Category: International relations

  • US gives India policing power in the Indian Ocean

    How China reacts to this will be interesting to watch.It might try to prop up Pakistan more vigorously.
    On the other hand Pakistan will whine.
    Ultimately one has to accept the fact, with all its problems India has come to stay as a world power

    Story:

    “The distribution of global political, economic and military power is shifting and becoming more diffuse. The rise of China, the world’s most populous country, and India, the world’s largest democracy, will continue to reshape the international system,” said the Quadrennial Defence Review (QDR) report released by US defence secretary Robert Gates.
    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/US-gives-India-policing-power-in-the-Indian-Ocean/articleshow/5529468.cms

  • Does Japan still matter?-Washington Post.

    Japan might be world’s second largest economy- I do not know by what yard stick,if it is facing economic slow down and its products are not as popular as it was a decade ago- but Korea and Hongkong, not to speak of China have surged far ahead of Japan in the international market, cutting into Japan’s market.Assuming it is a very powerful economy and a leading donor to third world countries and United Nations, of what use is that to Japan? Its voice is hardly heard and if heard barely listened to in the international arena.Sans US, which needs it to counter North Korea and China, it is a non entity in international affairs as far as its influence is concerned.
    You can count the number of friends of Japan in the international arena.
    Despite its military hard ware Japan is unable to counter North Korea, not to speak of China.
    Japan needs US more than US needs Japan.
    Fact is Japan is no longer a world power;US makes it believe so for its strategic reasons.

    U.S.-Japan relations are in “crisis,” Japan’s foreign minister told me Thursday — but I would guess that few Americans have noticed, let alone felt alarm. As China rises, Japan’s economy has stalled, and its population is dwindling. The island nation — feared during the last century first as a military power, then as an economic conqueror — barely registers in the American imagination.

    But Japan still matters. And despite the “crisis” set in motion by the electoral defeat of the party that had ruled for half a century, the United States has more to fear from Japanese defeatism — from its own uncertainty about whether it still matters — than from the assertiveness of its new government.

    At a seminar here this week organized by the German Marshall Fund and the Tokyo Foundation, and in separate interviews, one Japanese after another delivered variations on gloom, doom and pessimism. Polls confirm that this is no anomaly; in one taken by the Asahi Shimbun newspaper last spring, the three words offered most often to describe the current era were “unrest,” “stagnation” and “bleak,” as the paper’s editor in chief, Yoichi Funabashi, noted recently in Foreign Affairs.

    “Japan’s presence in the international community is rapidly weakening and waning,” one prominent businessman said this week. “We have to bring Japan back to high growth, but that possibility now is nil. . . . There are heaps of difficulties facing Japan . . . insurmountable . . . Japanese people are so anxious. . . . We don’t need to remain a major country. . . . ‘Small-nation Japan’ is my thinking.”

    Japan’s fiscal challenges are daunting, as is its declining birthrate. Yet the negativity seems overblown. Japan retains the world’s second-largest national economy and will be third or fourth biggest for decades to come. It is the world’s second-largest aid donor, the fifth-biggest military spender (despite a constitution that bars the waging of war) and a technological powerhouse. It is a crucial player, and frequently America’s closest ally, in international organizations such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. And as the longest-standing and most successful democracy in the non-Western world, it is a hugely important role model, and potentially a leader, in supporting freedom and the rule of law.

    That potential was sharply enhanced by the landslide victory of the Democratic Party of Japan in August, ending what one speaker at the seminar called the Liberal Democratic “shogunate.” The Democrats have promised to disrupt the cozy relationship among bureaucrats, the ruling party and industry, and to govern with more public input and accountability.

    But they’re also disrupting the U.S.-Japan relationship. An agreement to realign U.S. Marine bases in Okinawa has been put on hold, despite what U.S. officials took as a promise from Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama (“Trust me,” he privately told President Obama, according to Japanese officials) to implement the deal. The Democrats’ coalition partners, as well as voters in Okinawa, loathe the pact.

    “So we are in a situation where the U.S.-Japan alliance is being tested,” Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada acknowledged.

    Democratic Party officials have said they want to put the U.S.-Japan relationship on a more equal footing, and Hatoyama and others have at times gone further, suggesting a desire to improve relations with China while downgrading those with the United States. But Okada dismissed suggestions that the suspension of the base agreement reflects a deeper-seated resentment of America or a fundamental questioning of the alliance.

    Citing North Korea’s nuclear weapons and China’s growing military, Okada said, “I don’t think anyone would think that Japan on its own can face up to such risks. That is why we need the U.S.-Japan alliance. I don’t think any decent politician would doubt that as a fact.”

    Frustrated by Hatoyama’s amateurish handling of the issue, Obama administration officials are scrambling to come up with the right mix of tolerance for the coalition’s inexperience and firmness on implementing an agreed-upon deal. They’re right to insist on the importance of the military alliance, long a force for stability throughout the region.

    But they shouldn’t lose sight of the larger picture. For years now the United States has been trying to engage China’s government in strategic dialogues and high-level commissions. It should do no less with Japan, its most important democratic ally in Asia, and the advent of an untested government still feeling its way provides both reason and opportunity to do so.

    So far, Japan’s new government has not defined policies that could restore economic growth and lift the country out of its funk. But America should be hoping that it can. And if it wants Japan to regain some confidence, it makes sense to treat Japan as though it matters. Because it does.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/10/AR2009121003162.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter

  • From The Times December 2, 2009 We are in charge now, Sarkozy tells the City-Times.

    Artificially brought under one umbrella,Nationalistic feelings are showing up.Clan mentality is Natural.You can not wipe it out by idealistic dialog or by misplaced idealism,especially between UK and France,considering their history.

    Alistair Darling has delivered a blunt warning to the EU’s new French finance chief against meddling with the City of London.

    As Nicolas Sarkozy gloated over impending curbs on the City, the Chancellor said that such moves would drive financial services out of Europe.

    The French President’s glee at the appointment of Michel Barnier as Commissioner for the Single Market took on an edge of menace yesterday when he said that unfettered City practices must end.

    “Do you know what it means for me to see for the first time in 50 years a French European commissioner in charge of the internal market, including financial services, including the City [of London]?” he said yesterday.

    “I want the world to see the victory of the European model, which has nothing to do with the excesses of financial capitalism,” he said.

    His implicit threat was just what Downing Street had feared when Mr Barnier, formerly an agriculture minister, was given the portfolio last week.

    Mr Darling, writing in The Times today, says that it would be a “recipe for confusion” if firms were supervised by the EU as well as national watchdogs and that Britain would not accept new laws that could lead to taxpayers picking up the bill for bailouts ordered by Brussels.

    He rejects claims that the economic crisis was the fault of the “Anglo-Saxon” model, pointing out that French and German banks were among the biggest creditors of the failed US insurance giant AIG.

    Terry Smith, a prominent banker, said that the threat of increased regulation was already threatening the City’s future.

    “I’ve never seen so much work going on by companies, individuals and teams of people to evaluate relocation out of the UK,” he said.
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6939895.ece?&EMC-Bltn=GEIAF1F

  • Swiss voters back ban on minarets

    The stead fast blinkers on attitude of so called moderate and secular Muslims should own up responsibility for having allowed things to come to such a pass because of their refusal to rein in their terrorist brethren.One shudders to think of the clash of Christian world and the Muslim world, which unfortunately the current situation is heading for.
    Story:
    Swiss voters have supported a referendum proposal to ban the building of minarets, official results show.
    More than 57% of voters from 26 cantons – or provinces – voted in favour of the ban, Swiss news agency ATS reported.
    The proposal had been put forward by the Swiss People’s Party, (SVP), the largest party in parliament, which says minarets are a sign of Islamisation.
    Opponents say a ban would amount to discrimination and that the ballot has stirred hatred.
    The BBC’s Imogen Foulkes, in Bern, says the surprise result is very bad news for the Swiss government which had urged voters to reject a ban on minarets, fearing unrest among the Muslim community and damage to Switzerland’s relations with Islamic countries.
    Switzerland is home to some 400,000 Muslims and has just four minarets.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8385069.stm

  • Iraq report: Secret papers reveal blunders and concealment.Telegraph,UK.

    Exposes UK’s blind toeing of US.The sordid drama includes outright lying,corruption,poor planning,lack of Intelligence(pun intended).Please read on.
    Story:
    The “appalling” errors that contributed to Britain’s failure in Iraq are disclosed in the most detailed and damning set of leaks to emerge on the conflict.

    On the eve of the Chilcot inquiry into Britain’s involvement in the 2003 invasion and its aftermath, The Sunday Telegraph has obtained hundreds of pages of secret Government reports on “lessons learnt” which shed new light on “significant shortcomings” at all levels.
    They include full transcripts of extraordinarily frank classified interviews in which British Army commanders vent their frustration and anger with ministers and Whitehall officials.

    The reports disclose that:
    Tony Blair, the former prime minister, misled MPs and the public throughout 2002 when he claimed that Britain’s objective was “disarmament, not regime change” and that there had been no planning for military action. In fact, British military planning for a full invasion and regime change began in February 2002.

    The need to conceal this from Parliament and all but “very small numbers” of officials “constrained” the planning process. The result was a “rushed”operation “lacking in coherence and resources” which caused “significant risk” to troops and “critical failure” in the post-war period.

    Operations were so under-resourced that some troops went into action with only five bullets each. Others had to deploy to war on civilian airlines, taking their equipment as hand luggage. Some troops had weapons confiscated by airport security.

    Commanders reported that the Army’s main radio system “tended to drop out at around noon each day because of the heat”. One described the supply chain as “absolutely appalling”, saying: “I know for a fact that there was one container full of skis in the desert.”

    The Foreign Office unit to plan for postwar Iraq was set up only in late February, 2003, three weeks before the war started.

    The plans “contained no detail once Baghdad had fallen”, causing a “notable loss of momentum” which was exploited by insurgents. Field commanders raged at Whitehall’s “appalling” and “horrifying” lack of support for reconstruction, with one top officer saying that the Government “missed a golden opportunity” to win Iraqi support. Another commander said: “It was not unlike 1750s colonialism where the military had to do everything ourselves.”

    The documents emerge two days before public hearings begin in the Iraq Inquiry, the tribunal appointed under Sir John Chilcot, a former Whitehall civil servant, to “identify lessons that can be learnt from the Iraq conflict”.

    Senior military officers and relatives of the dead have warned Sir John against a “whitewash”.

    The documents consist of dozens of “post-operational reports” written by commanders at all levels, plus two sharply-worded “overall lessons learnt” papers – on the war phase and on the occupation – compiled by the Army centrally.

    The analysis of the war phase describes it as a “significant military success” but one achieved against a “third-rate army”. It identifies a long list of “significant” weaknesses and notes: “A more capable enemy would probably have punished these shortcomings severely.”

    The analysis of the occupation describes British reconstruction plans as “nugatory” and “hopelessly optimistic”.

    It says that coalition forces were “ill-prepared and equipped to deal with the problems in the first 100 days” of the occupation, which turned out to be “the defining stage of the campaign”. It condemns the almost complete absence of contingency planning as a potential breach of Geneva Convention obligations to safeguard civilians.

    The leaked documents bring into question statements that Mr Blair made to Parliament in the build up to the invasion. On July 16 2002, amid growing media speculation about Britain’s future role in Iraq, Mr Blair was asked: “Are we then preparing for possible military action in Iraq?” He replied: “No.”

    Introducing the now notorious dossier on Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction, on Sept 24, 2002, Mr Blair told MPs: “In respect of any military options, we are not at the stage of deciding those options but, of course, it is important — should we get to that point — that we have the fullest possible discussion of those options.”
    In fact, according to the documents, “formation-level planning for a [British] deployment [to Iraq] took place from February 2002”.
    The documents also quote Maj Gen Graeme Lamb, the director of special forces during the Iraq war, as saying: “I had been working the war up since early 2002.”
    The leaked material also includes sheaves of classified verbatim transcripts of one-to-one interviews with commanders recently returned from Iraq – many critical of the Whitehall failings that were becoming clear. At least four commanders use the same word – “appalling” – to describe the performance of the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence.
    Documents describe the “inability to restore security early during the occupation” as the “critical failure” of the deployment and attack the “absence of UK political direction” after the war ended.
    One quotes a senior British officer as saying: “The UK Government, which spent millions of pounds on resourcing the security line of operations, spent virtually none on the economic one, on which security depended.”
    Many of the documents leaked to The Sunday Telegraph deal with key questions for Sir John Chilcot and his committee, such as whether planning was adequate, troops properly equipped and the occupation mishandled, and will almost certainly be seen by the inquiry.
    However, it is not clear whether they will be published by it.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/6625415/Iraq-report-Secret-papers-reveal-blunders-and-concealment.html