|
Main
The environment we live in, the resources we fight over, and reaping what we sow
Suppose that would make it the IPC. Need to source this article, but it's potentially significant. All of course rests on the outcome of Pakistan's election on 18 February.
It comes against the backdrop of an Indian admiral's concerns about Gwadar and its "serious strategic implications for India".
China ready to join gas pipeline project if India stays away - International Business-News-The Economic Times
ISLAMABAD: China is ready to join Pakistan and Iran to build a pipeline to transport Iranian gas if India does not participate in the project, the media reported on Monday.
Pakistan plans to import 2.2 billion cubic feet of gas a day from Iran through the pipeline and has said it is willing to consume an additional 1.05 billion cubic feet of gas if India does not join the project.
China has told Pakistan that it is interested in importing the additional gas if India does not join the project, sources. The sources also said Iran has no objection to exporting gas to China.
Pakistan and Iran have finalised a gas purchase agreement. However, Pakistan and India have been unable to narrow their differences over the transit fee to be charged by Islamabad for the Iranian gas.
Reports from India have suggested that it will hold discussions with Pakistan on the pipeline once a new government is formed in the country after the February 18 general election.
In case China joins the project, the pipeline might pass through Gilgit in Pakistan's Northern Area, the sources said. Pakistan has already approved a project in the same area to widen the Karakoram Highway that links it to China.
Pakistan also plans to extend a railway track to China to connect the neighbouring country to the Gwadar port on the Balochistan coast. Chinese experts will visit Pakistan to finalise the route of the pipeline if Beijing joins the project, the sources said.
Iran and Pakistan might sign the gas purchase agreement on February 24, the sources said.
Mark this moment.
Oil hits record $100 a barrel | Markets | Hot Stocks | Reuters
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Oil prices vaulted to a record $100 a barrel on Wednesday as violence in Nigeria, tight energy stockpiles and a weaker dollar triggered a surge of speculative buying, dealers said.
Well, it's that time again - as the year 2007 draws to a close, we look to the future. And one thing is for sure: the primary foci of this weblog, Pakistan and China, were hardly out of the news this year and won't be in 2008 either.
 For China especially, 2008 is the crunch year. The Olympics have acquired a kind of existential significance, and their success or failure have become intertwined with China's contemporary sense of its national identity.
Unfortunately, I can't see the games being the resounding success that the CCP hopes for. Chinese athletes will probably haul in the most medals, but with the enormous pressures upon them there will inevitably be doping scandals. Other athletes will scorn the terrible pollution; tourists will be messed about, pushed, shoved and spat around (most Beijingers will behave admirably, but it'll still be the negatives that get remembered); and journalists will lament the restrictions on free reporting. Few Chinese yet realise how things will be perceived, and it will come as a shock.
Most of all, this most political of sporting events will inevitably be deeply politicised. There will be incidents: medal-winners standing up for Tibet, Taiwanese declarations, perhaps even Uyghur violence. Expect 888 to be a very interesting moment in the definition of the new China.
Turning to Russia, there Putin will remain in control, despite the appointment of a new president in Medvedev - little more than a deputy, really, But I have confidence in Putin: he is not stupid, and will not wish relations with the EU and NATO to deteriorate further. Things were getting silly, what with all this missile defence rubbish, not to mention Litvinenko and Lugovoi, and in 2008 Russia will attempt to repair some of the damage - though not with Britain, who will be the main losers.
Meanwhile, it will be a period of reflection for the EU itself, as the member states attempt to digest the implications of the Lisbon Treaty. Expect at least one ratification to fail.
 There is at least reason to positive about the Middle East. Iraq has calmed in 2007, though of course it's not the end by any stretch of the imagination. We are also thankfully unlikely to see action against Iran either. Bush desperately needs a positive legacy to speak of, so with elections in full swing at home he and his cronies may attempt at least to broker a compromise solution. Does he have what it takes? We shall see.
But there are clearly going to be fireworks in Pakistan. Far too early to tell how things will pan out, but it probably won't be good. This writer is already predicting a Balkanisation of the country: that may be going too far, but with the conflicts in NWFP and Balochistan likely to gain pace as society fractures after the elections then the prospects for stability are low. Great map too - worth examining to see what it suggests about Iran and Iraq and all
It is almost certainly the end of the road for Musharraf, and with Bhutto gone there will be a power vacuum. Power vacuums mean conflict, as we have seen in Iraq. But the West and India have meddled enough in Pakistan - it is up to them.
Tucked away in the news-in-briefs, but possible a very significant deal if it can go ahead. Anything that can get a) Japan and China to cooperate and b) help solve the pollution issue has to be very positive indeed.
Japan, China to set up environmental fund - report - Forbes.com
Japan plans to propose a joint fund worth a total of 200 billion yen with China to help Beijing step up environmental protection efforts, a newspaper said Monday.
The government and ruling parties were working out the details, with Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda intending to propose the plan during his visit to China starting Thursday, the Nikkei business daily said.
Asia Times reports on the $2bn China-Iran Yadaravan oil deal in the wake of the NIE estimate, and analyses the broader implications.
With China's opinion being that the US is now waking up to Iran as a regional power, it seems that India has been put in an awkward position - having already lost out on its dealings with Tehran in order to appease Washington.
Meanwhile, China has seized a massive mining deal in Afghanistan despite all India's efforts in the country (to the chagrin of pakistan). It would appear that New Delhi has made some geopolitical miscalculations.
...by the beginning of June, Chinese regional experts had already assessed, "Iran, with no geopolitical competitors, has become the 'boss' within the Persian Gulf region. Since the US has fallen into the Iraqi quagmire, Iran concludes that the United States dare not use force against Iran. Therefore, it maintains strong strategic determination and refuses to make concessions on the nuclear issue.
"This favorable environment, coupled with a strategic resolve, has earned Iran a certain status of equilibrium with the United States in the contest within the Persian Gulf region. It is this balance of power that has forced the United States to sit down and talk with Iran. Iran, hence, has won the battle for survival and the status of a regional power."
Neat summary of Iran's political and commercial relationships with other nascent Asian powers. Includes some details on the IPI and Chinese economic influence.
PINR - Iran Looks for Allies through Asian and Latin American Partnerships
On the Asian continent, the Iranian strategic realignment seems to rely on organizational and bilateral cooperation, extending beyond existing relations with other "rogue states" such as North Korea. On the contrary, Iran aims at reaching out to U.S. allies or "friendly" countries, such as India and Pakistan, as well as to emerging global powers, especially to China.
There had to be one, and note how this author neatly ties up all the conflicting elements in the current drama: internal opposition to Musharraf; the Balochistan rebellion; Afghanistan, America and the GWOT; China and Gwadar; India and Kashmir.
The essence of the article is that the current situation is all the result of an American plan to instigate regime change in Pakistan to advance its own interests. Of course much of the report is to be roundly dismissed. I particularly enjoyed this paragraph (I used to work at Jane's):
This was the perfect timing for the launch of Military, Inc.: Inside Pakistan’s Military Economy, a book authored by Dr. Ayesha Siddiqa Agha, a columnist for a Pakistani English-language paper and a correspondent for ‘Jane’s Defence Weekly’, a private intelligence service founded by experts close to the British intelligence.
But the point is that the Pakistan situation is not clear-cut in that all Pakistanis favour democracy and Benazir Bhutto, as the Western powers would have us believe. There are still deep veins of paranoia at work, and it's these that enable the continuing dominance of the military and security forces.
Ahmed Quraishi.com
“We have indications of Indian involvement with anti-state elements in Pakistan,” declared the spokesman of the Pakistan Foreign Office in a regular briefing in October. The statement was terse and direct and the spokesman, Ms. Tasnim Aslam, quickly moved on to other issues.
This is how a Pakistani official explained Ms. Aslam’s statement: “What she was really saying is this: We know what the Indians are doing. They’ve sold the Americans on the idea that [the Indians] are an authority on Pakistan and can be helpful in Afghanistan. The Americans have bought the idea and are in on the plan, giving the Indians a free hand in Afghanistan. What the Americans don’t know is that we, too, know the Indians very well. Better still, we know Afghanistan very well. You can’t beat us at our own game.”
Mr. Bugti’s armed rebellion coincided with the Gwadar project entering its final stages. No coincidence here. Mr. Bugti’s real job was to scare the Chinese away and scuttle Chinese President Hu Jintao’s planned visit to Gwadar a few months later to formally launch the port city.
Gwadar is the pinnacle of Sino-Pakistani strategic cooperation. It’s a modern port city that is supposed to link Central Asia, western China, and Pakistan with markets in Mideast and Africa. It’s supposed to have roads stretching all the way to China. It’s no coincidence either that China has also earmarked millions of dollars to renovate the Karakoram Highway linking northern Pakistan to western China.
There's been much talk in recent weeks on the Treaty of Lisbon, or the EU constitution that wasn't - but not much talk on these pages. The fact is that in the sum of all things, the EU is simply not yet that significant.
British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, however, yesterday set out a bold agenda for the future of Europe that hopefully will be heeded in the corridors of power in Brussels and beyond. You couldn't imagine his predecessor, Margaret Beckett, making such a speech:
My argument is this: The prospects and potential for human progress have never been greater. But our prosperity and security are under threat. Protectionism seeks to stave off globalisation rather than manage it. Religious extremists peddle hatred and division. Energy insecurity and climate change threaten to create a scramble for resources. And rogue states and failing states risk sparking conflicts, the damage of which will spill over into Europe.'
These threats provide a new raison d'etre for the European Union. New because the unfinished business of internal reform to update our economic and social model is on its own not enough to engage with the big issues, nor the hopes and fears, of European citizens.
For the EU because nation-states, for all their continuing strengths, are too small to deal on their own with these big problems, but global governance is too weak.
So the EU can be a pioneer and a leader. Our single market and the standards we set for it, the attractions of membership, and the legitimacy, diversity and political clout of 27 member states are big advantages. The EU will never be a superpower, but could be a model power of regional cooperation.
For success, the EU must be open to ideas, trade and people. It must build shared institutions and shared activities with its neighbours. It must be an Environmental Union as well as a European Union. And it must be able to deploy soft and hard power to promote democracy and tackle conflict beyond its borders.
Granted, Miliband doesn't tackle the EU's key problem, the Common Agricultural Policy, in anything more than veiled terms of anti-protectionism: "Environmental security not food security is the challenge of the future." But he hits every other nail on the head.
Expansion of the EU, perhaps in a series of concentric rings, could help bind the international community into a sphere of peace and prosperity that the UN has never been able to achieve. But for this to happen requires massive investment in European military capability and the will to use it, a shortcoming which Miliband rightly laments.
He also correctly connects the key threats of environmental degradation, energy insecurity and terrorism too. But the focus is on the EU as a "model power" rather than a "superpower", recognising the continued leadership of the US.
In the coming weeks there will be two major tests of the EU. French president Nicolas Sarkozy is already facing his "Thatcher moment" as he attempts to face down the socialist old guard on the streets. And Kosovo is about to come back to haunt us too, with elections currently being contested.
If Europe can ride these through, then the prospects are bright. But, as Miliband reminds us, there is a choice:
Focus on internal not external challenges, institutions rather than ideals. Fail to combine hard and soft power, the disciplines and benefits of membership with the ability to make a difference beyond our borders. The result - the return of protectionism, energy insecurity, division with the Islamic world, and unmanaged migration from conflict.
Or Europe can look global and become a model regional power.
We can use the power of the EU - the size of our single market, our ability to set global standards, the negotiating clout of 27 members, the attractions of membership, the hard power of sanctions and troops, the power of Europe as an idea and a model - not to substitute for nation states but to do those things to provide security and prosperity for the next generation.
I hope someone is listening.
BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Miliband EU speech in full
See also the video.
 Michael Klare, author of Blood and Oil, was in Amsterdam today to talk on his conception of the impending energy crisis. While he was a good speaker, seeing him in person did begin to reveal some of the flaws in his arguments.
The lecture opened with a bold set of statements: "No government is willing to solve the energy problem by seeking alternative energies... and I have zero confidence that any will try to increase production." Having tantalised us with this and promises of an apocalyptic vision of the future, Klare then utterly failed to expand.
Fortunately, the organisers allowed one student in the audience to ask a question (the other debating time was reserved for the usual blathering incoherence of rival academics failing to make their points or even ask questions) and he did ask what I would have done. The question was "why?"; Klare's answer was that "dysfunctional governments" were at fault, "governments that piss away billions on Iraq yet invest little on finding solutions".
That seems far too easy a way to excuse the actions of the Bush regime, though he did have a good point on China's failure to deal with the crisis. Though the CCP itself is aware of the trouble we're in, grass roots-level corruption means that any efficiency measures are swept under the carpet in favour of improving growth figures.
Yet Klare's overall take on the US-China contest over energy was as simplistic as the rest. It was, he said, a situation analogous to the Cold War, in which both powers supply arms to their energy-supplying clients in a competition for influence.
He did later remark that Beijing's Africa policy also involves economic and infrastructural aid - something that Africans were rightly suspicious of - but did not elaborate further. But his aim was to reinforce his point that the recent creation of America's Africa Command (Africom) was the latest stage in a continuing Kennedy doctrine, building on previous policy in the Persian Gulf. The SCO, moreover, was a front for China to extend its military supply network to Central Asia.
All of that may be true, but overlooks the nuances of an evolving bipolar US-China situation that is far more than a simple military confrontation.
To be fair, Klare did have some good ideas about 'the resource curse' whereby the wealth in countries like Nigeria falls into the hands of those who control the state, thus negating democratic urges in the governing classes. (One could say the same for Burma). And his analogy with the Balkans of 1914 was apt - violent internal social forces could intersect with external geopolitical motives to produce an explosive mixture.
Also, an interesting theory from an otherwise egomaniacal second speaker came to light, in that $100 oil punished the PRC as much as anyone else, and could be a ploy in order to bring down the RMB or lessen China's export deficit. She also highlighted that fact that Klare didn't even mention Europe, though that merely proved his point that Europe's influence is next to negligible.
But overall, Klare was a little disappointing. He was right to note that control of chokepoints such as Hormuz give militarily powerful states great leverage, but his frame of reference was still bound by conventional military thinking.
The reality is that inducing energy scarcity, just like terrorism and WMD, is an asymmetric method of power projection that doesn't necessarily involve military firepower. Having a big technologically-advanced navy isn't the be-all and end-all any more. That's what makes the problems so complicated and so intertwined.
This bears out exactly what I said in my thesis. Guess I'm not that stupid after all. Perhaps under pressure from the US, India has already lost out to China with regard to Burmese energy: a pattern is emerging.
Asia Times Online :: South Asia news - Iran, Pakistan dump India on pipeline
Last week, Iran's deputy minister in charge of the pipeline, Hojatollah Ganimifard, was quoted by the Iranian Oil Ministry's news service Shana as saying, "The content of the peace pipeline contract has been finalized and all the points prepared by the two sides' legal experts have been re-read and agreed by the two sides [Iran and Pakistan]." He said the two sides would ink the contract in December "without a third partner".
And this week, Mokhtar Ahmad, advisor to Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, was quoted as saying, "As we expected, the text of the peace pipeline has been made ready for the signing by the two states' heads." Pakistan said that any excess gas that would have been destined for India could be transferred to China.
Exactly as I suggested in my thesis, Indian intransigence over the IPI may well be opening the door to China. Moreover, it's more than likely that the current state of emergency in Pakistan will wipe out the IPI deal once and for all. What the article doesn't make explicit, however, is exactly how Iranian gas would transit from Gwadar to China other than by rail, which is not the most efficient method. Note also that an Abu Dhabi company is investing $5bn in Gwadar.
Press TV
In a major development, Pakistan and Iran have crossed the last stumbling block in the way of a piped gas deal by agreeing on a pricing formula.
Both sides would review the gas pricing mechanism when there is a change in the co-relation between Japan's LNG and crude oil mix.
A high level delegation, headed by Secretary Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources Furrukh Qayyum dashed to Tehran to seal the gas sales purchase agreement (GSPA) with the Iranian authorities.
The technical and legal experts are to hammer out the landmark gas deal and both sides will technically finalize the deal after decisive talks by November 9 (today) in Tehran.
According to the officials, under the new scenario in the wake of India's evasive attitude as Indian experts did not participate in the recently held meeting in Tehran and the ongoing meeting in Islamabad, both Iran and Pakistan have decided to materialize the project.
"We have also asked Iranian authorities that the gas to be imported from Iran can also be exported to China as LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) as the western part of that country has a shortage of energy", said the Pakistani official.
If it happens, then the project's economic viability would be enhanced.
The LNG terminal would be constructed in Gwadar and the piped gas would be converted into LNG for export to China through a proposed rail link from Gwadar to Xianjiang Province, China.
The Pakistan Ministry of Railways is studying the feasibility of laying the railways line from Gwadar to China.
The official concluded that Pakistan had also extended an offer to Iran to establish its own terminal in Pakistan.
 When I started this blog two years ago, crude was priced at $60 per barrel. Now it's $96. The dollar was $1.21 to the Euro then: now it's $1.44.
So go the figures. Something is up. There is a big picture to this, and - shock and awe - after spending the best part of the last two years studying International Relations, I have a theory.
The basic idea is this: there are too many people chasing too few resources. Breaking down this simple statement brings us to two key players - the US and China. And the hidden factor is the instability of a multipolar world that is evolving into a bipolar structure: the 'West', led by Washington, and the 'Rest', very loosely led by China, competing for dominance over those resources, particularly energy.
 The thing is that, unlike the Cold War where two political ideologies were in competition, current US hegemony is still based on military and political power projection, whereas China's ace of spades is economic soft power.
The misuse of firepower is adding to rather than reducing the global instability that came to our notice on 9/11 (but had existed well before then). The World Trade Center attacks were as much a protest against US foreign policy than a statement about political Islam, and since then Islamist terrorism has increased exponentially.
The instability caused by terrorism is adding to the energy crisis by contributing to high prices if not yet directly threatening supply. Meanwhile, China's economic leverage means that the only way that US industry can compete is with a weak dollar. However, both things mean that oil producers such as Russia and manufacturers such as China are building enormous reserves of dollars, shifting the centre of the world economy away from the West. Thanks to events such as the subprime crisis, an economic meltdown is probably imminent.
China and Russia themselves are involved in abetting instability. While they do not directly support terrorism, they sponsor states such as Iran, the key outside player in Iraq and probably Afghanistan. Pakistan is also a pivotal state in all this, since if Pakistan goes down Afghanistan goes with it.
If Iran is bombed too, as looks increasingly likely, there will be a black hole of chaos slap bang in the middle of Eurasia - from Iraq through to Pakistan - creating a massive geographical chokepoint that most of the world's energy needs to get past.
The more terrorists that are bred in the black hole, the more the West has to spend on security, thus diminishing economies and general confidence. The US is already spewing vast quantities of blood and treasure on Iraq, a situation that can only be helping China's peaceful rise and Iran and Russia's leverage over the energy market.
Add to this the threat of WMD. After the Cold War ended in 1989, only the US had the capability to launch a decisive military blow. Now anyone, terrorist groups included, with a bomb (probably with uranium sourced from Russia and technology from Pakistan, itself donated by China) and a suitcase can hold any other entity to ransom - just as energy suppliers like OPEC and Russia can cut off dependent economies overnight.
Iran and Pakistan are both the key proxy players and the key potential battlegrounds. China and the US are vying for control of both, since whoever calls the shots in Tehran and Islamabad calls the shots over Gulf oil and the terrorist training grounds in Iraq, Afghanistan and the lawless badlands of Pakistan.
 Russia sits in the middle, ostensibly neutral but leaning towards China and away from the US. It got burnt in Afghanistan in the '80s, but isn't shy of lending a helping hand to Iran. Conversely, India is also on the fence, but looks to Washington rather than Beijing. It needs stability in Pakistan above all else, since the threat of a nuclear standoff could suddenly become very real.
Thus it's all connected. That's what this blog is about - making the connections. It's not a dissimilar situation to the Cold War with its proxy conflicts in Vietnam and Afghanistan, but it is a more complex one. Instead of two or three, there are now four horsemen of the apocalypse - the West, meaning America and its rather powerless allies (notably Europe and probably India), versus the Rest's nexus of counter-hegemony - China and its partners-in-crime Russia and Iran.
The prospects for war? Unlikely at the time being, since Beijing and Washington are still playing different games. Should they ever go head-to-head, however, over Taiwan for example, then all hell will break loose.
Finding a resolution to the crisis on the Turkish-Iraqi border has deep implications for many of the parties involved.
Turkey in particular, with its ambitions to be viewed as a leading state in the Islamic world as well as its aspirations to join the European Union, is under scrutiny as never before. Its actions over the next weeks will define whether its neighbors and allies will continue to regard Ankara as a reliable partner or a potentially destabilizing force within the region.
The United States of America must also impose its will but faces a tricky balancing act between its commitment to Turkey and the need to maintain regional stability. And Iraq, already engulfed in violence, cannot afford more conflict and the flows of arms and refugees that will ensue.
Continue reading "Turkey and Iraq: The Implications" »
It's that time of year again - the 1929 Wall Street Crash occured in the last week of October, as did 'Black Monday' in 1987. Already today, stockmarkets have begun to tumble, and the NYSE isn't even open yet. I don't pretend to understand economics, but I do know that oil at an incredible $90 per barrel, jitters on the trading floors down to the subprime credit crisis, geopolitical uncertainties over Iran and Iraq (it looks like the Turks will attack some time this week) and a general sense of doom will probably trigger another slump.
Commodities | Material world | Economist.com
Individual commodity prices are still highly volatile thanks to speculative demand. A sharp rise tends to attract “momentum” investors, who push prices up even further until end users start looking for alternatives. At that point, the momentum buyers retreat. But oil's attractions to investors have increased recently because the market has moved into “backwardation”, where futures prices are lower than the current price. Investors can thus earn a “roll yield” by buying the future and waiting for the price to rise to the spot level.
The key factor, however, is the tightness of supply. Francisco Blanch of Merrill Lynch reckons that supply contracted by 500,000 barrels a day in the third quarter while leading economic nations entered the fourth quarter with their lowest stocks for four years. Mr Blanch reckons it would not take much to push the price to $100 a barrel. If it gets there, stockmarkets may face an interesting test of confidence.
Well, if we ignore it it'll go away.
Steep decline in oil production brings risk of war and unrest, says new study | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited
World oil production has already peaked and will fall by half as soon as 2030, according to a report which also warns that extreme shortages of fossil fuels will lead to wars and social breakdown.
The German-based Energy Watch Group will release its study in London today saying that global oil production peaked in 2006 - much earlier than most experts had expected. The report, which predicts that production will now fall by 7% a year, comes after oil prices set new records almost every day last week, on Friday hitting more than $90 (GBP44) a barrel.
'Myanmar's "Saffron Revolution", like the Ukraine "Orange Revolution" or the Georgia "Rose Revolution" and the various color revolutions instigated in recent years against strategic states surrounding Russia, is a well-orchestrated exercise in Washington-run regime change, down to the details of "hit-and-run" protests with "swarming" mobs of monks in saffron, Internet blogs, mobile SMS links between protest groups, well-organized protest cells which disperse and re-form. CNN made the blunder during a September broadcast of mentioning the active presence of the NED behind the protests in Myanmar.'
Get out of here! I find this a little hard to believe, though the author makes a good case for Burma's geopolitical relevance - especially to China. It's well-known that the bulk of China's energy passes through the vulnerable Malacca Straits, and that pipelines through Burma would allow both Middle-Eastern and African oil to bypass the chokepoint. It's also well-known that Burma is offering gas of its own, and that it features heavily in China's 'string-of-pearls' plan for naval dominace of the Indian Ocean theatre. Gwadar is another aspect of the strategy.
However, if the US is really meddling in Burma's collapsing revolution, you would have thought that they would have done better. It's not CIA style to sponsor peaceful but ultimately ineffectual protest movements. Where are the guns?
Asia Times Online :: Southeast Asia news - The geopolitical stakes of 'Saffron Revolution'
In fact the US State Department admits to supporting the activities of the NED in Myanmar. The NED is a US government-funded "private" entity whose activities are designed to support US foreign policy objectives, doing today what the CIA did during the Cold War. As well, the NED funds Soros' Open Society Institute in fostering regime change in Myanmar. In an October 30, 2003 press release the State Department admitted, "The United States also supports organizations such as the National Endowment for Democracy, the Open Society Institute and Internews, working inside and outside the region on a broad range of democracy promotion activities." It all sounds very self-effacing and noble of the State Department. Is it though?
In reality the US State Department has recruited and trained key opposition leaders from numerous anti-government organizations in Myanmar. It has poured the relatively huge sum (for Myanmar) of more than $2.5 million annually into NED activities in promoting regime change in Myanmar since at least 2003. The US regime change effort, its Saffron Revolution, is being largely run, according to informed reports, out of the US Consulate General in bordering Chaing Mai, Thailand. There activists are recruited and trained, in some cases directly in the US, before being sent back to organize inside Myanmar. The US's NED admits to funding key opposition media including the New Era Journal, Irrawaddy and the Democratic Voice of Burma radio.
The concert-master of the tactics of Saffron monk-led non-violence regime change is Gene Sharp, founder of the deceptively-named Albert Einstein Institution in Cambridge, Massachusetts, a group funded by an arm of the NED to foster US-friendly regime change in key spots around the world. Sharp's institute has been active in Myanmar since 1989, just after the regime massacred some 3,000 protestors to silence the opposition. CIA special operative and former US military attache in Rangoon, Col Robert Helvey, an expert in clandestine operations, introduced Sharp to Myanmar in 1989 to train the opposition there in non-violent strategy. Interestingly, Sharp was also in China two weeks before the dramatic events at Tiananmen Square.
Not much analysis on the political situation, but interesting to note that talks are ongoing regarding an electricity line from Iran to Gwadar. Though Pakistan has gas resources of its own, its power situation is currently rather bleak and so in the short term it may well need to import electricity direct.
Also worth posing the question: what significance does control over the transmission grid have on Pakistani politics? If the army were to shut down the already-parlous energy sector (much of it run by retired officers), it could hold the other parties to ransom.
United Press International - International Security - Energy - Analysis
The approval of a $60 million electric line between Iran and Pakistan reflects a regional trend toward electrical grid interconnection, but its path through the unstable Baluchistan region of Iran and Pakistan also highlights the troubles facing energy cooperation between the two countries, as well as the difficulty in protecting a proposed $7.5 billion scheme to send natural gas from Iran to India via Pakistan.
In late September, Tehran and Islamabad made another step toward building a 220 volt power line between Iran and Gwadar in Pakistan. The estimated $60 million cost of building the transmission line will be borne by both countries and will supply Pakistan with 100 megawatts of electricity from Iran.
If the first casualty of war is the truth, then its first omen is also linguistic. The French foreign minister's remarks on Iran and the IAEA's subsequent riposte are eerily reminiscent of the war of words that took place in 2002 between the UN's inspectors led by Hans Blix and the hawks in the Pentagon.
What is very unusual is that it's the French that are the hawks this time. That's quite a major shift in international relations. Up until this year, Blair and his predecessors would have been the swiftest to cosy up to Washington, while Chirac and his forebears would bang the drum of protest. Perhaps, with Gordon Brown visibly shying away from Bush, the French are seizing the opportunity to regain a world voice in the absence of a coherent EU foreign policy.
Whatever the case, with a UNSC meeting scheduled for Friday, the path of no return may already be opening up.
UN nuclear boss warns warmongers over Iran | Iran | Guardian Unlimited
"We have to prepare for the worst, and the worst is war," Bernard Kouchner told French TV and radio.
While talks over Iran's nuclear programme should continue "right to the end", Mr Kouchner said, an Iranian nuclear weapon would pose "a real danger for the whole world". France has taken a much harsher line towards Iran since the election of Nicolas Sarkozy to success Jacques Chirac as president.
 Interesting to see China advertising its humanitarian interest in Darfur, with a military show accompanied by a pledge to send peacekeepers to join the UN mission (though not combat troops, and an uncertain number). The People's Liberation Army (PLA) is the world's largest standing army and the PRC has sat on the UNSC since 1971, so it is about time.
The Washington Post is quick to note, however, that the promise to help Darfur comes under the cloud of possible boycotts of the Olympics, and the obvious fact that Sudanese oil is an important facet of China's energy security policy.
Of course, all countries have some kind of interest in UN peacekeeping missions, often financial, but with few obvious threats other than so-called Taiwanese 'secession' (as evidenced by this weekend's demonstrations calling for UN membership, unusually by both the DPP party and the Kuomintang), what does the PLA really exist for otherwise? Now that Tibet and Xinjiang are 'free', is there anyone else left to liberate?
QINYANG BASE, China, Sept. 15 -- The Chinese military put on a display of its first Darfur-bound peacekeepers Saturday, having troops throw up Bailey bridges and feign combat to dramatize Beijing's desire to be seen as a partner in bringing peace to the violence-torn corner of Sudan.
The training demonstration, by an engineering unit of the People's Liberation Army, was observed by foreign journalists as part of a new campaign by the Chinese government to show that it is cooperating with the United States and other nations to end the Darfur fighting, which since 2003 has displaced about 2.5 million people and contributed to the deaths of as many as 450,000 from violence and disease.
This one's going straight on my blogroll. PostGlobal is a collaboration between The Washington Post and Newsweek that analyses global trends - the fall of America, the rise of China, energy, Islam etc..
In short, it's basically just like my blog, but with flash graphics, real cash backing, plus gurus like Fareed Zakaria on board. The only thing they lack is a decent subeditor, which does let it down a little.
What really caught my eye today was this introduction to 'midrange' trends over the next 36 months. Summary below:
A dramatic global realignment appears to be in progress (and quickening) as the result of several factors:
- The loss of US influence as a result of the Iraq war
- A view across the globe resulting from Abu Ghraib and range of missteps that the US has lost the moral high ground it had enjoyed for decades
- A feeling among global leaders that the US is without a coherent foreign policy strategy...a belief that has started feeding on itself and has emboldened US adversaries
- China's rise, its smooth diplomatic technique, its re-alignment with Russia and its aggressive, clever drive to form new alliances with nations extending from Asia and Africa to South America
- Russia's recent rise combined with Russian President Putin's domestic popularity and his reputation for effectively standing up to the West
- The rise of non-aligned nations emboldened by the inability of the US to effectively use the extraordinary power it possesses
- A view among key global leaders that the US will be bogged down in Iraq for many years (a view heightened by significantly by President Bush's September 13 Iraq speech), thus distracted and unable to respond effectively to key political moves by the range of international players
- A recognition by the international community that the Bush Administration not only hasn't been able to deal effectively with non-state actors (e.g. terror groups like Al Qaeda) but they are holding their own or starting to win
More excellent points culled from the article below.
Continue reading "PostGlobal" »
A balanced perspective from The Economist, which does look closely at the reasons for leaving: America no longer influences Iraqi politics; disaster has already befallen the nation. But the reasons for staying are even more compelling.
The Iraq war | Why they should stay | Economist.com
If the case for staying depended on extrapolating from the modest gains the general claims for his surge, it would be a weak one. The strong case is that if America leaves, things will get even worse. This can only be a guess, but it is more plausible than the alternative guess that America's going will nudge Iraq in the right direction. In the past two years, violence has tended to decline where American troops are present and to rise in the places they leave. There is no doubt that some Shia militias want to rid Baghdad of its Sunnis and that American troops are for now the only thing stopping them. Contrary to what foreigners think, most Iraqis say they oppose partition: in the BBC/ABC poll, 62% said Iraq should have a unified government and 98% said it would be a bad thing for the country to separate on sectarian lines...
If America could choose again, it would not step into a civil war in Mesopotamia. But there are worse reasons than preventing a bloodbath for a superpower to put its soldiers at risk. Having invaded Iraq in its own interest—to remove mass-killing weapons that turned out not to exist—America owes something to Iraq's people, a slim majority of whom want it to stay. It is hard to know how Iraq can be mended. At some point it may become clear the country has sunk so low it is simply beyond saving. But it is not possible to be sure of that yet.
Just as with Pakistan, India looks like it will lose out to China in the effort to find secure energy transit routes.
PINR - Pipeline Politics: India and Myanmar
India has clearly lost an important diplomatic initiative in the attempt to counter Chinese influence in Myanmar. Even after the deal was sweetened with US$20 million in "soft credit" and the proposed construction of a power plant in Myanmar, it would appear that Indian influence was quietly denied by the inevitability of China's international support for Myanmar. Beijing's use of its veto to keep Myanmar's human rights record off of the U.N. Security Council agenda turned out to be more important to the Myanmar junta than the economic incentives.
Missed this: Interesting development.
Asia Sentinel - China’s Pipeline Diplomacy
In securing approval to build a natural gas pipeline from northern Turkmenistan to China, PetroChina, the country’s largest oil company, has pulled off a move with striking geopolitical implications, providing an extra bloodline for the world’s fastest growing economy.
For its part, Turkmenistan regards the China deal, signed in July, as an opportunity to free itself from Russia’s stranglehold over its gas export markets. The country’s entire gas pipeline infrastructure to date was built during the Soviet era by Gazprom, the world’s largest gas exporter.
A lengthy but useful summary of everything that's important in the world right now pertaining to the linkages between geopolitics and energy. Must look out for this Dilip Hiro guy's book.
We can now probably add to this list of Bush's errors America's disruption of the world financial system via subprime loans, not to mention high oil prices and a feeble dollar but hey.
Asia Times Online :: Middle East News - US in their sights: The rising powers
...with not even a decade of this century behind us, we are already witnessing the rise of a multipolar world in which new powers are challenging different aspects of US supremacy - Russia and China in the forefront, with regional powers Venezuela and Iran forming the second rank. These emergent powers are primed to erode US hegemony, not confront it, singly or jointly.
How and why has the world evolved in this way so soon? The George W Bush administration's debacle in Iraq is certainly a major factor in this transformation, a classic example of an imperialist power, brimming with hubris, overextending itself...
Yet there are other explanations - unrelated to Washington's glaring misadventures - for the current transformation in international affairs. These include, above all, the tightening market in oil and natural gas, which has enhanced the power of hydrocarbon-rich nations as never before; the rapid economic expansion of the mega-nations China and India; the transformation of China into the globe's leading manufacturing base; and the end of the Anglo-American duopoly in international television news.
I'm not sure how much I trust Pakistan's APP news agency, so this is to be taken with a pinch of salt. I can also find no reference to a US "International Oil Company" - unless indeed it is an anonymous one for now. I can, however, find the "Indian Oil Corporation Limited" (IOCL) and the "International Oil Company Limited", based in Hong Kong and thus perhaps a Chinese front. I did discover "Interoil", which is stockmarket listed as IOC, but its main drive is Papua New Guinea.
So the plot thickens. Who, if anyone, is pulling the strings here?
Associated Press of Pakistan - IOC to construct Turkmenistan-Pakistan oil, gas pipeline
The US International Oil Company (IOC) would construct 2,200 km long Turkmenistan-Pakistan oil and gas pipeline project in a period of three years. Geo News quoting the details released from IOC liaison office reported that the government has awarded the estimated $10 billion project to the IOC.
Two oil refineries and four thermal powerhouses of 1,000 megawatt each would also be set up under the project.
The pipeline with a capacity of supplying 2 million barrel of oil and 4 billion cubic feet of gas would be constructed up to Gawadar, where one refinery would also be constructed at a cost of $3.5 billion, IOC said.
The project also envisages construction of hydro-cracker for the production of JP 1 and JP 4, for the first time in Pakistan.
IOC said that the matters relating to the security in Afghanistan and insurance guarantee have been finalized and the ceremony of the mega-project agreement inking would soon be held.
In July 2007, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation agreed on the foundation of an 'energy club'. In August it will hold its annual summit, and this author considers whether that means another step towards an Asian NATO.
PINR - S.C.O. Summit Demonstrates its Growing Cohesion
...the last couple of years the S.C.O. has taken steps in intensified cooperation in a wide scope of security dimensions. This has occurred to such an extent that development toward a genuine security organization can no longer be excluded, although this still might take a considerable number of years. Although the West at present does not have anything to fear from the S.C.O., current developments might encourage the West to closely observe further activities of the grouping. In any case, the time has gone that Western security experts could depict the S.C.O. as simply one of many insignificant organizations in the Asia-Pacific region.
One of the most frustrating things about writing a thesis on contemporary international issues is that, once you have handed in the text, new developments occur and new information becomes available. This Economist Intelligence Unit brief on China and energy could almost have been cut and pasted from my opus magnus, but it does offer extra information. The 'energy intensity' (ie. inefficiency) element didn't occur to me; nor did the economic effects of subsidies.
One sentence is particularly prescient: "For one thing, the need to maintain political stability limits the government's ability to improve efficiency." The point is that an energy crisis will trigger political unrest, but a cut in subsidies to improve efficiency will do too.
Energy for China | Economist.com
China's energy crunch is exacerbated by the country's high energy intensity (the ratio of energy use to economic output). This is partly due to the large share of industry in the economy, but it is also because many sectors—such as steel and cement—are plagued by over-production, waste and inefficiency. China's overwhelming reliance on coal for the bulk of its energy—around 70%—also poses problems. Coal is relatively dirty, inefficient and difficult to transport, but it is by far the most abundant energy resource in China.
China's energy needs are also having geopolitical repercussions, as the country's relative paucity of domestic oil reserves prompts efforts to expand imports and secure supplies abroad. For example, energy competition is a factor in China's territorial disputes with its neighbours, particularly in the East China Sea (with Japan) and the South China Sea (with eight South-east Asian countries). Large potential reserves of oil and natural gas are at stake in these disputes. China's energy security concerns also bolster its determination to develop its naval power, and to impose its rule on Taiwan, a de facto US ally that is adjacent to the shipping lanes to northern China.
An extremely useful summary of China's energy relations with the Middle East - if only I'd had this while I was writing my thesis. Main point to note, highlighted in italics below, is that the big three - Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq - see the main benefit of trading with China as "China is not America". Read into that what you will.
China Brief from the Jamestown Foundation
As the world’s third largest oil importer after the United States and Japan, China is projected to import 70 percent of its oil from the Middle East by 2015, according to the International Energy Agency’s forecast. For this reason, China intends to open a dialogue with OPEC countries. Chinese Assistant Minister of Foreign Affairs Zhai Jun stated, “China wants to participate in making big decisions in the world. We want to set up a mechanism to negotiate and discuss oil market issues with the OPEC countries” (Gulf News, December, 6, 2006).
There appears to be an equal amount of enthusiasm from the Middle Eastern countries to take advantage of the world’s fastest growing market. China’s presence is largely perceived as non-ideological, economically oriented and pragmatic. Furthermore, there is little concern that China’s increasing status as a world power will constitute an international threat. “Hegemony, domination, imperialism are associated with the United States and Europe. China is not seen that way,” commented Sami Baroudi, a Lebanese political scientist, “Arabs appreciate its economic might, but don’t see it as a political threat” (Reuters, November, 27, 2006).
Rising China, Shining India; the quagmire in the Persian Gulf and America’s Global War on Terror. These are some of the focal points of international politics in 2007, and none of them exist in isolation.
For the giant populations of Asia to continue their slow grind out of poverty requires economic growth; industrialisation and development must be fuelled. Both China and India are increasingly dependent on oil and gas imports, and in order to safeguard their futures energy security is vital. So each needs to command new sources and new ways of bringing in fossil fuels.
There are some vital strategic areas that can serve as transit routes in both China and India’s energy security policies. Thus geopolitics return to the historical heartland of Kipling’s Kim – the territory now known as Pakistan. It is as if the original Great Game has gone back to square one, only with some fresh rules and new players.
This thesis aims to examine the geopolitical implications of developing Pakistan as an ‘energy hub’, and to analyse the impediments to its fruition and the interested parties’ strategies for seeing it through. And, whereas other studies tend to focus on individual factors at work, it aims instead to critically observe them in the context of the situation as a whole.
Bound copies are available at lulu.com for around $10 plus P&P; downloadable PDF files are free of charge. Click here to access the virtual storefront.
This work is made available on the understanding that it will not be copied, plagiarised or otherwise reproduced without the explicit consent of the author.
Not much need to comment on this, as Putin consolidates his control over the pipeline infrastructure.
BBC NEWS | Business | Russian pipeline firms to merge
Transneft, which carries 93% of Russian oil and supplies much of Europe, is to combine with Transnefteprodukt (TNP) in five months, government officials said.
Analysts say the combined business, to be 75% owned by Moscow, could have more clout internationally.
 Very distressing to read - and I suspect that The Guardian chose not to publish many of Jonathan Watts's pictures. More evidence that many Chinese have scant regard for the world we live in and the things we share it. It's not just about 'spectacular' animals such as tigers, it's a wider malaise that affects the air we all breathe and the water we all drink.
Not only this, but a shocking BBC documentary on the failure of Project Tiger to boot. Thousands of tiger skins sold to Tibet (though the ignorant buyers swiftly u-turned when the Dalai Lama issued an edict) and the bones all off to China for TCM.
The sheer irresponsibility is amazing. The effect that 1.3 billion people with a similar mindset could have, especially if they get they way and wriggle out of international conventions, is simply terrifying.
I can hear the excuses now. One China: one rule for us and another for the rest of you. Not as unlike America as they'd like to think.
Bred for the freezer: how zoo rears tigers like battery hens | Conservation | Guardian Unlimited Environment
The park is part farm, part zoo and part circus. Its nursery is the start of a production line that churns out hundreds of tigers each year and ends in the freezer packed with carcasses. In between, most animals spend their lives in hundreds of tiny cages that are lined up in rows around the perimeter wall, each jammed with as many as four animals, which lie around listlessly or pace back and forth between wire and concrete.
More fortunate beasts share a few football pitch-sized enclosures in the main visitor area. Others are trained to perform in the Dream Theatre - a circus where they jump through flaming hoops - or in an outdoor show that also has monkeys riding camels and a bear cycling across a highwire without a safety net.
China, Pakistan team up on energy | csmonitor.com
"I think most security experts are looking at this very closely because this is the closest access point China has to the Persian Gulf," says Gal Luft, executive director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security in Washington. "I don't know that this is something the US particularly likes."
The article concentrates mainly on the US perspective:
Given the energy game's high stakes, some wonder if Gwadar will set off alarm bells in Washington. Last April, while hosting the China-Pakistan Energy Forum in Pakistan, President Pervez Musharraf was asked as much by a visiting delegate. But to a roar of applause, he quickly deflected the question: "I do not care about pressure from major powers. If Pakistan suffers pressure from certain major powers, I believe China will come forward to help us apply pressure on the other side."
Still, the opening of Gwadar is indicative of how China's largesse in Pakistan is coming into open competition with the US – and how that could alter the region's political landscape.
Apparently, it's all about the money - China has promised $12bn to Pakistan, while the US offers only a paltry $6bn. Who's your daddy, especially in the energy game?
Nothing new here, but worth a quick look.
China's footprint in Pakistan - Los Angeles Times
Gwadar would provide a more secure corridor for China's fuel and energy supplies in the face of instability in the Persian Gulf and also down in the pirate-infested Strait of Malacca, by Indonesia, through which 80% of China's oil imports now pass. From Gwadar, imports could travel overland up through Pakistan and into China.
Trade out of China's own restive western region of Xinjiang would also be easier and faster. The distance from Kashgar, on the edge of Xinjiang, to Gwadar is 1,250 miles, versus twice that distance to reach Shanghai.
Some analysts see a more strategic interest in Gwadar. They say it could play host to Chinese vessels, listening stations or an outpost from which Beijing could monitor the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean, including the U.S. Navy base on the remote island of Diego Garcia, a key launching pad for operations in the Persian Gulf.
But a beefed-up Chinese military presence in Gwadar probably is years away, if it happens at all.
Comprehensive analysis of Gwadar from Pakistani point of view.
The News - International
 Just when I thought I had the most terribly original thesis topic, The Economist goes and hijacks it - even the title. At least it shows I'm onto something.
It's impossible to disconnect the whole India-Pakistan-Afghanistan nexus, partly because Pakistan is a very artificially-constructed nation and Afghanistan has never really been a natural state at all. It's all very complex, with India close to Afghanistan and meddling in Pakistan's internal conflicts, yet needing Pakistan on side for the pipeline projects. And with China and the US thrown into the mix, the geopolitical implications could be immense.
Game on.
India and Afghanistan | The Great Game revisited | Economist.com
India has an obvious interest in a stable Afghanistan. It hopes the country will one day accommodate transmission lines bringing electricity from Central Asia, as well as a pipeline for oil and gas from the region. There are two competing gas-pipeline projects: “TAPI”, running from Turkmenistan via Afghanistan to Pakistan and on to India; and another from Iran through Pakistan to India. Instability in Afghanistan is a big impediment to the first, but America opposes the second. For now, Pakistan refuses to allow Indian goods to cross its territory. But India also hankers after direct trade routes with Central Asia.
A Chinese-Pakistani joint-venture port at Gwadar in Baluchistan, which had its ceremonial opening this week, is matched by an Iranian-Indian venture to develop the “free port” at Chabahar in the Gulf of Oman. Both would require road links across Afghan territory. Indian engineers are currently connecting Afghanistan's ring road to the Iranian border. The Indian press blamed the abduction and killing in 2006 of an Indian engineer working on the project on Pakistani intelligence, after the Taliban denied involvement.
Pakistan would also benefit from Afghanistan's becoming the land bridge between India and Central Asia. But until a final resolution of its dispute with India, its calculations will be more cynical. Afghanistan is no longer, as it was under Taliban rule, a client of Pakistan. But “an unstable Afghanistan is the second-best option to a stable one ruled by your friends,” says Mr Rubin. “Both are certainly preferable to an Afghanistan ruled by your enemies.”
Pervez Musharraf's sincere thanks to the Chinese FM.
Associated Press of Pakistan - Chinese assistance helped realize dream of Gwadar Port: President
General Pervez Musharraf on Tuesday said the dream of the Gwadar Port was realized with China’s assistance and said its continued involvement will help in further improvement of the facilities and infrastructure at the country’s first deep-sea port.Talking to Chinese Minister for Communication Li Shen, the President said the two countries enjoy an all weather and strategic partnership that will continue to grow for the mutual benefit of the two people.
He said there was a need for greater long term involvement between the two countries to make the Port an important Container and Energy hub for the region.
The Chinese Minister said that with the completion of the second phase, the Gwadar Port will be able to handle the world’s biggest ships and more infrastructure can be added to enable it to serve as an energy hub for the region.
Today would be a good day to attack Gwadar, and the authorities know it.
Reuters AlertNet - Pakistan steps up security ahead of port opening
GWADAR, Pakistan, March 19 (Reuters) - Pakistan tightened security around a coastal town in Baluchistan province on Monday, a day before the opening of a port authorities hope will bring prosperity to the remote and troubled region.
Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf is due to open the Gwadar deep-sea port on the Arabian Sea on Tuesday along with Chinese Minister of Communications Li Shenglin.
China financed 80 percent of the initial development costs of the $248 million project in Baluchistan province, 70 km (45 miles) east of the Iranian border and on the doorstep of Gulf shipping lanes.
Thousands of soldiers and policemen guarded the coast and roads to the port on Monday while fishermen were told to stay well clear.
It could well be a slip of the pen, but note the writer's words here. Pakistan's FM is pushing for the Karakoram pipeline as a "contingency plan". Contingency for what, exactly? And it shows the pipeline is still very much on the table.
Pak bends over backwards for Beijing, offers oil backup-Rest of World-World-NEWS-The Times of India
BEIJING: Pakistan's foreign minister, Khurshid Kasuri, on Monday offered to build oil reservoirs and lay gas pipelines in his country's territory across the Chinese border to help Beijing prepare a contingency plan.
Kasuri, who is here on a four-day trip, is pushing Beijing to set up an energy corridor linking the Chinese-built Gwadar port in Pakistan to western China.
The Gwadar port in Baluchistan, located at the entrance of the Gulf and about 460 km west of Karachi, is due to be opened on Tuesday.
It will be operated by the Port of Singapore Authority, which has obtained a 40-year contract to run it.
"The most important thing is the trust that exists between China and Pakistan. The energy corridor will pass through a friendly country, which will be a big advantage for China,"Kasuri said in an interview to the official media in Beijing.
 Not one but two articles in today's Asia Times highlight the difficult geopolitical position of Pakistan, sandwiched as it is between both Iran and Afghanistan.
In the first, the author notes that the Balochistan issue is a common problem for Iran and Pakistan, while not forgetting that Iran is in truth a more fractured society than it would appear. Morover, the IPI pipeline gets into it too. How the US will deal with this is anyone's guess:
The moot point is to what extent Musharraf is willingly cooperating with US regional policy against Iran. He is skating on thin ice. He may endear himself to Washington as a brave leader in the Muslim world, but Pakistani public opinion is averse to serving the US agenda over Iran. This contradiction is fraught with dangers. It can only further accentuate Musharraf's isolation within Pakistan and add to the country's overall political uncertainties.
Washington could be miscalculating that only the Shi'ites in Sunni-dominated Pakistan will feel alienated by Musharraf's unfriendly attitude toward Tehran. The fact is, in emotive terms, the average Pakistani citizen is bound to view US hostility toward Iran as yet another instance of Washington's "crusade" against the Islamic world.
But Washington, on its part, can draw satisfaction that it is killing two birds with one stone. It may become difficult to advance the Iran-Pakistan-India gas-pipeline project when a thick cloud of distrust threatens to engulf Pakistan-Iran relations.
Musharraf's problems do not end there, with the US and NATO now threatening to extend the war in Afghanistan to Pakistan's NWFP:
"It was not an option for Pakistan to carry out any operations on its own, as Washington has completely shown its mistrust in Pakistan's ability to conduct any credible military operations against militant hideouts," a top security official told Asia Times Online on condition of anonymity. "There was only one demand: that Pakistan allow NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] troops the right of hot pursuit of al-Qaeda in Pakistani territory, or NATO would force its own way in."
Will they really go in 'hot pursuit' of al-Qaeda and the Taliban across the Durand Line? To do so could well further destabilise an already shaky Islamabad. It just goes to show that the GWOT, energy and the nexus of world instability (what I may begin to call the Iran-Pakistan-Afghanistan or IPA triangle) are intimately connected.
Asia Times Online :: China Business News - China aims to diversify oil sources
What has worried Chinese oil-security strategists in recent years is that most of the imported oil comes from the Middle East. Despite China's efforts to diversify sources of imports, it still relies heavily on Middle Eastern oil. In 2005, China's imports of crude oil from the Middle East accounted for 61.1% of its total crude-oil imports, making it the most import link in the country's oil-supply chain.
This amounts to putting most, if not all, the eggs in one basket, which is too fraught with risks for such a big country like China, analysts in Beijing say. If the supply of oil from the Middle East were interrupted, for any reason, the outcome for China would be disastrous beyond imagination.
Not quite as catchy as the 'Silk Road'
Asia Times Online :: China News, China Business News, Taiwan and Hong Kong News and Business.
China's ever expanding pipeline network has the potential to bring about a significant strategic realignment of Xinjiang and the adjacent region. Central Asia, with its huge reserves of oil, gas and minerals, has already seen some sharp rivalry among the United States, Europe and Japan. All of the major powers, in conjunction with multinational corporations, are seeking to secure alliances, concessions and possible pipeline routes in the area.
Oil and gas pipelines to China from Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan could easily be extended to link into the pipeline networks of both Russia and Iran. This model has been dubbed the "Pan Asian Global Energy Bridge" - a Eurasian network of pipelines linking energy resources in the Middle East, Central Asia and Russia through to China's Pacific coast. A major part of the old Silk Route is inexorably turning into the "Black Gold Route" of the new millennium.
It's all about supply, demand and transit. At best the IPI is a potential solution to the Kashmir issue. But at worst it's yet another point of friction.
Asia Times Online :: Middle East News - Gas: Iran turns up the heat
Putin paid special attention to cooperation "in building facilities for gas production and transportation in India and the adjacent region" (emphasis added). This is a reference to the highly politicized US$7 billion project for a 2,100-kilometer Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline.
Putin's visit to Delhi came closely on the heels of the latest round of negotiations over the price of gas for the Iran pipeline project. According to a new formula proposed by Iran, the cost of gas will translate at the Pakistan-India border as $4.93 per million British thermal units (mBtu), plus $1.5 per mBtu that India would have to pay to Pakistan as a transit fee. Indian officials have since expressed optimism that the signing of India's $145 billion gas mega-deal with Iran might take place by June.
In geopolitical terms, it could be the focal point of a new power-sharing axis, perhaps under the auspices of the SCO:
In other words, we're talking seriously for the first time about the prospect of a gas market uniting Turkmenistan, Iran, Pakistan, India and China. This is where a breakthrough in the protracted negotiations over the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline project could become a defining moment for energy politics in Eurasia.
Russia is not in competition with Iran in tapping the South Asian market for gas. It is expedient for Russia if Iran gets deeply engaged in the Asian market (which includes two energy guzzlers - China and India) and, that, too, with Russian equity participation in the actual construction of Iran's pipeline to South Asia. That could lead to Gazprom's participation in the highly lucrative distribution and retailing of Iranian gas in Pakistan, India and China.
At first glance, a Muslim solution to a Muslim problem is ideal. However, the deep internal rifts between Sunni and Sh'ia have increased widely in recent years, particularly due to sectarian violence in Iraq. Nevertheless, rather than focussing its sights on Iran, the US and its dwindling list of allies would do well to consider the Musharraf-Yudhoyono initiative. Frankly, they don't have any good ideas of their own.
Indonesia, Pakistan seek Muslim Mideast initiative|International News|Reuters.com
Musharraf said action was needed now. "We both felt that the time has come for action and there is no room for complacency, because things are moving so fast, deteriorating so fast," he said.
Yudhoyono said that both Indonesia and Pakistan faced a similar threat from terrorism.
"We have to deal with this threat properly, not only directly combating the act of terrorism, but also addressing the root causes of terrorism," he said.
The two countries are important U.S. allies in the so-called "war on terror", but have differences over some of Washington's policies, particularly in the Middle East.
Can Europe Help Tame China’s Environmental Nemesis?
 BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | China admits to climate failings
"Compared with social and economic modernisation, China's ecological modernisation lags far behind," said the research group's director, He Chuanqi.
Damn right. The single most terrifying thing about China is its rampant and relentless self-destruction - a policy which one day could implode with apocalyptic consequences. But what can any of us do about it?
The European Union is China's biggest trading partner: in 2004, trade levels stood at €160 billion. And with financial flows this high, inevitably relations between the two economic giants transcend business alone.
According to liberal and constructivist theorists, the increasing interdependence brought by globalisation brings about a slow but steady ‘diffusion’ of norms and standards across national borders and even continents. The EU itself is a good example of the spread of ideas from country to country, both as a stimulus to and a result of the integration process.
With this in mind, it stands to reason that the EU should be able to ‘diffuse’ its ideas to countries like China. Actually doing so, however, is easier said than done. This paper below looks at how, rather than trying to directly introduce human rights and democracy, Europe can penetrate both China’s economy and its political sphere with ‘green’ values instead.
Download Word file or read main text below. (See Word file for bibliography and footnotes).
Continue reading "Greening the Smoking Dragon" »
International Relations is an immensely complex subject, and in order to stay focus everyone has pare away a few factors now and again. The southern hemisphere is completely off my radar, and I am also frequently guilty of ignoring the 'R' in 'BRIC' too - Russia.
But Russia is definately part of the equation even in these post-Cold War days. Historically a partner of India, while China and the US uneasily applied themselves to Pakistan for geostrategic reasons, Russia is now edging back into India's sphere due to its energy wealth.
The article predicts that by 2020 or so, India's energy needs will treble. So it is competing with traditional rival China for Russian hydrocarbons. The US would also like to court India in order to ensure a regional balance, and is doing so in the shape of nuclear technology. Britain's Gordon Brown also just made a visit, though it was overshadowed by the facile Big Brother controversy.
Ironically, therefore, India is now in a great bargaining position, with suitors on all sides. Bizarre as it may sound, India is the new Pakistan.
BBC NEWS | South Asia | Russia and India's complex friendship
Before leaving Moscow President Putin was keen to point out "the very specific feature of our interaction has to do with the fact that we have moved from the simple paradigm of seller-buyer relationship to jointly work on products".
Russia is trying to tie in India's lucrative arms and energy contracts.
Moscow has reason to act. India has just begun building a new strategic partnership with the United States.
The spur for this was President Bush's landmark deal offering co-operation in civilian nuclear energy programmes. Washington wants to make common cause with India as the world's biggest democracy and a counterweight to rising China. It wants to sell its own nuclear reactors to India and weapons too.
So India's rise means it is being courted on both sides.
Delhi's ultimate aim is probably to secure what it calls "strategic balance" to avoid becoming too closely tied to either Moscow or Washington.
That will mean some hard-nosed bargaining. But it is India that is buying, whether it is energy or arms, and so it finds itself in an unaccustomed but increasingly powerful role as a major economic player, with both Moscow and Washington vying for its business.
A likely successor to President Niyazov of Turkmenistan has emerged in the shape of a former dentist and health minister, the deliciously unpronouncable Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov. By the sounds of it, he is going to be very much a puppet of the security services: we shall see.
However, what is more certain is that the parlous state of Turkmenistan is still a likely spark for tension and instability. Agriculture and the energy industry are in meltdown, and various vultures - not just Russia, but China and India too, are hovering. 'Elections' will be held on 11 February, but whether or not Turkmenistan can be turned around without disintegration and intervention is open to debate.
Turkmenistan's new father | Economist.com
One possible scenario would be for the new president to take Turkmenistan some way along the path followed by Kazakhstan, and make the country more welcoming to foreign investment. Turkmenistan has what are believed to be among the largest reserves of natural gas in the world. BP’s conservative official estimate is 2.9trn cubic metres, but the Turkmen authorities claim gas the true figure is up to 20bn cu metres. Even if reserves are only half this level, Turkmenistan would rank above major gas producers such as Algeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Nigeria.
In recent years, Turkmenistan’s gas output has been around 63bn cu metres per year, the majority of which is exported to Russia and Ukraine. The sanctity of long-term deals was always open to question, as Mr Niyazov tended to renege on agreements once a more lucrative offer was on the table. If the gas sector is to be opened up, Russian capital could face serious competition from Western and Chinese companies, as well as Indian. This in turn would open the question of export routes—whether to the West via the Caspian Sea (from where Turkmen gas could conceivably utilise existing pipelines) or to the East to China (perhaps via Kazakhstan, which is due to complete a pipeline to China around 2009). Any redirection of Turkmenistan’s gas exports could have potentially severe repercussions; for it would deprive Russian monopoly Gazprom of sizeable volumes of gas that it is counting on to meet its domestic supply and export commitments.
 All eyes were on George W. Bush last night, as he delivered his seventh state of the union address:
"For too long our nation has been dependent on foreign oil. And this dependence leaves us more vulnerable to hostile regimes, and to terrorists -- who could cause huge disruptions of oil shipments, and raise the price of oil, and do great harm to our economy.
It's in our vital interest to diversify America's energy supply -- the way forward is through technology."
Duh. A school child could have told you that 20 years ago - I know that because I was that child. So why has nothing been done?
"This war is more than a clash of arms -- it is a decisive ideological struggle, and the security of our nation is in the balance. To prevail, we must remove the conditions that inspire blind hatred, and drove 19 men to get onto airplanes and to come and kill us...
So we advance our own security interests by helping moderates and reformers and brave voices for democracy."
So why do you keep supporting undemocratic regimes while destroying those societies that do want to progress?
"If American forces step back before Baghdad is secure, the Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides. We could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran, and Sunni extremists aided by al Qaeda and supporters of the old regime. A contagion of violence could spill out across the country -- and in time, the entire region could be drawn into the conflict."
Of course, this is a situation that Bush himself created, but he is right in that failure is no longer an option. The troop surge may well be too little too late, and it's been tried before, but it's better than just walking away.
Full text of the 2007 State of the Union Address here.
Gwadar and oil politics -DAWN - Business; January 15, 2007
China needs Gwadar port facilities for future oil and gas imports. While there is a suggestion in Pakistan that Gwadar should be declared a free oil port, Beijing is reportedly negotiating with Islamabad for around five oil and gas pipelines from Central Asian Republics (CARs).
China has shown interest in a trans-Himalayan pipeline to carry the Middle Eastern crude to western China. It would allow Beijing to reduce the portion of its oil shipped through the narrow and unsafe strait of Malacca carrying up to 80pc of its oil imports. The proposed pipeline would link Gwadar port with China's remote western regions, and it would be partly financed by Beijing.
Energy and emissions are bursting onto the mainstream political agenda in a big way already in 2007. First there was the announcement of an EU common energy policy initiative, and now 16 Asian and Pacific states, including Japan, China and India, are bundling on board.
Of course, both are too little too late, but still, it's better than nothing. It is only through the realisation that energy and the enviornment are common problems that need common solutions that conflict can be avoided, and that has to be a good thing.
BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Asian states sign key energy deal
It is becoming more and more obvious by the day that the post-Cold War world is not, after all, multipolar but bipolar. The great powers are the US and China. This is especially obvious when it comes to Middle East affairs, though interests coincide as much as they conflict. Of course, the biggest leveller is energy security - and that's the central objective for Chinese foreign policy.
Chinese foreign policy | A quintet, anyone? | Economist.com
Never mind that China, in the more than four years since it appointed a special envoy to the Middle East, has offered no original ideas. To all sides, it still has much to offer. To oil-exporting countries, China has rapidly emerged since the 1990s as a big customer and investor. Some 45% of China's oil imports from January to November last year were from the Middle East. To countries such as Iran and Syria, eager to check American power in the region, China's veto power at the UN and its shared misgivings about America make it a welcome friend. Refreshingly, China asks no questions about democracy...
China worries about its dependence on American military might for the security of its oil shipments from the Middle East. It is still a long way from being able to project military power over such a distance itself, though a Chinese official was quoted in the state-owned press this week as saying China had the ability to build an aircraft carrier, but had not decided when to do so. China is trying to diversify its sources of energy, buying more from Russia, Central Asia, Africa and Latin America.
But experts predict that China will long remain heavily dependent on energy from the Middle East. So it has little choice but to support efforts to stabilise the region. It may not agree with America's tactics, but will share the same broad objective. Jeffrey Bader, a former senior American diplomat now at the Brookings Institution, a think-tank in Washington, DC, says that China's resistance to American initiatives in Sudan and Iran depends on Russian support for its position. If Russia were to switch sides, so too would China, he argues. It is in no mood to take on America alone.
Almost everything you needed to know about Balochistan, but were afraid to ask, neatly summed up here. The only aspect which is not dealt with is the presence of the US in Afghanistan and its uneasy influence over Pakistan, and also India. One couldn't ask for a situation where so many rival powers were so interdependent and intermeshed.
Note also that India is building a rival port in Iran at Chabahar - that I did not know, and it only makes the situation more volatile.
The Geostrategic Implications of the Baloch Insurgency
Balochistan's strategic significance and natural endowment makes it a critical province for Pakistan. Strategically, Balochistan bridges Central, South, Southeast and East Asia on one end, and Central Asia, the Persian Gulf and the Middle East on the other. Regional states, especially India, cannot reach the energy and trade markets of the Caspian Sea region without transit through Balochistan, which Pakistan denies to India despite repeated pleas on New Delhi's behalf by Washington. India absorbs punitive freight costs by routing its trade goods through the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, even for shipments to Afghanistan. Since 2001, New Delhi has made great strides in reaching out to Baloch leaders, whose National Jirga has now made it a party to the arbitration of their "Accession to Pakistan Pact" in the ICJ (The Nation, November 13).
India is also wary of the Sino-Pakistan naval port on the Arabian Sea, which has raised Beijing's profile in the Indian Ocean. India is even more concerned over Taliban-inspired "militant groups" who operate in Indian-administered Kashmir. As the Taliban are widely believed to have their operational bases in Balochistan, they equally worry India's allies in the region, especially Afghanistan and Iran. Afghanistan resents Pakistan's patronage of the Taliban, which have become the largest threat to its stability since their regrouping in 2003. Iran is also unhappy with Islamabad's policy toward the Taliban due to the group's anti-Shiite theology and the subversive operations of the Taliban's allies, such as Jandallah, in Iran's Sunni-dominated province of Sistan-Balochistan.
 It's not about trade. It's not about aid. It's not even about oil. It's about world domination:
...this super-summit is about more than a single continent. It marks a new stage in China's re-emergence as a superpower.
The Guardian's Jonathan Watts correctly identifies the deeper significance behind this week's Africa summit. Political commentators continue to gibber on about today's 'multipolar' global structure, but when the chips are down we're back to the Cold War. Power is not just about military strength, it's also about economic and moral advantage. And when it comes to dealing with the unsavoury characters that still dominate much of the planet, China's pre-eminence is clear:
China is not just buying resources, it is selling a model of development. While the west focuses on political freedoms and universal rights, Beijing says the priority should be on improving living standards and national independence. The superiority of this approach, it argues, has been proved by success in lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.
Where people once flocked to the shores of America in pursuit of wealth and happiness, China is selling its own dream to those who simply aspire to raise themselves out of poverty. In fact the West and the US are becoming increasingly irrelevant to the majority of the world's population, who understandably fear the motives of the former colonial powers. The appeal to dictators is even more obvious:
Robert Mugabe is now one of Africa's most enthusiastic sinophiles. "We have nothing to lose but our imperialist chains," he said before boarding a plane to Beijing.
African leaders are queueing up to sign new deals. Their eagerness to shake hands with President Hu Jintao has drawn comparison to the states that once came to pay tribute to the emperor.
Back in Africa there are a few dissenting voices, complaining that China is a pursuing a neo-colonialist policy, buying up cheap resources and selling higher-priced manufactured goods. But no such critical voices were to be heard among the VIP guests in Beijing.
Of course, only a fool would believe that China has Africa's interests at heart. Dictators love China because China leaves them alone to... dictate. Human rights and democracy couldn't be further from its mind. With the West's credibility walllowing in the quagmire of the Middle East, it looks like a new superpower has arisen.
We're back to a new frame of the Cold War - winner stays on. Soon it'll be the West versus the rest. But there's a lot more of them than us.
Reprinted below.
Continue reading "Selling the Chinese Dream" »
Next week will see another summit meeting in Beijing for African leaders. The Economist asks whether China is a suitable model for Africa - the answer, 'no', relates to China's cornering of every economic niche that Africa might once have exploited. China is offering only cash, not know-how or assistance - and in Africa, the cash just ends up in a few select pockets.
China gains both economically and in terms of political capital. It's colonialism by another name, and just as exploitative.
Africa and China | Wrong model, right continent | Economist.com
What is in it for China? It no longer wants Africa's hearts, minds or giraffes. Mostly, it just wants its oil, ores and timber—plus its backing at the United Nations. Thus, even as the Chinese win mining rights, repair railways and lay pipelines on the continent, Africa's governments are shuttering their embassies in Taiwan in deference to Beijing's one-China policy.
This suits Africa's governments. The scramble for resources invariably passes the ministerial doorstep, where concessions are sold and royalties collected. China helps African governments ignore Western nagging about human rights: its support has allowed Sudan to avoid UN sanctions over Darfur. And some Africans look on China as a development model, replacing the tough Washington Consensus with a “Beijing Consensus”: China's economic progress is cited by statists, protectionists and thugs alike to “prove” that keeping the state's grip on companies, trade and political freedoms need not stop a country growing by 8%-plus a year.
Seven Sisters (oil companies) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Interesting to see how 'big oil' is interlinked. If they were once the 'seven sisters', then now the key companies - Shell, BP, Chevron and ExxonMobil - are more like the the four horsemen of the apocalypse...
Comment is free: Fighting the wrong war
It is ironic that an administration fixated on the risks of Middle East oil has chosen to spend hundreds of billions - potentially trillions - of dollars to pursue unsuccessful military approaches to problems that can and should be solved at vastly lower cost, through R&D, regulation, and market incentives. The biggest energy crisis of all, it seems, involves the misdirected energy of a US foreign policy built on war rather than scientific discovery and technological progress.
 "We are used to thinking in terms of conventional warfare between nations, but energy is becoming a weapon of choice for those who possess it." Such is the assesment of Senator Richard Lugar, and it is not a bad one at all.
There's a long piece about energy security in Asia Times, coming from an unusual angle. Should the US ally with the big four Asian economies - China, Japan, South Korea and India - rather than Europe?
Here's the most interesting paragraphs, paraphrased from an expert from China's Institute of Contemporary International Relations, Su Jingxiang:
...if only Washington were savvy enough to "revalue the tremendous market potential" in China and "abate unnecessary doubts toward China", closer cooperation between Beijing and Washington on international energy issues could be realized...
He pointed out that gunboat diplomacy was no longer workable either in the Middle East or Latin America as it produced only terrorism and resistance. At the same time, Su acknowledged that growing dependence of energy imports "weakened the competitiveness and injured the economic security of the US"...
Su advised that the US should "steer away to more cooperation" with other major oil consumers (such as China and India). "The new type of strategic partnership will consolidate the negotiating capacity of oil consumers in their talks with the oil producers, thus helping boost the economic boom and national security of the US," he wrote.
It's not a bad idea, but it does overlook that essential strategic reality - China and the US are competing for the same limited supply. That, after all, is why Russia and the the Middle East have them over a barrel.
But the author does note that the recent visit to China by US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has resulted in some concessions by either side (another minor Yuan devaluation, and increased voting power for the PRC in the IMF) that must improve the relationship.
In a sense, then, China has jumped at the chance to manoeuvre the US, weakened as it is by Iraq, into a bargaining position.
Meanwhile, Putin is taking the opportunity to buy back some control over the former Eastern Bloc via gas pipelines. You need to read the article to get the full details, but basically Russia is playing a clever political hand in its negotiations over routes for Kazakh oil. Unencumbered with concerns about democracy and human rights, it's also sorted out its difficulties with Turkmenistan too.
The wheeler-dealings have implications for both Asia and Europe:
Curiously, Gazprom struck the deal with Turkmenistan soon after the US assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asia, Steven Mann, visited Ashgabat to lobby for progress on the moribund Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAP) gas-pipeline project, which was supposed to be an integral part of the new grand US strategy of creating a "Greater Central Asia" with a unified energy structure for the countries of Central and South Asia. It was hoped to draw Central Asia into the US sphere of influence and pit Indian interests against Russian influence in the region.
But the TAP and the United States' "Greater Central Asia" strategy are not the only casualties of Gazprom's Turkmen deal. The ramifications of the deal run in far-flung directions deep into the European continent. The deal arguably frustrates the US attempt to reduce the European Union's dependence on Russian energy supplies.
Since Russia looks like it has clinched the stranglehold over Europe's gas supply, a remaining factor is Iran. Europe has to get access to Iranian gas somehow, in order to give itself an alternative to Russian gas:
And this is undoubtedly a critical factor of divergence in the respective approaches of Russia, the EU and the US toward the Iran nuclear issue. Though Russia is certainly interested in a solution to the Iran crisis, Moscow will have reason to worry about an EU-Iran agreement that may lead to an improved energy dialogue between the two protagonists, as that would make Iran a rival to Russia on the European gas market. As for Tehran, it, too, perfectly well understands that its preference should be to settle with Western Europe rather than with Russia. That is why Tehran has opted for independence in its gas policy and has scrupulously kept Gazprom out of its Southern Pars gas fields.
Yet there is another chance - China. China is a key competitor for Central Asian gas and has bought up large holdings of it.
In summary:
Russia is in control of Central Asian gas routes to the EU
The EU's only alternative is Iran
The US is constraining Iran over the nuclear issue, so that's off the agenda for the time being, which suits Russia fine
Only China can compete with Russia for control of Central Asian energy
Can the US really broker a deal with China and India, or will national interests win through?
Fascinating stuff. Full article below.
Continue reading "Axis of Oil" »
 Even now, five years on, the events of 11 September 2001 possess a certain surreality, a lack of context in the state of things then and the state of things now.
It's certainly one of those 'Kennedy moments', which we will all look back upon decades from now. For me it was doubly unreal, since I was at that time on a military exercise up in the wilds of Scotland, at Garelochhead, an army base near Faslane submarine station. Our SOPs were to remain isolated from external influences, even other units, and when the news broke all we has was a tiny transistor radio that could only pick up the crackly local Scottish station.
The fumbling attempts of those underfunded reporters to take stock of the situation were typical of all media outlets, in a way: CNN didn't do much better. It was weeks before I got to see the footage, by which time its impact had faded; it felt like it hadn't really happened, it was just another late-night disaster movie on repeat showing.
But it was real, and the world we live in now is as much a consequence of 9/11 as 9/11 was a consequence of the world we lived in then. But no-one saw it - it was impossible - even if we had effectively (in the words of IR professor Steve Smith) "sung that world into existence".
The world we are singing into existence now is certainly a bleaker one than we thought we had in 1989, the year of revolutions. It's telling that despite the failure of China's 1989 pro-democracy revolution and the success of those in Europe, it's China that is leading now while Europe is swiftly falling behind.
But that's by the by. The new world disorder is one where terrorist attacks are more, not less, likely. Afghanistan seemed to be a success for a while, but that image is fading fast. Post-Iraq the suicide bombers there and elsewhere have added motive and impetus. This year's 'spectacular' failed, but there'll be another.
North Korea and Iran are both enjoying their spell in the limelight due to the nuclear issue, and post-Lebanon, Israel and Palestine are further than ever from reconciliation while Britain and Blair are now looking like the lame ducks of international affairs.
Ultimately, it looks as if the bigger picture is one where the enemies of the US are winning. In the past five years it has lost so much of the legitimacy it built up since World War II, and squandered the sympathy, solidarity and support of 12 September. It's almost as if 9/11 didn't happen: Bush started it, didn't he?
Perhaps the world didn't change on 9/11; perhaps we just perceived it to have done. If anything, it's a massive distraction from the real underlying and interlinked problems of the planet: overpopulation, poverty, pollution.
But what is happening now and what happens next is and will be the result of the changes that we have wrought. Let's hope that we can turn the tide before that cycle spins out of control.
Reflecting its increasingly proactive stance in international affairs, China has called for the WTO to re-open the Doha round.
BBC NEWS | Business | China urges trade talks revival
After meeting Mr Lamy, the WTO's director general, Chinese commerce minister Bo Xilai said Beijing hoped to play a "constructive" role in getting the talks back on track.
But he said the onus was on the US and the EU to revive the talks.
"At present, we need the developed members to take the lead in making substantial concessions in order to create conditions for the quick resumption of the negotiations," he said.
"Only by changing the unbalanced situation between the developed and developing members can we advance the sustained and healthy development of global trade."
Meanwhile, David Cameron has ideas of his own:
"We must try to restart the Doha round," he told business leaders in Mumbai.
"But if we cannot get a breakthrough, we should consider the possibility of an EU/India free trade agreement."
Chavez woos China with pledge - Business - International Herald Tribune
"In 2009, we'll reach half a million barrels a day, and in the decade after that we'll see a million barrels," Chavez said.
The left-leaning Chavez, a strident critic of Washington, wants to reduce Venezuela's dependence on oil exports to the United States and sees China as an important alternative. Venezuela is the fifth-biggest oil exporter over all and currently ships 1.5 million barrels of a day to the United States. This is about two-thirds of its oil exports.
BBC NEWS | Business | India to put $1bn in African oil
China is involved in Sudan, Nigeria, Zimbabwe... now India gets in on the act.
"India and China - because of their population demands, economic growth and increasing prosperity - need energy security, plus they have money to invest now," said Mr Khatua, India's ambassador to Ivory Coast.
However, India's desire to invest comes as Ivory Coast remains unstable following a civil war that ended in 2003.
"India has identified this market and it believes this crisis will be resolved soon and that it will then be able to penetrate deeper into the market," said Mr Khatua.
 The First Post : China: Africa’s new imperial power
There is ultimately no difference between having China mine your mineral wealth and having a Western nation do it. The African nations have the right to cosy up to whoever they want. Signing energy deals with China does not represent a pact with the Devil, and the effect of these deals on African nations is probably no more culturally and morally destructive than the relentless torrent of ill-directed aid money and the corruption that routinely follows close behind. It would certainly be better to have China manage your energy industry than have Simon Mann and Mark Thatcher do so. The Chinese, at least, will be there to stay, and in return for their vast profits will offer renovated infrastructure, skilled labour and technological advancement.
Security Watchtower
Useful summary of links and information on the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline project.
BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | China hit by rising air pollution
Last week, the Associated Press news agency reported that researchers on the west coast of the US were monitoring the impact of pollution from China.
The report said that the US Environmental Protection Agency estimated that on certain days nearly 25% of pollution in the skies above Los Angeles could be traced to China.
Mr Li dismissed the claims and said further study was required.
"Those reports saying 25% of pollution in Los Angles comes from China are not objective and are irresponsible and the conclusion is also doubtful," he said.
Of course. Anything that doesn't come from China can't be objective, can it?
 Grotesque factual errors aside (3.2billion in China's cities by next year, anyone?), Tristram Hunt in Comment is Free correctly draws the comparison between modern urban China and Dickensian Britain. The only difference is that there's no Dickens calling for reform.
The similarities, writes Hunt, are striking:
Between 1770 and 1840 Britain underwent one of the most dramatic urban migrations in world history. Hundreds of thousands left their villages and farmsteads for the workshops of Birmingham, docks of Liverpool and mills of Manchester. Sheffield and Bradford doubled their populations in a matter of years.
Today that history is repeating itself in China as families from the rural hinterland decamp for the coastal cities. Every year 8.5 million Chinese peasants make their way into the urban centres. By next year China is set to become a majority-urban nation, with more than 3.2 billion living in cities and suburbs.
But is anyone actually doing anything about the horrendous pollution and squalor that accompanies this? Yes, money has been announced for a general cleanup. But there are some essential factors that are notable by their absence:
The initial Victorian response to the state of their cities was equally lackadaisical. Pollution and inequality was the price of progress, and the middle classes solved their problems by simply moving upwind. But in the end a combination of religion, officialdom and civil society forced the cities to change.
In a country where activists apparently break their own necks in order to get attention (if you believe this, get off my blog), how can real progress begin?
There is no evangelism in China; religion is suppressed. Nor, with a hobbled media and non-existent political opposition, is there any civil society. Officialdom can be trusted only to line its own pockets, as it has done for centuries.
And, of course, the writer cannot resist a final warning from history:
Ultimately the urban masses had to be enfranchised. For at the forefront of politicians' minds was another story of rapid urbanisation. Across the Channel, France too was trying to cope with startling rates of immigration and industrialisation. But the consequence of its political fumbling was a Paris in flames in 1830, 1848 and 1871. That is a history the Chinese are all too keen to avoid.
Continue reading "Smoke and the City" »
 The Economist is predictably gloomy about the collapse of the Doha round in this week's edition. As well it mightbe, being one of the leading voices calling for free trade. And it doesn't mince its words:
This disaster, born of complacency and neglect, signals a defeat of the common good by special-interest politics. If the wreck is terminal—and after a five-year stalemate, that seems likely—everyone will be the poorer, perhaps gravely so.
The authors see this as the sounding of the death knell not just for one round of talks but for the liberalisation project as a whole. And those who suffer will inevitably be the poor of the third world, while the rich countries hug their safety blanket of subsidised agriculture with fearsome determination.
I'm not someone who feels properly initiated in the dark arts of global trade, but The Economist describes it nicely:
Multilateral liberalisation is a sort of jujitsu that uses exporters' determination to get into foreign markets to overwhelm domestic lobbies that would sooner keep home markets closed. The trade diplomat's incantation that to open his market is a “concession” granted in exchange for an opening somewhere else is economic nonsense spouted for domestic political purposes. But it is remarkably fruitful nonsense because, within the World Trade Organisation, any concession to one trade partner is automatically extended to all members. This trick has helped the world enjoy decades of prosperity.
Now that the round has failed, poor countries must resort to the complexities of bilateral deals with rich countries, which basically gives the rich countries an advantage. They deal on a one-on-one basis, and thus the Third World can't rely on safety in numbers as it could under the WTO:
Bilateral deals are complex and tend to be bad for poor countries. In multilateral deals, poor countries can piggyback on powerful countries' negotiating clout; in bilateral deals, they're on their own. And the more bilateral deals are in place, the harder it will be to pull off a multilateral one.
Put in a wider context still, if the pessimists' predications are true then this week signals the beginning of a further decline of the developing world, and a widening of the gap between rich and poor, powerful and weak.
With oil resources running down and prices at higher levels than ever, it's harder and harder for poor countries to make ends meet. It's during the industrialisation phase that they need it the most.
Add to this a dash of Islamic fundamentalism, which tends to thrive on the disenchantment of the middle classes who probably stand to lose most and you can see where we're going.
Not this year, not next year. But the effects will soon begin to take hold.
Continue reading "Globalisation Immobilised" »
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Yaks threaten China's 'miracle' train line
As well as the yaks, Tibet has found a most unlikely ally in the struggle against the Han influx:
The line depends on coolants to stop the ice upon which it rests from melting. But global warming has raised temperatures in the mountain region faster than expected. As well as damaging concrete pillars and bridges, it has added to the problem of sand dunes that encroach upon the track.
Lots of useful stats and analysis on the Iran-Pakistan-India LNG pipeline, and more besides on India's energy issues.
Asia Times Online :: South Asia news - Price imbroglio stymies Iran pipeline
The United States is no longer the main stumbling block to the planned US$7 billion Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) pipeline. All issues, including US pressure to abandon the 2,100-kilometer project, have been relegated to the back burner as India and Pakistan team up to try to persuade Iran to soften the price at which it wants to deliver the gas.
Tehran is demanding $7.20 per million British thermal units, linked to global crude-oil prices. The Iranian position is considerably higher than India's offer of $4.25 per mBtu at its border with Pakistan. Though Pakistan has been voicing plans of going it alone in case India decides to drop out, that may not happen if the price issue is not resolved.
Iran has rejected India's demand for a price equivalent to international long-term gas-supply contracts, saying that New Delhi should forget about buying Iranian gas at a low price. Tehran's stand has been emboldened by a Europe desperately seeking other sources of gas after last year's crisis due to the spat between Russia and Ukraine.
 More doom, gloom and rampant speculation from Asia Times' Chan Akya. However, there is a tenuous point to it:
We have to recognize that no established Islamic power has the ability to strike outside of its immediate border. The armed forces of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran have no capacity to inflict meaningful harm on the West. The sole exception is Pakistan, which is why the global terrorist brotherhood will probably focus more of its attention on this country than any other in the next few months.
Whether or not the Pakistani state can or will "inflict meaningful harm on the West" is not exactly the point, but in terms of vulnerability to collapse or coup, Pakistan is way up there in the list of potential flashpoints.
There isn't a hell of a lot of evidence for the next point either, but it's an interesting theory:
Just as Syria failed to show much control over Hezbollah, Pakistan has lost control of its militants, who now appear to work directly with al-Qaeda command structures. The turning point could well have been the Pakistani army attacks in the Pashtun areas that were undertaken to keep the US happy in its "war on terror".
Disenchanted that the Pakistani army could kill its own creations, Kashmiri militants appear to have bypassed the army, going straight to the Taliban and perhaps even to bin Laden. This explains the attacks on both Srinagar (grenade explosions that killed nine) and Mumbai on the same day, a move that seems to have caught even the Pakistani army by surprise, if its state of readiness in the days preceding the attacks is any indication.
It is certainly true that the Pakistani military is not making friends among Islamic militants, and is caught in a complex web of alliances and counter alliances across the various conflicts on Balochistan, Waziristan and the Northwest Frontier - including with anti-Taliban US Forces. It's a volatile combination that eventually has to break down.
Whether or not Pakistani Islamists are in league with al-Qaeda, as the author suggests, is not really relevant. I'm also not convinced of the argument that the Militants will ventually get their hands on nuclear technology, though there is mounting evidence of increasing production capacity in Pakistan.
Think 'Pakistan' and 'nuclear' and the next word that comes to mind is 'China'. China is key to the build of Pakistan's military, and props the failed state up in other ways in order to gain from its geopolitical position at a key strategic point for oil supply routes.
While there's little danger of China casting aside its ally in Musharraf, the government that would follow him would be another matter. And eventually, Musharraf is going to fall, whether due to pressure from the outside regarding his nuclear ambitions or pressure from the inside from the Islamists and nationalists.
I'm not impressed with Akya's argument that China will side with the West in order to stave the threat of Taiwanese independence in the background: if anything, China might take the opportunity to seize the strategic zones it needs for energy security and then move on Taiwan while the US flounders in Iran and elsewhere.
But, of course, who can tell?
Continue reading "China, India and WW3 (Part 2)" »
Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
The Economist's choice of title (from a poem by Dylan Thomas) for its analysis of the collapse of the WTO talks is apposite indeed. Think of what you might, for better or for worse the WTO is now the light that failed.
The historic chance to truly liberalize the world economy looks like it has eluded us, and at the end of the day those who will suffer most will be the poor and the deprived. Europe's ludicrous and insane Common Agricultural Policy will continue to screw people in Africa and elsewhere:
This is a tragedy, especially for the developing world. Last year, the World Bank estimated that global gains from trade liberalisation would equal roughly $287 billion, of which $86 billion would accrue to developing nations, lifting at least 66m people out of poverty. Activist groups including Greenpeace and Oxfam were quick to condemn both Washington and Brussels for intransigence over agricultural subsidies, saying that rich-world self interest is leaving the poor to suffer.
For the benefit of a few French farmers, cheap subsidised grain will continue to flood the world market putting local producers out of business and ultimately creating the conditions for famine. As Amartya Sen correctly says, it's not just drought that triggers starvation - it's economics.
It's not often that I spring to Bush's defence, and this is not one of those times, but The Economist has a point:
The collapse will probably be blamed on America, which has been pushing for bold action on agricultural tariffs, and resisting a modest compromise deal that includes caps on its own agricultural subsidies. This is ironic, because America has been one of the grave men pushing hard to revive Doha after the round’s first collapse at Cancún in 2003. Despite high-profile deviations, such as slapping tariffs on imported steel, Mr Bush has largely been a committed free trader.
The truth is that while there have been grave men and wise men, the good men have had no real voice. And I too think that the blame lies squarely with our very own beloved EU.
What has not been said, so far, is who else will gain from this. I think there's going to be one big beneficiary... it's coming... China. Without demands to relax trade tariffs on manufactured imports etc. China may well continue to resist becoming the 'world's largest market', as so many expect it to be.
On the other hand, if the West begin slapping tariffs and quotas on imports from China, the whole edifice of the PRC could swiftly begin to crumble. I don't think it'll come to that, but it could be one of a cocktail of factors that lead us further down that dark road, burning and raving at the close of day.
Continue reading "Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night..." »
 Oxford Professor and all-round commentator Timothy Garton-Ash takes a timely look at the state of the world in mid-2006.
His analysis is bleak. Of course, no writer on current affairs has the benefit of hindsight and it'll be a long time before we know how history will view this little episode. But Garton-Ash takes the essentially neo-realist view that a multipolar order is a recipe for disaster.
The neo-liberalist argument that the US will create stability through institutions and 'enlightened self-interest' no longer washes, and the hegemon is clearly on the decline as other powers rise. The kernel of the argument is quite succinct:
This new multipolarity is the result of at least three trends. The first, and most familiar, is the rise or revival of other states - China, India, Brazil, Russia as comeback kid - whose power resources compete with those of the established powers of the west. The second is the growing power of non-state actors. These are of widely differing kinds. They range from movements like Hamas, Hizbullah and al-Qaida, to non-governmental organisations like Greenpeace, from big energy corporations and drug companies to regions and religions.
A third trend involves changes in the very currency of power. Developments in technologies with violent potential mean that very small groups of people can challenge powerful established states, whether by piloting an aeroplane into the World Trade Centre in New York, targeting a missile at Haifa, taking on the US military in Iraq, bombing the London underground, or squirting sarin gas into the Tokyo subway.
Not to mention the US's loss of EH Carr's third kind of power, 'power over opinion' (the others being military and economic power). Since the war America has been much better at provoking than winning hearts and minds. It just can't let go of those balls, and unfortunately Israel tends to follow suit.
Most of all, Garton-Ash displays his disillusionment with the tenets of liberalism (which encompasses a convenient jibe at the commander-in-chief of misplaced liberal values, the French President):
When Jacques Chirac spoke fondly of multipolarity, back in 2003, he conflated two claims: the world is multipolar, and that's a good thing. Claim 1 is being proved right. Claim 2 has yet to be confirmed. For a start, it matters a lot whether this is multipolar order or multipolar disorder. Order is a high value in international relations. It stops a lot of people being killed. At the moment, we have multipolar disorder, and it's not clear what the shape of a new multipolar order might be. Historically, the emergence of new powers, elbowing for position, has increased the chances of violence. So has contested authority within the frontiers of states.
I disagree with the author's fears that nuclear conflict is impending; no state (apart from North Korea, perhaps) would be willing to act in such self-disinterest, and I can't see any terrorist organisations gaining the capability or the will to use the bomb.
But the essence of his fears is spot-on:
We liberal internationalists dream of a world of democratic, peace-loving, human-rights-respecting states... Some of the growing powers fit that vision... to a large extent, India and Brazil. China and Russia definitely do not, nor do many of the non-state actors that are currently making the running in world politics. Henry Kissinger has suggested that the geopolitics of Asia in the 21st century could resemble those of Europe in the 19th century, with great powers jockeying for position, using war as the continuation of politics by other means. But it could be worse. It could be that kind of great-power rivalry on a world scale, plus terrorists. And corporations. And transnational religious communities. And international NGOs. No moral equivalence is suggested between these very different kinds of actor, but what they all have in common is that they don't fit neatly into a world order of states.
By other means, indeed.
Continue reading "New World Disorder 2.0" »
 About time too. But is this big spend on tackling China's environmental problems too little too late?
The environmental degradation in China is phenomenal. I'll never forget the taste of chemicals on my tongue after I gave up smoking; the grey smogs that enveloped Shanghai for 25 days every month; or the constant stream of factories and industrial wasteland along the Shanghai to Beijing railway.
Will the place truly be ready before the 2008 Olympics? Still, $175bn is no small sum, as long as it isn't siphoned off into a billion pockets.
Continue reading "A Major Spring Clean" »
 In this case British Home Secretary Dr John Reid's terrorist, is another man's freedom fighter.
The problem is: how does one differentiate between a true terrorist group and an armed resistance movement attempting to secure self determination under the provisions of the UN Charter? It's a delicate balance indeed. Perhaps it would be more useful to examine the objectives of the groups in question as well as their actions and doctrine.
It's also interesting to note the underlying political motivations of Dr Reid's naming of the Baluchistan Liberation Army and Teyrebaz Azadiye Kurdistan as organisations to be banned. Good relations with Pakistan and Turkey are no doubt also on the British government's mind.
In 1999, Blair and Clinton effectively supported the Kosovo Liberation Army, which could be seen by some as a terrorist group: same goes for the EU's continued relations with Fatah. So there's an element of hypocrisy too.
It's interesting to see the Government of Balochistan website's response. After swiftly condemning terrorism - fascinatingly, the organisation is based in Jerusalem and purports to have friendly relations with Israel - the author goes on to draw some comparisons and make some suggestions:
BLA are freedom fighters who are involved in a "Guerilla Military Action" against the Iranian and Pakistani forces. They are fighting the "Baloch War of Independence" by attacking military forces, blowing up supply lines, destroying infrastructure, and damaging anything and everything that will incapacitate the Iranian and Pakistani government and its armed forces, and taking every measure to avoid civilian casualties. BLA is a resistance force, just like the Forces Fran�aises de l'Int�rieur (French Resistance Army) during World War II.
BLA is taking every measure to avoid any collateral damage. If your government may send a fact-finding mission to Iran and Pakistan to find out the activities of BLA, we are sure that they will declare them a non-terrorist organization. But, by banning BLA without investigating the ground realities is a decision made in haste.
Like the KLA, the BLA and its supporters seek to harness the power of the Internet in promoting their cause. Even the names are similar. It's a fine line.
Original Guardian report below.
Continue reading "One Man's Terrorist..." »
 A complex and highly-involved essay on an alternative model to the OPEC system features in Asia Times Online. Far too detailed to get into the nuts and bolts of it - reprinted below - but just imagine for a moment what the planet would look like if we were able to rid ourselves of the political weight of the OPEC cartel.
For a start, the energy security issue could be removed from the Middle East conflict, radical Islam and terrorism. I'm not saying that Russia is a safe and stable country, far from it, but the balance of economic power would shift significantly once the Kremlin became the overlord of our energy supplies rather than the failing states and dictatorships that are lackeys to the US military-industrial complex.
With the Levant disintegrating as I write, war in Iran looming, Iraq a centre of instability and Somalia looking like a new challenge to oil security - commanding as it does the sea lanes to the south of Saudi Arabia - it's an impossible dream that's worth at least considering.
It is quite tough to understand exactly how this would all work:
The OPEC model has been limited to crude oil; the Russian model aims at covering supply of both crude oil and natural gas. The OPEC model has been limited to regulating supply and price, according to the swing-producer mechanism. Until now, this role has been played by Saudi Arabia, with its global lead in crude-oil reserves, and in its flexible capacity to lift, pump to port, and ship.
The Russian model aims to supplant the Saudis, emphasizing Russia's global lead in gas reserves and in barrel of oil equivalent (boe). Already, Russia exceeds Saudi Arabia as the largest producer in boe terms (13.3 million boe per day, compared with 10 million boe/d for Saudi Arabia); the largest exporter in boe terms (18.7% of global hydrocarbon exports); and the largest reserve base (16.3% of world hydrocarbon reserves boe).
From the Russian perspective, the Saudi role and OPEC model have benefited the United States, which can pressure Saudi Arabia into opening the spigot to deal with supply emergencies; the US also pressures other oil producers, such as Libya, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, and Indonesia, by military methods, diplomacy, and economic sanctions. In the Russian alternative, the US will be far less influential, and have fewer levers, commercial or military, to effect pressure on the energy suppliers. Russian arms and defense-industry partnerships are on offer to relatively weak, intervention-prone energy producers in Africa and Latin America to offset US pressure.
In short, it's a direct affront to US hegemony, and so it ain't gonna happen - at least at this summit. It is also a threat to the lynchpins of globalization - transnational private companies - since the Russian model is based on mega-firms like Gazprom, Rosneft and Transneft, all of which are at least partly state-controlled.
But there may be benefits:
The security of Russian energy supply is thus to be contrasted with the unreliability of US behavior. In the short term, this Russian strategy also enables Russian companies to secure the capital and technology they need for high-cost, high-risk projects in difficult terrain. Reciprocally, the strategy offers access to stable supply and pricing of oil and gas to consumer countries, including diversion of energy transportation away from military pressure at chokepoints - for example, the Strait of Hormuz, through which most oil tankers sail en route to Asia and South Africa. In America's wars with Iraq, and its threatened attack on Iran, oil consumers are dependent on the US Navy to keep the Hormuz waterway open. They are obliged to pay for this protection through the premium US oil companies charge for delivery risk.
And guess who leapt onto the bandwagon straight away:
India was the first to buy into the new Russian model, purchasing a minority shareholding in the first of the Sakhalin Island offshore oilfields to come onstream. This does not supply crude oil directly from Russia - a short-term Indian priority that the government in New Delhi is also pursuing. China followed India with different tactics, first by funding the proposed East Siberian Oil Pipeline, which will assure direct oil deliveries to Daqing; and most recently, by buying into Rosneft's public share flotation.
Immediate success for this model is unlikely. But with energy security such a fundamental issue these days - more important at a globalized economic level than simple political ideology or cultural identity - then we are perhaps seeing the seeds being sown for a new non-aligned movement.
It's no coincidence that these three guys had a meeting today. No coincidence at all.
Continue reading "A Different Model for a Different World" »
 An opportunity may already have been lost. With Bush and Putin 'failing to agree' on Russia's entry to the WTO, inevitably there will be comebacks. After all, the G8 summit is being hosted in St Petersburg, and the onus is on Russia to assert its rising status.
And the issue is that old chesnut, energy security. With the WTO membership carpet pulled from beneath its feet, Russia today refused to sign the energy charter which would guarantee the reliable supply of energy to Europe. As the Ukraine discovered, Russia knows that it has a powerful economic and political weapon in its grasp, and there's no reason for it to let go.
Anyone who still thinks - or says - that oil is not a major issue on the global political agenda will, however, be corrected by this year's G8, notable for its straight talking:
"Energy is essential to improving the quality of life and opportunities in developed and developing nations," the leaders' statement said.
"Ensuring sufficient, reliable and environmentally responsible supplies of energy at prices reflecting market fundamentals is a challenge for our countries and for mankind as a whole," it added.
The statement comes after months of rising oil prices - including a new spike following the Israeli action in Lebanon.
That's the sharp end of it - you can't have energy security without political security, and last week it just got a whole lot worse. Thus the G8 summit is inextricably intertwined with events in the Middle East, from Israel and Lebanon to Iraq and Iran. It's not just an additional point of discussion, as is being reported - it's the main item on the menu.
Continue reading "Tit for Tat" »
 Of course it is impossible to predict what course the future will take with regard to potential conflict with China. What follows is thus quite speculative. But there are a few factors pertaining to the period around 2012, the next Year of the Dragon, that stand out:
Economic superpower status. Over the next five or six years, China's economic ascendancy will be complete. Publications such as Newsweek are already writing on what they call 'China's Century'. What happens in the Chinese economy sends shockwaves around the world. Not to mention the US budget deficit, much of which is already down to China. With this kind of authority, China is going to be far less shy to act, perhaps radically, in its own interests.
Games over. The Chinese are greatly looking forward to the 2008 Olympic Games and the 2010 Shanghai Expo and are unlikely to do anything to scupper them before they are over. But by 2012 they will have neither of these to lose.
Impending implosion? Over the next decade China's resources will be stretched to a crippling limit while, despite the one-child policy, the population will have continued to rise. Rampant environmental pollution is not going to help put food in the mouths of 1.4 billion hungry citizens. Peasant protests and nationalism are both on the increase and by this time the CCP may no longer be able to keep them under control.
Resources on the wane. And oil: never forget oil. By 2012, unless it has taken serious measures to secure resources for itself, it's going to break down like an old banger - and the incredible economic growth that legitimates the Party's grip on power will break down down with it. Many theorists predict this year as a critical point - see for example the Olduvai Gorge theory, itself based on Hubbert's Peak.
Election year. The year 2012 will see elections in not only the US but possibly also in Taiwan. Elections are also due in Hong Kong; whether or not the authorities will allow them is another matter. It may even be time for the current leadership of the CCP to stand down after eight years in power. The year is thus extremely volatile politically with world leaders distracted and potential flashpoints waiting to happen within 'One China' itself.
 Military superpower status. Finally, if speculations are correct, by 2012 China's military build-up will be complete. It will have its motive, it will have its carrier group, it will have its opportunity. If the PRC moves to retake the ROC, will the US act to defend it or not? If things continue as they have done since 9/11, by 2012 the US military itself will be embroiled in conflicts across the Middle East, from Syria, via Iraq and Iran, as far as Afghanistan. Weakened and overstretched it won't be in a position to fight upon a second front. In a Presidential election year as 2012 will be, the prospect of even more American body bags will not be a vote-winner. And if Taiwan falls undefended, what would happen next?
I hope that it does not come to this. The only outcome that is in all our interests is peace. But as if all the above are not enough, there are enough mystical predictions out there to indicate that something is up: we just don't yet know what.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update - since this hypothesis was first written in Autumn 2005, I've found a couple more articles which seem to justify it. Of course they must be taken with a large pinch of salt, but this Epoch Times report confirms similar thinking on the 2012 date - see also the analysis by the Association for Asian Research.
Read on below for more detailed explanations.
Continue reading "Flashpoint 2012" »
 It's 1 July - halfway through the year and time for a revamp.
As this blog has evolved, it's become increasingly clear that the sources I use - The Guardian, BBC News Online and The Economist - despite their excellent journalism traditions are very 'British'. And that's not what this website is about.
I've therefore decided to add a new source - Asia Times Online - which, while it doesn't have the pedigree of the others, is certainly a portal for some serious voices from and about Asia. Take, for example, this story on 'Petro Hysteria' (reproduced below).
Hopefully this new source will add balance to the site as it progresses.
I've also redesigned the banner to better reflect the themes of the blog - the War on Terror, the quest for oil and especially the role of China and India in all this.
Finally, I've adjusted the sidebars a little, but that's by the by.
Let me know what you think!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update: As of 18 July 2006, the interface was upgraded to Movable Type 3.31, complete with tagging. Check out the tag cloud to see more...
Continue reading "Site Revamp" »
Xinjiang, the Uyghurs and an Oversight in International Law
When the Charter of the United Nations was drafted in 1945, the aim was to eliminate both war and the causes of war. In a world devastated by conflict, the Allies dreamed of a new order governed by the rule of law, where human rights and the self-determination of peoples overrode the spent era of empire.
So when we think of colonialism today, we tend to imagine white European settlers sweeping aside the indigenous populations of the Americas or Australia in their lust for land; the creaking imperial administrations of Dutch Indonesia, French Indochina and the British Raj; or the unruly scramble for Africa. It is a period we shamefully consign to the history books.
But inherent contradictions of the UN Charter’s first two articles, which also enshrine the sacred right of nations to sovereignty and territorial integrity, leave chinks in the armour of international law. Colonialism is alive and well, and with us now in the 21st century.
A case in point is China, which following the collapse of the Soviet Union at the close of the last century constitutes what may well be the world’s last real empire. In its wild western province of Xinjiang, the politics of colonisation continue, intertwined with the modern obsessions with political Islam and the hunt for oil. Is there anything international law has to say about the predicament of Xinjiang’s Uyghurs, a people who are rapidly becoming strangers in their own land?
Download Word file here or read main text below. (Word file contains additional bibliography, maps and appendices)
Continue reading "Colonialism in the 21st Century" »
 Not much to go on, and the original link to the Hindustan Times doesn't work, but more evidence of how China's water policy may affect India. Obtained via Phayul Tibetan issues website and BJP archive.
This time, it's not damming the Tsangpo but a smaller, more insidious, project:
Whatever be the stage of construction, the idea of a barrage over the Sutlej which enters India near Shipki La in Himachal Pradesh is bad news for the country. Given the wide body of evidence showing the drying up of lakes, streams and rivers on the northern side of the Himalayas, the barrage raises concern that China may finally be controlling and regulating flow of water into India.
Article quoted below.
Continue reading "Sutlej Barrage" »
 The SCO meeting continues, and Washington takes note:
The growing power of China has prompted a rethink in Washington, where rightwing analysts now speak of the SCO as an embryonic rival to Nato. Their fears have been strengthened in the past two years by the inclusion in the SCO of Iran, Pakistan, India, Mongolia and Afghanistan as either observer or guest nations.
Jonathan Watts also correctly identifies the true nature of the meeting:
But it is in the field of energy that the SCO appears to be most powerful. The countries gathered in Shanghai control almost a quarter of the world's oil supplies and are building a series of pipelines across the region. A pipeline is being planned from Iran to China that would cross Pakistan, whose president, Pervez Musharraf, yesterday requested to be admitted as a full member of the SCO.
I feel a thesis topic coming on.
See also this analysis in Comment is Free - and note the abject lack of comments. Unsexy the SCO may be, but it's becoming increasingly important to the fates of the People's Republic, the Former USSR and the whole Subcontinent - not to mention all that oil which the US and Europe wouldn't mind for themselves.
(pic - From left, foreground: the Chinese president, Hu Jintao, Russian president, Vladimir Putin, and Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad)
Continue reading "'An Embryonic Rival to NATO'?" »
Was thinking over my Flashpoint 2012 theory this morning, and lo and behold this pops up on the BBC.
The actual Amnesty report is here, and it merely confirms what we already know. In Sudan, Burma and Nepal, China has been a significant supplier of arms to unsavoury regimes.
Amnesty's naivety is almost touching:
"We're calling for China to enact into law and uphold commitments... banning all arms transfers where they are likely to be used for human rights violations," Ms Hughes said.
Yeah, as if. China itself is one of the world's biggest human rights violators, and reneges on a number of international treaties from the WTO to the UN Charter.
Now, this is not to say that China is not doing anything the US isn't doing. In fact the US is doing the very same thing a hundred times over, if not a thousand.
But the point is that China is selling arms to protect its interests. Oil in Sudan and Iran; oil supply routes and logging with Myanmar; and strategic positioning over India and Tibet in Nepal. That's the nub of things.
There's also various conflicts in Pakistan and India, in which China, energy resources and Maoism are all somehow mixed up. Pipelines were recently blown in up in both Baluchistan and in Assam.
Coming soon: a full explanation of Flashpoint 2012 theory. Watch this space. BBC report below.
Update - 17 June 2006 BBC Analysis here.
Continue reading "China and Proxy Wars" »
 The G8 finance ministers got together today for a preliminary meeting ahead of July's summit. At the top of the agenda, naturally, is energy security.
But that's boring. And something far more important got going on Friday. It's even bringing colour to the usually grey cheeks of The Economist.
...the comparison with the Olympics is striking. Think of all those robotic East German sprinters, Romanian gymnasts and Chinese swimmers churned out by state-backed programmes. By contrast, a winning football team needs not just athleticism but also a spark of creativity and style that cannot be manufactured by sport's central planners. Even taking drugs does not appear to be much help for footballers.
The World Cup is apolitical. The USA will probably be crap again. China and Russia aren't even in it. The superpowers are Brazil and a clutch of developing and declining countries.
Who will be this year's heroes? We shall see...
Continue reading "The Beautiful Games Begin!" »
Cold War Standoff, Lukewarm Co-operation or Something Else Altogether?
In Iran is embodied all of the issues of our time: nuclear ‘rogue states’; Islamic fundamentalism; energy security. And both the US and its rising rival, China, have vital interests in its future.
America’s policy is heavily discussed, and the newspapers are filled with fact, hearsay and rumour about its next move. But what will China do? Given that it has more significant stakes in Iran than in the other ‘Axis’ members, can the Chinese ruling classes just look the other way as they did with Iraq? Will they push for a settlement as they are doing with North Korea? Or will they confront the US in the United Nations and even on the ground?
At this crucial junction for the world order, neither neo-realism and neo-liberalism – both written and practised by ‘Occidental’ thinkers, not ‘Oriental’ – may be fully adequate to explain what happens next. Indeed, are our understandings of Chinese interests correct at all?
Download Word file here or read the main text below. (File contains additional footnotes and bibliography).
Continue reading "Theorising China's Iran Crisis Policy" »
 Here's one to watch for the future - the 5th anniversary of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).
The Economist notes:
Small wonder that full membership of the Shanghai Six is highly valued. Pakistan, which like Iran, India and Mongolia is only an observer at present, is especially keen to join. Its president, Pervez Musharraf, is offering China an energy corridor to Central Asia and the Middle East in exchange. Membership offers hydrocarbon trade, stronger defence links and, for those who want it, a way to counter the influence of the Americans. On the face of it, that makes for a successful club.
Iran would also like to join the gang. Full article here.
Continue reading "Pakistan and the SCO" »
A New Alliance or Another Sino-Russian Split?
Every period of history has its ‘stories of the day’. For us, in the post-Cold War era, these are now obvious: the threat of Islamic extremism and the consequent ‘War on Terror’; the rapid economic growth of what is already dubbed the ‘Asian Century’; and the increasing strain on the environment by the over-exploitation of resources and the under-management of the consequences.
The continued ‘rise of China’ in particular depends upon a number of external factors – most notably, energy supply. In order to keep its restless millions in check, the governing Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has to fuel the breakneck economic growth of the last decade, or at the very least prevent collapse.
Yet China’s oil and gas reserves are inadequate for its future needs, whereas neighbouring Russia and Central Asia are major providers of energy. So upon them and their pipelines it must rely – although the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is a nation that disdains reliance on others and prefers to go it alone.
The answer is to build its political and economic influence over Central Asia. Russia, however, also has hegemonic ambitions in the region. The scene is thus set for a confrontation within what some authors describe as the ‘New Great Game’. At present, relations remain benign, but how long can this continue? Could we soon be facing another Sino-Russian Split reminiscent of the 1960s row between Mao and Khrushchev? Or will Russia be pulled into China’s orbit in an uneasy partnership of mutual interdependence?
Download Word file here or read main text below. (Word file contains additional bibliography, tables and maps).
Continue reading "Pipeline Politics in Central Asia" »
 Despite its dry and austere reputation, The Economist sticks to the mandate of true journalism: of late, for example, it has been instrumental in keeping Darfur in the international spotlight.
Tonight is the deadline for a deal to be struck between the government and rebels, and likely as not it won't happen.
However, on a positive note, the US is getting involved. This week has thus been a good one for the US, in my eyes: the correct judgement on Zacarias Moussaui and now at least the right moves towards Sudan. Iran, of course, is another matter, but at least the US is trying to push it through the UN Security Council.
Does this herald a new era for US diplomacy? I don't think so at all. There's always interests involved somewhere along the line:
George Bush is now said to be passionate about getting both NATO and United Nations forces on the ground in Darfur, an idea that the Islamist Sudanese government detests. The reality, however, is more nuanced. Sudans military intelligence has been supportive of both the CIA (spilling a few beans on al-Qaeda) and the janjaweed militias who have done most of the killing in Darfur. So the question for the Bush administration is not just how to stop the slaughter, which it has called a genocide, but how to stop it at the same time as keeping Sudan more or less on side in the war on terrorism.
Nevertheless, it's the right move, especially in the face of UN inadequacy over the food programme. However, it's very doubtful whether a NATO or UN force could be effective, and inevitably it'll end up as another quagmire.
Continue reading "An Eye on Darfur" »
 So, if we already know that a UN resolution is going to be vetoed, why bother even drafting it?
The basic point of today's news is that a resolution under Chapter VII of the UN Charter is being prepared to try to manage the Iran nuclear crisis. This follows the IAEA's report to the UN Security Council that Iran is breaking its obligations on the enrichment of uranium - confirmed by Iran itself.
The relevant part of the chapter is Article 41:
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
However, as we read in The Guardian (also below), China and Russia will both veto any decision on actual sanctions. So what's the point?
There basically is none, other than as a face-saving measure for the US (and most likely its special friend, the UK). As long as the appearance of going the UN is kept up, then the US can later say "well, the UN was ineffective, so we had to go it alone".
There is zero chance that military action will be authorised under Article 42, but we all know it's going to happen eventually. This is the beginning of the diplomatic process of preparing the ground for the recriminations that will come later.
Continue reading "So the Point Is, Exactly?" »
...can I have some more?
It's becoming increasingly obvious that China's foreign policy is exclusively based around energy. Since leaving Washington, Hu Jintao made a beeline for Saudi Arabia (where he discussed a refining project and a weapons contract) and is now in Nigeria where he just signed another $4bn deal.
Meanwhile, there'll be more anti-terror exercises in Central Asia next year via the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation.
China is clearly cosying up to all its energy supplying allies who, with the US weakened by Iraq, are all looking for reliable customers.
You can't seperate them.
George Monbiot writes an eloquent article on this in Comment is Free. He doesn't really come up with any viable solutions, but his logic in arguing his point is sound.
Firstly, most countries are reliant on other regions - namely the Middle East, the Former Soviet Union and Central Asia - for their oil and gas supplies. There's lots of demand and less and less supply. So there's high competition, and it's a seller's market.
This gives them power over us. Russia, for example, had no qualms about cutting off the Ukraine's gas to make a political point (whether it would have the guts to do this to China, who knows).
So, we have to come up with alternatives. Hydrogen is the best answer at the moment, but currently hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels too and not from electrolysis.
There's the economic issue too:
But a hydrogen network will be viable only if it is cheap. According to a report by the US National Academy of Engineering, the wholesale price of hydrogen made from natural gas with carbon capture will, in "the future", be $1.72 (96p) per kilogramme; from coal, $1.45; and from electrolysis $3.93. In other words, if a hydrogen economy is to be taken seriously, the fuel has to be made from gas or coal, rather than by either wind turbines or nuclear generators.
Now, here is when his argument goes a bit wrong. It's too short term:
So it seems to me that a key environmental challenge, odd as this seems, is to ensure that gas has a future in the UK by making its supplies more secure. I don't mean invading Iran or sucking up to Saparmurat Niyazov. I mean increasing our storage capacity so that we cannot be held to ransom - in the short term at least - either by Gazprom or by the companies that control the flow through the interconnector.
Think long term and put the massive investment into creating realistic alternative energy - sorry, this means nuclear as well as wind farms. This will be economically painful in the short term, but in 2050 we'll be able to sit back and watch the rest of the west collapse.
Assuming China hasn't wiped our economies and the environment out by then already.
Continue reading "Energy Security and the Environment" »
It never stops! And there's no regime too unsavoury for China to buy energy from: Iran, Sudan, now - Turkmenistan. The pace of the deals this year has been fast and furious - or maybe I never noticed them before.
Few details, but read the BBC and Bloomberg reports below.
Continue reading "More PRC Pipeline Diplomacy" »
 The Economist's Global Agenda reports on the pipeline story in more depth.
'Friction more than friendship'? An interesting hypothesis - but I don't see how. Sure, it increased mutual reliance on each other, but Russia and China are more natural geographical and political partners than, say, Russia and the US, or China and the Middle East.
There is, however, a strong element of 'pipeline diplomacy':
Even the promise of a pipeline is a useful means of wielding influence over neighbours, both to the east and to the west. Russia may hope for a favourable outcome in a territorial dispute with Japan over the Kuriles, a chain of islands linking Japan to Russia. Or, with China, it might expect better co-operation in Central Asia.
Since the PRC is making inroads into Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan anyway, Russia has no option but to service its neighbour with fuel. The routing of pipelines is of great political significance too: via its pipeline to Kazakhstan, China may soon have access to the Caspian too, and will need Russia even less. So may as well strike while the iron's hot.
As the article concludes, oil is influence. And influence, sooner or later, will be oil.
Continue reading "Pipeline Politics" »
 Manmohan Singh knows what side his roti's buttered. First the nuclear deal with the US, and now another with Russia.
Of course it's in India's medium-term national interests to improve its energy system, and nuclear is the lesser of two evils if you consider the effects of burning enough coal to keep a billion people powered - like they do in China.
But there's a more subtle political game going on in the background too. Singh is cleverly tying himself up with major potential allies, and by so doing puts India on a higher pedastel, confirming her position as a regional power of weight and consequence.
There's a sense that Russia is playing a game of one-up-manship against the US, but as far as India's concerned that's just fine.
Continue reading "Nuclear Diplomacy?" »
 Not on my usual beat, but worth linking to today's cover on The Independent.
The paper does have a penchant for these sudden 'issue-based' covers and analytical features, and long may it continue. This week, as the title suggests, it's the question of water.
Triggered by a speech from the UK Secretary of Defence, the articles and editorial (reprinted below) discuss in detail the water issue. The conclusion sums it up nicely:
...the combined effect of population growth, pollution and climate change will probably be enough to bring world water supplies to a critical point.
Although the issues of water and sanitation are now on the international agenda, thanks to being included in the Millennium Development Goals, the UN believes that the true scale of the potential world water crisis is still eluding world leaders. A nasty wake-up call may be on the way.
Great news that UK leaders acknowledge the issue. But we don't know what they, or anyone who actually matters, are going to do about it.
Continue reading "Water Wars" »
 So, is BP about to tie up with Sinopec? (BP is the UK's biggest company and is in the world top five - Sinopec is China's biggest oil company.) The Observer appears to think so, and there's some significant implications for both the UK and the PRC.
...a deal will put BP at a strategic advantage, making it the most significant overseas player in what will shortly be the most voracious energy-consuming country in the world. If successful with a tie-up, BP will rival Exxon as the world's biggest energy firm. For Sinopec, a deal with BP will help with its exploration activities - an area where it currently lags behind its two national rivals.
As a Brit who spent a while in China, I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand it will be mutually benficial for both nations, in economic and political terms. They'll get more oil. We'll make a lot of money.
On the other hand, however, I have to admit to concerns. PRC companies are notorious for 'leveraging' (ie. stealing) technology from their Western counterparts in all these JVs. So in the long run the UK will lose out. However, if BP transfers some clean fuel technologies to China, then despite the short-term loss then at least in the long term it'll help alleviate some of the problems of the environment.
As my students were forever telling me - every coin has two sides...
Continue reading "Tying Ourselves to China" »
 Unusually, I have a bit of sympathy with China here. How does a country with 1.3 billion people and an economy growing at 9% per annum deal with its energy needs? America doesn't care about Kyoto and the like, so why should the PRC?
On the other hand, one of the things which truly frightened me about China was the pollution. Visit the east coast megacities and you will see no blue sky. It's not just humidity - it's pollution. It stings your eyes and gets into your skin. You can taste it in the air. And it won't just go away. The atheletes at Beijing 2008 are going to freak.
And I support China's efforts to develop sustainable energy... to a point. The Three Gorges Dam is hardly an example of environmentally friendly energy. It's an ecological catastrophe. I even have a feeling that the sudden appearance of such a huge body of water is directly affecting China's microclimate. It's not meant to snow in Shanghai - it did twice while I was there.
Moreover, surely China is exposing itself to massive risk. When the 3GD goes wrong - which it will, this is China - what then? Why don't they build lots of smaller dams instead - more expensive, I accept, but surely more viable?
And lastly, damming a river doesn't just end within China's borders. Take the Brahmaputra - a deeply significant entity in Indian culture to say the least. Dam that and what happens to India? Remember last year when glacial melting in Tibet threatened to flood northern India?
The power game is one that readily crosses international borders. China needs to get responsible, fast.
BBC story below.
Continue reading "Feeding the Dragon" »
 It appears that 15 years after the end of the Cold War, great mother Russia is currently enjoying a resurgence on the world economic stage as a supplier of energy.
There's not much in the way of prescient analysis in the BBC report reprinted below, but it does offer a nice little summary of the situation at present.
A couple of lines worth highlighting:
"Russia is feeling more confident that it has a lot to offer the West," said Yaroslav Lissovolik, chief economist at United Financial Group, a leading Russian investment bank.
"The government seems to have an attitude that the scales are shifting and the West has less to offer Russia now.
"Energy security is the number one problem facing the world economy and Russia knows it can offer part of the solution," he said.
"Perhaps it is feeling that now is the time to take advantage of that."
Russia recognises that it is back in the geopolitical equation in a big way. It remains to be seen whether it can behave with equanimity and responsibility, but in Vladimir Putin it has one of the most acute - if not Machiavellian - of the world's leaders.
Time to add another category to the ever-expanding list on the left hand side: The Former USSR - Gazprom and gamesmanship in the post-Cold War era
Continue reading "Energy on the Agenda" »
I won't be around for a couple of weeks now, so won't be able to write much about this year's Davos meetings. Suffice it to say - it'll be worth coming back to.
Bye for now, and see you in Amsterdam in early February.
 Things got a lot colder in Europe today.
As if the 'sabotage' of pipelines, not to mention the deliberate cutting off of energy supplies by Russia in order to look after its own populace during the cold snap weren't enough, there was this rock aswell. A real rock star, one might say.
The ludicrous nature of the story was not lost on the British media who pounced on it like a pack of dogs. Basically, British agents were accused of planting surveillance systems in Moscow, in the shape of this... rock.
But it all highlights something that had until now been pretty much under the surface. Despite the Cold War fizzling out some time during the 90's, there are still those in London and Moscow who retain a Cold War mentality. That's not progress.
Moreover, the ongoing shenanigans involving Gazprom and Russia's immediate neighbours, not to mention other European nations that use Russian oil and gas, reminds of the essential interdependence of the international system.
It's a fragile state of affairs where, if Russia decides to cut off the energy, we lose out. Simple. They still may not be a superpower any longer, but they still wield considerable clout when it comes to resources.
The Bear, it appears, is back on the scene.
BBC Articles reprinted below.
Continue reading "Rocks, Pipelines and a Cold War on a Cold Day" »
 There is a reverence involved in the art of spotting a tiger in the wild; a reverence, should I say, mixed with more than a little fear.
The Gypsy landrovers used for the safaris in Corbett Park are well built but open-topped; though this affords the best view, it leaves you feeling just a little vulnerable. Not to mention surprisingly cold, especially in the bitter climate of Kumaon in winter and before dawn.
But there is little if any danger today. Even though in the far east of Kumaon a human fatality was recently reported, in the words of Jim Corbett: A man-eating tiger is a tiger that has been compelled, through stress of circumstances beyond its control, to adopt a diet alien to it. Thus not all tigers are maneaters.
Indeed, it is the case that they are in more danger from mankind than we from them. Witness the savage depletion of Indias tiger population in recent years in order to fuel the market for Chinese traditional medicine and the illegal fur trade. Even the national parks are not free of poachers and despite the authorities best efforts, news of dead tigers continues to make the Indian papers.
Continue reading "In Search of Tigers" »
 Im tracking a tiger, a large male by the looks of it. You can tell by the breadth and shape of its footprints or pugmarks; even to my untrained eye the trail is clearly visible in the soft sand by the riverbed. Our guide speaks to us in hushed tones. The anticipation is palpable. We are within sniffing distance for sure.
But all of a sudden the tracks veer off into the undergrowth where the jeep cannot follow. Therell be no sightings today, it seems. Theres still time yet, though: its just seven am and with the veil of mist lifting from the forest around us its inhabitants are slowly beginning to stir.
This is tiger country. Indias recently-formed Uttaranchal province borders Nepal to its east and Tibet to the north, and the part of it were in was made legendary by one man, his guns and most importantly, his notebook.
Continue reading "In Search of Jim Corbett" »
 One to watch for next week, this story in The Economist Global Agenda is proof enought that environmental issues are international issues. One nation's clumsiness and secrecy may well end up affecting its neighbours.
Oh yeah, it's China of course. But I'd also be willing to bet that the citzens of Khabarovsk aren't hearing much from their government about the chemical slick heading their way either.
Full article copied below.
Continue reading "Without a Paddle" »
 Due to this week's state visit, The Guardian has been running a short series of articles on China. Shame their website hasn't been working terribly well lately.
Their Beijing correspondent Jonathan Watts is clearly something of a good egg, though how he manages to hop from China to Brazil and write such a well-researched feature article to boot I don't know. Perhaps he had a bit of help.
The articles are here:
A Miracle and a Menace
A Hunger Eating Up the World
A couple of paras are worth noting for some interesting stats:
Once self-sufficient in many primary products, China now gobbles up global resources. Imports rose 40% last year as it surged past the US as the most important player in global commodity markets. According to the Asian Development Bank, China took 40% of the world's steel, 30% of its coal, and 25% of its aluminium and copper. It is now a major importer of grain, soya and even rice because so much farmland is given over to factories, malls and housing.
In the past two years, Chinese demand has been credited with pushing international commodity prices to record levels. China has accounted for 40% of the growth in demand for oil over the past four years, overtaking Japan last year as the second biggest importer. With a trade surplus of $10.4bn, foreign exchange reserves of $745bn and a currency that strengthened this summer for the first time in 10 years, China can afford to spend. Recently, it has bought - or bid for - $24bn of US treasury bills, fleets of jumbo jets and companies such as IBM, Rover and Marconi.
Some of this is perhaps to be expected, since the Chinese comprise 20% of the world's population - but if China is using 40% of world resources than to me the maths doesn't work long term. Even after decades of underdevelopment due to Maoism etc. I make that twice as much as they are entitled to. Also:
Continue reading "Who's Hu and When's Wen Coming?" »
...to save the planet. Bob Hope and no hope. All resting on the man on the left.
 You've got to feel a little sorry for Prince Charles. Vilified in the media, stripped of all political power, stuck with the legacy of Princess Di and married to an absolute tugboat. But Charles does have an intelligent sensitivity about him, and the courage of his convictions. These, unfortunately, are not going to be enough.
Today the Prince, accompanied by Camilla on her first diplomatic level engagement, met with George and Laura at the White House for lunch and dinner too. The Guardian could do little more than send this up, while from BBC Online we learn the names of some of the other guests:
They were joined by the president's mother Barbara Bush, his brother Marvin P Bush and wife Margaret, the presidents' sister Doro Cock and her husband Robert P Cock.
I always did have the feeling there would be some Cocks among the Bushes.
Continue reading "Two Hopes..." »
Switch on the TV or open a newspaper or magazine and what you see or read are events and themes in isolation. Each exists by itself: you watch a programme or read an article and that's it. Nothing more. Over.
 Surf the Internet, on the other hand, and everything is interconnected, part of the overarching phenomenon known as the World Wide Web. And that is a lot more like real life. Things don't happen on their own. They happen for a reason, often a multitude of reasons and they are driven by a host of differing influences.
War, the nineteenth century strategist Karl von Clausewitz once wrote, is a continuation of politics by other means. It is a bold statement of the most simple but the most profound and important of connections. This blog is about war and politics, but more specifically about the inextricable links and parallels between the events we see unfold every day. The things that the papers don't always pick up on, or that the networks don't have time to run.
So, in the true pre-commercial spirit of the Internet, what I aim to write here is not conventional journalism: but maybe journalism by other means.
You can read more about the idea behind this blog on the about page. In summary, my interests are in the global politics that lead to the breakdown of diplomacy and the advent of war, plus the technology and operations of war itself.
And since the events that we know of occur only on this one planet, I also aim to examine the broader contexts of environmental issues - since the depletion of our natural resources and environment are perhaps the biggest single threat that 'the international community' - if such a thing exists - will have to face. If only they would see it.
My personal background is in defence and technology journalism, but in a larger sense I consider myself not a subject of the country I live in but a citizen of the world. In many ways, I am a product of globalisation - born to an Asian father in North America, yet raised in Britain as a European.
I have two passports, Canadian and British, I am entitled to a special 'Person of Indian Origin' permit and for the last couple of years I lived in a country and among a culture quite alien to my own, China. Other than my interests and my general journalistic skills, these are my only qualifications - but that's the beauty of blogging. You don't need to be an expert, just an observer.
My areas of interest are thus these three continents - North America, Europe and Asia - and the relations between them. South America and Africa are not specifically covered (other than under the 'Unrepresented' and perhaps the 'Travel and Miscellany' categories), not because they are unimportant, but in order to keep some kind of focus.
In brief then, I aim to examine the news and events of the day in context, viewing them not in isolation but paying attention to the wheels within wheels that turn to drive the world we live in. As the motto reads, I study war and peace that my sons may study mathematics and philosophy. As a private individual I acknowledge that I don't stand a chance of changing the world, but it's my generation that's got to at least start.
Many thanks for reading, and welcome again to the weblog.
|
|
