could not be interested in proliferating the technology to the very State (India) against whose threat, Pakistan made the bomb in the first place!

The ISIS report becomes all the more ironic because it comes at a time when India, despite its well-known nuclear proliferation history, is being deliberately offered exceptional international help to join the exclusive 48-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), whose very purpose is to prevent nuclear proliferation. The NSG was founded in 1975 as a direct consequence of the Indian proliferation of internationally-supplied nuclear material and technology, intended only for peaceful purposes, by using it in its first nuclear bomb test in 1974. The first Indian nuclear weapon test, ironically called ‘Smiling Buddha’, was conducted under the misleading pretext of a peaceful nuclear explosion.

Today, the growing international technological help, supporting the enormous Indian nuclear ambitions, indicate that the profit-seeking and influential international nuclear industry would not allow their governments or non-proliferation norms and regime to limit the prospects of lucrative, but dangerous nuclear trade with New Delhi. Various states supplying nuclear materials and manufacturing nuclear technologies to New Delhi, particularly Japan, Australia, France and the U.S., are impatiently eying the large Indian nuclear market, at the cost of their own policies, laws, non-proliferation commitments, international obligations and norms, both for profit and geo-politics. But let us carefully read the fine print of the ISIS report to understand what India is actually doing with all this foreign help.

The ISIS report, along with its satellite imagery, provides incontrovertible evidence that India has the fastest growing nuclear arsenal in the world. One fails to understand how three small Pakistani nuclear reactors can produce more plutonium than the eight large Indian production reactors and in future, and how will a much smaller and solitary Pakistani Enrichment plant (HEU), produce more HEU than two Indian HEU facilities in Mysore and another much bigger one being built in Karnataka.

What is also striking is the revelation by a previous ISIS report, which points out that the designs of the Indian Rare Metals Plant (RMP) centrifuge parts are very similar to the Dutch URENCO centrifuges, another evidence of India benefiting from covert foreign help, direct assistance from the manufacturer or both. This also indicates weak export controls, duplicity or both, by companies and states, manufacturing and supplying sensitive nuclear technologies to New Delhi, This is very interesting because the same states are also influential members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, who want India to join it so that their nuclear technology and materials can be freely shared with New Delhi which is otherwise considered illegal or harmful to the endangered non-proliferation regime. Many other states, either planning to peacefully use nuclear technology for their development or the countries hoping to keep it under responsible control, will no longer trust the checkered non-proliferation regime.

Dr. Srikumar Banerjee, former Chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission, confirmed three years ago that the large Uranium Enrichment Plant being built in Chitradurga district of the state of Karnataka, will have both civilian and military uses. This public admission by a top Indian nuclear scientist blatantly negates the spirit and defeats the very purpose of the controversial Indo-US nuclear deal, based on the separation of Indian civilian and military nuclear fuel cycles. The latest ISIS report also warns the foreign dual-use item suppliers to exercise extra care to ensure that Rare Metals Plant in Mysore and the new Uranium Enrichment plant being built in Karnataka, do not receive nuclear and technological exports, intended solely for peaceful and non-military uses.

This concern by a leading U.S. nuclear expert indicates that despite the effective eradication of nuclear black market by Pakistan, the multi-national nuclear black market is still active, has covert support of various large nuclear suppliers and India continues to benefit from it to expand its clandestine nuclear facilities, outside nuclear safeguards, to build both its nuclear and thermonuclear weapons.

Joining NSG will further help India build its land, air and sea-based nuclear weapon arsenal, with unrestricted international help. Again, this also defeats the very purpose of putting some of the Indian nuclear facilities under international safeguards. As a non-NPT state, India has a huge, five decades old, nuclear weapons program which, despite repeated Pakistani warnings, is accelerating and expanding, with both overt and covert foreign help. This international assistance is not confined only to nuclear materials and technologies but also includes open access to sophisticated weapon technologies, ranging from ballistic missile submarine reactors, cruise missile development, space launch vehicles, space satellites, ballistic missile defense, high power radars, fifth-generation stealth fighters, and training of its scientists and engineers.

These unprecedented but dangerous trends indicate that some powers are rapidly building up India against China by deliberately neglecting international laws, undermining norms and violating non-proliferation regime. These states are providing India with advanced technologies, materials and expertise, knowing very well that these will be used for strategic and military purposes by New Delhi. This massive nuclear expansion is underway, when half of the Indian territory is engulfed in an expanding and violent Maoist insurgency. Moreover, repeated incidents involving staff negligence, nuclear safety and secrecy issues, legal and environmental disputes involving Indian nuclear materials, key personnel, nuclear organizations and sensitive facilities, have been widely reported by the Indian press over the years. What is clearly ironic is the fact that instead of reacting to these obvious facts, it is the dramatic fiction around Pakistan’s small nuclear program, motivated solely by its national security imperatives and rising energy needs, which captures the imagination of various western international think tanks, movie makers and news organizations alike.

Compared to India, Pakistan has a modest nuclear program, whose safety and security is well-recognized and often appreciated by world leaders such as President Obama and Senator Kerry, senior U.S. State Department officials and the IAEA, the international nuclear watchdog. In spite of these facts, The popular western media and various think tanks rarely consult or quote either their own leaders, institutions or the IAEA officials and deliberately and incorrectly castigate Pakistan, describing its nuclear program as the fastest growing and its nuclear arsenal as the most sought after by the terrorists.

The ISIS report truly exposes the amoral character of international politics, hunger for profit by the international nuclear industry and highlights the fact that instead of non-proliferation, growing nuclear apartheid is the actual international nuclear norm. Political realists like Hobbes, Machiavelli, Morgenthau and Waltz have aptly warned against trusting promise more than power. Unfortunately, the bogus myth of the non-proliferation regime has been crafted by the major world powers, to monopolize and control nuclear technology and materials to exploit the developing world and keep it dependent. The myth of non-proliferation, with apologies to its believers or proponents, unfortunately, does not stand the test of history, from a liberal paradigm. The historical reality is that, notwithstanding any international norms, treaty or regime, all major powers have shared nuclear, missile and other sensitive technologies, know-how and materials with their existing and close allies, to suit their national interests and the ‘nuclear have-nots’ have not been able to do anything about that.

Today, the converging interests of a growing India, profit-seeking nuclear industry, influential black market merchants and major powers are collectively eroding international laws, national obligations and non-proliferation regime. At a time of transforming international security architecture, these trends pose grave dangers to regional security and international peace. However, it also helps explain why in history, peace has remained so elusive or difficult to maintain. The jealous pursuit of self-interest by states and the searing hunger for profit by industrialists makes apartheid, far less appreciated than justice in popular left-leaning literature and common narrative. However, the evidence of history, in the form of ignored international laws, overlooked non-proliferation commitments and compromised regional stability, suggests that the quintessential norm of international political history is the pursuit of unequal power by states and unequal wealth by businesses.

However, nowhere are the perils of international apartheid more dangerous or the consequences more disastrous than in the international nuclear trade. The quest for profit by nuclear suppliers, the Indian yearning for greater status and the major powers’ desire to constrain China could collectively harm international peace and security far more than any perceived or actual gain to any regional or global power.

The critical dilemma that the US and its Asia-Pacific allies currently face is that its exceptional help for the Indian rise could provoke China to rearm, bring China and Russia closer against Washington, and make the U.S. neglect its Western European security commitments, divide ASEAN, destabilize Asia and accelerate a nuclear arms race in South Asia. Such a distribution of power is neither sustainable nor tenable. It will help neither the US global, regional or public interests nor the world’s largest impoverished population which lives in India but only make the large military industrial complexes of the US and India richer, at the cost of international peace and regional stability. The saddest lesson of history, with apology to Isaac Asimov, is that science gathers knowledge and traders gain profit faster than society gathers wisdom. It is one thing to acquire power and wealth and quite another to use them wisely.
Syed Muhammad Ali is a Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for International Strategic Studies (CISS) Islamabad, Pakistan. Earlier, he has served as a faculty member at the National Defence University of Pakistan, where he taught Dimensions of Modern Strategy, Foreign Policy Analysis and Comparative Politics. He has also served as a founding board member of the Centre for Pakistan and Gulf Studies (CPGS). During the past two decades, he has over three dozen publications to his credit on international strategic, security and nuclear issues.

The post The Dangers Of Nuclear Apartheid – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.