Ramanisblog

Tag: International relations

  • US agrees to tell Britain’s Secrets to Russia.WikiLeaks.

    HMS Vanguard is Britain's lead Trident-armed submarine. The US, under a nuclear deal, has agreed to give the Kremlin the serial numbers of the missiles it gives Britain Photo: TAM

    Britain would have already sold US secrets to Russia.

    Story:

    The US secretly agreed to give the Russians sensitive information on Britain’s nuclear deterrent to persuade them to sign a key treaty, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.

    Information about every Trident missile the US supplies to Britain will be given to Russia as part of an arms control deal signed by President Barack Obama next week.

    Defence analysts claim the agreement risks undermining Britain’s policy of refusing to confirm the exact size of its nuclear arsenal.

    The fact that the Americans used British nuclear secrets as a bargaining chip also sheds new light on the so-called “special relationship”, which is shown often to be a one-sided affair by US diplomatic communications obtained by the WikiLeaks website.

    Details of the behind-the-scenes talks are contained in more than 1,400 US embassy cables published to date by the Telegraph, including almost 800 sent from the London Embassy, which are published online today. The documents also show that:

    • America spied on Foreign Office ministers by gathering gossip on their private lives and professional relationships.

    • Intelligence-sharing arrangements with the US became strained after the controversy over Binyam Mohamed, the former Guantánamo Bay detainee who sued the Government over his alleged torture.

    • David Miliband disowned the Duchess of York by saying she could not “be controlled” after she made an undercover TV documentary.

    • Tens of millions of pounds of overseas aid was stolen and spent on plasma televisions and luxury goods by corrupt regimes.

    A series of classified messages sent to Washington by US negotiators show how information on Britain’s nuclear capability was crucial to securing Russia’s support for the “New START” deal.

    Although the treaty was not supposed to have any impact on Britain, the leaked cables show that Russia used the talks to demand more information about the UK’s Trident missiles, which are manufactured and maintained in the US.

    Washington lobbied London in 2009 for permission to supply Moscow with detailed data about the performance of UK missiles. The UK refused, but the US agreed to hand over the serial numbers of Trident missiles it transfers to Britain.

    Professor Malcolm Chalmers said: “This appears to be significant because while the UK has announced how many missiles it possesses, there has been no way for the Russians to verify this. Over time, the unique identifiers will provide them with another data point to gauge the size of the British arsenal.”

    Duncan Lennox, editor of Jane’s Strategic Weapons Systems, said: “They want to find out whether Britain has more missiles than we say we have, and having the unique identifiers might help them.”

    While the US and Russia have long permitted inspections of each other’s nuclear weapons, Britain has sought to maintain some secrecy to compensate for the relatively small size of its arsenal.

    William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, last year disclosed that “up to 160” warheads are operational at any one time, but did not confirm the number of missiles.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8304654/WikiLeaks-cables-US-agrees-to-tell-Russia-Britains-nuclear-secrets.html

     

     

     

  • Why isn’t the world supporting the democratically elected government of Iran ?

    Reason is that excepting the US and UK, rest of the world feels Iran is being unfairly targeted by both US and UK for their own geo political interests..Another reason is that like Muammar Qaddafi and Hugo Chavaz ,President of Iran is seen as a man who challenges US openly which most of the world’s leaders would like to do but are not or can not.

    Anti-government protests in Tehran over the weekend have left at least eight people dead and over 300 people arrested.

    The bloody images splattered across the world’s media say it all. This is Iran’s next revolution in the making say Des Pardes .

    For other’s it’s the start of civil war.

    Broadly speaking, the tone of the editorials is one of supporting the plucky protesters over the “ruthless” Ahmedinejad regime.

    The President himself insists the country is “united”, but just because many outside Iran find his views and statements unpalatable, why is there such unflinching support for the demonstrations ?

    So should the world step in or stay out ?
    Roger Cohen believes it’s time to opt for inertia.

    ‘The west must not respond with the sledgehammer of sanctions whose message is “our way or the highway”. Rather, it must borrow an Iranian lesson: inertia. When the Berlin Wall came down, Francis Fukuyama famously predicted “the universalisation of western liberal democracy as the final form of human government”. In Iran now, many of the forces of 1989 are present, but the reformists’ quest is not for something “western”.’

    This piece in Forbes suggests the regime is in its final days anyway.

    The Tretnonian agrees adding that it’s only a matter of time before democracy comes to Iran

    And last week the Iranian opposition rival Mehdi Karroubi told the Times that “The challenges in this country should be solved by its own people.”

    So is the best thing that the West can do for Iran is learn from the revolutions of 1989 and do absolutely nothing?

    Why isn’t the world supporting the democratically elected government of Iran ?

  • Pakistan Police Pursuing Terrorism Charges Against 5 Detained Americans

    Pakistan has to admit at least now that it is the breeding ground for terrorism and US citizens are also lured into it.Or could be they are framing these people to put US on the defensive.
    Story:
    ISLAMABAD — Pakistani police are pursuing terrorism charges against five detained American men, police said Friday, a move that could complicate efforts to bring the men back to the United States where they could also land in the courts.
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,581138,00.html

  • The Next Wave From China

    As things stand China’s financial control over US govt.is high.When they enter private sector, the results will be not good for US.Look at the African countries where china has invested, leading to local unrest, following Chinese policy of hiring only Chinese.Also China shall use this as a lever in diplomacy.
    Story:

    Chinese manufacturers are looking overseas to acquire the means to move into broader markets.

    News that Ford Motor has agreed to terms with Zhejiang Geely for the Chinese carmaker to acquire its Volvo Cars division is the latest example of the next wave of Chinese foreign investment. Manufacturers–mostly privately owned, not state enterprises–are increasingly looking for brands and technology to use as the foundation of a new generation of innovative and branded Chinese products for both domestic and global markets.

    The first wave of Chinese foreign investment was led by the country’s huge state-owned enterprises, which aimed to secure critical natural resources such as oil and minerals and bought into basic industries that are capital intensive and need scale, such as steelmaking, shipbuilding, construction and telecom infrastructure.

    Chinese companies say that their motivation for foreign direct investment is market access or a pre-emptive securing of access against potential protectionist barriers. Computer maker Lenovo ( LNVGY.PK – news – people ) and white-goods manufacturer Haier have made inroads into the markets of the developed world following acquisitions, most notably Lenovo’s of IBM’s PC business. However, the fast-growing domestic market makes international expansion and the acquisition of foreign distribution networks relatively less important to many Chinese manufacturers than it would have been for companies from other developing economies at a similar stage of industrial development.

    Further evidence that the acquisition of strategic assets such as brand and technology, including product R&D, is driving the new wave of Chinese foreign direct investment is that firms are entering foreign markets through M&A rather than greenfield investment.

    In many cases, those acquisitions have been of failing firms, notably in the autos industry, where Detroit’s mistakes offer Chinese acquirers a rare and rich trinity of brands, technology and fire-sale prices. An additional plus: To the extent that these were firms in distress, any potential local political opposition tends to be more muted.

    Natural resources and basic industries acquisitions, particularly in Australia, have sparked protests about national economic security being at risk, with state-owned enterprises portrayed as the instruments of an overbearing Chinese government.

    Chinese manufacturers know how to squeeze value out of frugal engineering–the ability to produce low-cost versions of goods for mass markets–but they haven’t been able to add on the premium that can be charged for a top brand.

    Chinese brands have yet to make global impact. Lenovo and Haier are the best known outside the country, but neither is in the same league as the likes of IBM, Dell ( DELL – news – people ), HP and General Electric ( GE – news – people ). Nor have China’s automakers been able to establish outside China brands of the value of Volvo, GM’s Hummer, whose acquisition by Sichuan Tengzhong is awaiting Beijing’s sign-off, or MG Rover, the last domestically owned mass-production car manufacturer in the U.K., which wound up in 2005 in the hands of Nanjing Automobile Group, now merged with Shanghai Automotive Industry Corp.

    Acquisition is not the only route to technology and brands. China’s automakers have long pursued the so-called “‘linkage, leverage, and learning” model of development, by conducting joint ventures with foreign manufacturers seeking access to the Chinese market, SAIC with GM (now jointly heading for the Indian market, too) and FAW with Toyota ( TM – news – people ), for example.

    Baotou Bei Ben Heavy-Duty Truck, China’s sixth-largest heavy truck maker, announced a joint venture earlier this month with South Korea’s Hyundai that will let it revamp its model line based on Hyundai’s existing vehicles by 2014, far faster than it could do alone, and eventually give it access to the U.S. market through Hyundai’s distribution network there.

    A similar joint venture approach is being taken in IT, where Chinese software firms have focused on their domestic market by working with foreign multinationals and expanded internationally little further than regional markets in Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea.

    Beijing has designated 20 industries in which it intends Chinese companies to become world-class, and it is driving consolidation and vertical integration in many of them. That makes its bureaucrats wary of private company ventures abroad (witness the dallying over Hummer) and subjects potential acquisitions to bureaucratic infighting between ministries championing “their” state-owned companies.

    That may hold back the innovation that the foreign direct investment strategy is meant to promote. It may also hinder the creation of conglomerates that often drive horizontal integration necessary for developing economies to develop multinationals. South Korea’s chaebols, for example, started by replicating in overseas markets the innovations developed for their domestic market while simultaneously acquiring related technology and expertise internationally to grow as multi-product and multi-industry companies. China’s five-year plans aren’t so flexible.

    India, in contrast does have conglomerates, such as the Tata Group. For all Chinese firms’ success in capital-intensive industries, they have been outpaced by Indian companies in skill-intensive sectors such as pharmaceuticals, information technology and business processing. There is no Chinese Wipro ( WIT – news – people ) or Infosys. Not yet, at least. Nor has China developed substantial food and beverage or retailing companies, two industries still dominated by Western giants such as Nestle ( NSRGY.PK – news – people ) and Wal-Mart ( WMT – news – people ).

    It is easiest for any developing country’s firms to grow and internationalize in areas that lack head-to-head competition from U.S. and European firms. China’s carmakers are in the vanguard of those Chinese companies now showing a readiness to acquire the wherewithal to move out of the niches and into broader markets.

  • Five turning points of the decade-US.

    — The first decade of the 21st century in the United States was defined by terrorism, crisis and uncertainty. The exuberance of the 1990s, with its strong economic growth and the sense of American military omnipotence, came to an end.
    Most Americans have been left reeling from nine very difficult years, even though the decade neared its close with a presidential election that spoke to the promise and potential of the nation.
    We must remember that any “most important” list should be seen as the beginning of a conversation, not a definitive judgment.
    Historians learn that it is extraordinarily difficult to discern exactly which events will be transitory and which will have the most long-lasting effects.
    Some moments that seem to be turning points shortly after they happen, such as Operation Desert Storm in 1990-1991, seem less important over time. Others that we don’t pay as much attention to, such as the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, look much more consequential with the passage of time.
    September 11, 2001
    Most Americans have been left reeling from nine very difficult years.

    The tragic moment when terror struck in New York and at the Pentagon will be at the top of everyone’s “most important” list. When terrorism caused such devastating damage, the perpetrators defined the central national security challenge confronting the United States and much of the world: Stateless terrorism.
    Even though the nation had faced terrorism for several decades, including the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 and the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, nothing compares to 9/11 in scale and scope.
    The event shattered the sense of confidence that many Americans had about being able to avoid the kinds of attacks on civilians that had become commonplace in the Middle East. American national security policy was reconfigured as a result.
    The federal government vastly expanded and reorganized its homeland defense system. It instituted an aggressive program of interrogation and surveillance to combat terrorist threats and refocused foreign policy to concentrate on destroying these networks and the states that support them, including the invasion of Afghanistan to topple the Taliban regime. Eight years later, we are still fighting.
    Iraq War
    The war with Iraq quickly became one of the most controversial aspects of the war on terrorism. The difficulties that the United States encountered in the reconstruction period, and the falsity of the Bush administration’s claims in the build up to war that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, opened up the administration to intensified attacks from the left and the right.
    The war eroded Bush’s political capital and constrained his ability to achieve other objectives, including domestic proposals such as Social Security privatization. Equally important, the difficulties the nation encountered in achieving its goal of creating a stable democracy and combating insurgents has raised serious doubts — domestically and internationally — about the capacity of American military power in conflicts, including the war in Afghanistan.
    Hurricane Katrina
    When Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans in 2005, it revealed the horrible conditions under which many inner-city Americas were living after decades of neglect. The failure of so many levels of government to properly respond to the hurricane and its aftermath also exposed the limited interest of the government — and the public — in protecting these African-American communities even after a tragedy this severe.
    The unwillingness of the federal government to commit substantial resources to the reconstruction effort confirmed that urban America was not central to the national agenda.
    Financial crisis of 2008
    The financial crisis constituted a huge shock to the economic system. As September 11 ended a false sense of physical security within our borders, the financial crisis shattered the economic confidence which had emerged in the 1990s and established the parameters for President Obama’s administration.
    The plummeting market fundamentally challenged decades of policies that centered on deregulation and market-based solutions. The fact that President Bush’s administration put forth a hugely expansive financial bailout package revealed how Americans have come to expect federal intervention in times of economic crisis and showed that there were limits to the Reagan Revolution.
    Election of 2008
    The 2008 election is the one defining event that spoke to America’s potential. Even though the United States clearly has not entered any kind of post-racial period, as Hurricane Katrina revealed, the election of an African-American to the presidency in a country whose economy once revolved around slavery was historic.
    Combined with other developments — such as the growing acceptance of gay rights, despite the setbacks to same-sex marriage — the election signaled a movement away from discriminatory attitudes that have been so deeply rooted in the American psyche.
    Any most important list is inherently incomplete, and only captures a small part of what the nation experienced. Should Congress pass health care reform, which seems likely, that could become a crucial moment in the history of our government. Nonetheless, these five events will certainly be ones that historians will look back to for years to come    .
    http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/12/21/zelizer.tough.decade/index.html