A long way to go yet

BRP Bhaskar
Gulf Today

When a nation with big power ambitions is at the 55th place in the Olympics medal table, it means it has a long way to go. Yet India is in a celebratory mood because the six medals it won at London represent its best performance so far.

The medal tables of the Olympics reveal a link between political and economic power and sporting prowess. The United States (104 medals), China (88), Britain (65, of which 29 are gold, giving it a higher rank) and Russia (83, of which only 24 are gold) topped the list this year.

In average performance, worked out with respect to the strength of the national contingent, China with a percentage of 22.89 ranked above the US (19.62) and Russia (18.81) was above Britain (11.83). India, with 7.23, was way behind.

When European powers dominated the world, countries from that continent were at the top of the table. As the US emerged as a global power, it climbed to the top. Between 1952 and 1988 the Soviet Union stood first or second at every Olympics in which it participated.

Politics kept the People’s Republic of China away from seven Olympics. Returning with a bang in 1984, five years after Deng Xiaoping set the country on the path of economic reform, it claimed the fourth place. At the 2008 Beijing Olympics, aided by home ground advantage, it took the top spot, with 51 gold against America’s 36, although the latter led 110-100 in the medal tally.

India was at the 50th place in Beijing with three medals — one gold and two bronze. Now ranked fourth in the world in gross domestic product as well as military firepower, it hoped to improve its standing in London. Goldman Sachs, the global banking and securities firm, predicted it could get three gold, one silver and one bronze.

The 24x7 channels, whose patriotism overrode realism, worked up popular expectations to a high pitch before every event in which Indians were participating. In the event, there was terrible disappointment in store for the viewers. The minimal increase in the number of medals could not make up for the lack of shine of the metal or the slip in rank.

Spokesmen of the official and sports establishment, however, were in an upbeat mood. They pointed out that this year’s performance was better than that at any previous meet. On 13 occasions India had to be content with just one medal, twice with two medals and once with three.

Why is it that a nation of 1.2 billion people cannot match the performance of, say, Iran, which has just about 75 million people? With 12 medals — four gold, five silver and three bronze — it ranked 17th at London.

Population and economic advancement do not automatically translate into medals. The fact is that only a small fraction of India’s population is involved in serious sporting activity. Olympian standards can be reached only through intense training, which is costly and beyond the means of the bulk of the population.

Substantial public or private investment in the creation of sports facilities and training of sportspersons lies behind the achievements of the countries high up in the medal tables. The quick rise of the Soviet Union and China in the latter half of the last century was the result of determined efforts by the Communist governments.

Sport is not a priority item on the Indian government’s agenda. It has no scheme to spot talent and provide training facilities to produce sportsmen of international standards. Private investment is small and goes mainly into games of the affluent like cricket. Sports officials have often invited charges of favouritism and mismanagement.

India has been unable to hold on to its gains. At eight Olympics, it won the hockey gold, and then it slipped and went out of the medal table altogether. At Beijing it did not even qualify in the event. This time it qualified but lost every match it played.

As the first Indian to win a gold medal for individual performance, Abhinav Bindra, air rifle shooter, was the toast of the nation after the Beijing Olympics. At London he lost in the qualifying round. However, his team-mate, Gagan Narang, won a bronze.

The silver medals were picked up by Vijay Kumar, a pistol shooter, and Sushil Kumar, a wrestler, and the other bronze medals by Yogeshwar Dutt, wrestler, MC Mary Kom, woman boxer, and Saina Nehwal, woman badminton player. --Gulf Today, August 21, 2012.

BRICS seeking greater say

BRP Bhaskar
Gulf Today

Leaders of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS), who will gather in New Delhi this week for their annual summit, are expected to pitch for a greater role in world affairs in keeping with their growing clout as newly emergent economies. The main item on the agenda of the summit, scheduled for March 28 and 29, is global governance. While China is not keen on early reform of the United Nations system, it shares the BRICS partners’ enthusiasm for reform of the global financial institutions.

As it happens, the summit takes place ahead of a meeting of the World Bank to choose its next president.  Since the creation of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund at the end of World War II, the former has been headed by an American and the latter by a European.

On Friday President Barak Obama named Jim Yong Kim, an American of South Korean origin, as the US nominee for the post. Two other candidates are also in the field: Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala of Nigeria, whose sponsors include South Africa, and Jose Antonio Ocampo of Colombia, who has been nominated by Brazil.

China recently suggested that a non-American must head the institution. It is not clear if the BRICS nations can agree on a common non-American candidate. Even if they can, the US may be able to ensure the election of its nominee as it continues to wield considerable influence in the global financial system. However, the ideas the BRICS nations are working on may make reform of the system inevitable.

As an institution charged with the task of making resources available to member countries to tide over balance-of-payments difficulties, the IMF has a critical role in helping Europe to overcome its distress. The BRICS nations have already injected a large amount of capital into the IMF but some Europeans are asking for more.

“BRICS’ voice in the IMF must be enhanced if the European countries want it to provide more capital,” a Russian government spokesman said last week. At the New Delhi meet, the group is expected to work out a strategy to link increased participation in the European recovery programme to restructuring of the IMF’s capital base to bring it in tune with the new financial realities.

A parallel initiative envisages the setting up of a development bank of the BRICS nations. A proposal made by India in this connection has evoked a favourable response from Russia and China. India views the proposed bank, which will facilitate indirect investment of foreign exchange reserves of the central banks of the member countries, as an institution with the potential to become a powerful player in global decision-making.

For China, the BRICS development bank offers a platform to expand the international role of its currency, the renminbi. It has been facing criticism from other countries for manipulating the value of the renminbi to maintain export competitiveness.

With the Western economies in the doldrums, the BRICS nations are now the most favoured investment destinations. Their efforts to forge common strategies have set alarm bells ringing in some Western financial circles, particularly investment promoters.

One investment research group, in a recent report, bemoaned that countries like Indonesia and Mexico, which are beginning to rival some BRICS nations in terms of growth and investment strength, are often overlooked in favour of them.

Smaller markets such as Malaysia, Poland and Peru are also surging in importance although their total size is tiny compared to the trillion-dollar economies of BRICS, it said, adding they could be interesting picks for investors.

Against this background, the decision of leading stock exchanges of the five countries to establish the BRICS Exchanges Alliance assumes significance. Beginning March 30, members of the Alliance will begin cross-listing benchmark equity index derivatives on one another’s trading platform.

Initially, members of the Alliance aim to expand their product offerings beyond their home markets and give investors exposure to the other BRICS economies.

While in New Delhi for the summit Chinese President Hu Jintao is expected to formally declare 2012 as Year of India-China Friendship and Co-operation. With memories of the disastrous end of the Hindi Chini bhai bhai (Indians and Chinese are brothers) era, inaugurated by Jawaharlal Nehru and Chou Enlai, still fresh in mind, this slogan is sure to be viewed with scepticism by many people. But the good that can result from renewed friendship must not be lost sight of. -- Gulf Today, Sharjah, March 26, 2012.

Bid to enter Shanghai Group

BRP Bhaskar
Gulf Today

With India, Pakistan and Afghanistan lining up for membership, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, a common platform of China, Russia and four Central Asian republics, is set to emerge as a regional body with increased clout.

Established in 2001, SCO member-states now cover a contiguous area of more than 30 million square kilometres spread over Asia and Europe with a population of nearly 1.5 billion. The South Asian countries’ entry will raise the area and double the population.

However, it is not area and population that will make the enlarged SCO a powerful institution but the region’s strategic significance. It will be a regional forum without the participation of any western nation, including the United States.

The tenth annual SCO summit, held at Astana, capital of Kazakhstan, last week laid down the norms for membership and negotiations for admission of India, Pakistan, Iran and Mongolia, all of whom are now observers. Iran’s entry has to wait as the SCO charter does not permit admission of a state facing United Nations sanctions.

There is no knowing how long the negotiation process will last but India is hoping the enlarged SCO will be in place before 2014, the deadline set for withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan. The SCO is already playing a constructive role in that war-ravaged country and the inclusion of India and Pakistan will enhance its ability to ensure the country’s stability.

The Astana declaration, issued at the end of the summit, envisages a neutral Afghanistan. It was the erstwhile Soviet Union’s violation of its neutrality, which had been respected by the Tsar of Russia and the British rulers of the Indian subcontinent, that landed the landlocked country into the mess in which it is today.

Significantly, it points out that the Afghan problem cannot be solved through military measures alone and demands that attention be paid to social and economic issues, particularly reconstruction of transportation and social infrastructure.

Formal assertion of the principle of Afghanistan’s neutrality by the group, which includes both Russia and China, is significant in the context of reported US attempts to establish military bases there under cover of a defence shield before the planned pullout. It needs to be endorsed by Pakistan and India.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who attended the summit, asked the US to respect the country’s sovereignty. With civilian casualties in western air strikes on rebel forces on the rise, he has lately been talking of the risk of allies turning into an occupation force.

Condemning the US missile defence programme for the region, the Astana declaration says one-sided and unlimited development of such systems by one state or a small band of states can damage strategic stability and international security.

Western alarm over these formulations was reflected in media reports which projected the enlarged SCO as a rival to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which serves as an arm of the US. There have also been suggestions that the group is seeking dismantlement of the western bases in Central Asia and establishment of a security system without US participation.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, who was at the summit, did call for a security alliance of former Soviet republics and China against the west. However, there were no takers.

China dismissed western media reports as reflective of the mindset of the United States, which does not want anyone to challenge its position as the world’s policeman. Writing in the Communist Party newspaper, a commentator stated that the SCO charter casts no obligation on member-states to provide military assistance to one another.

However, the charter does not preclude military co-operation. The group’s proclaimed objectives include fighting the triple evils of terrorism, regional separatism and religious extremism. Since its inception 10 years ago the SCO has conducted as many joint exercises to fight terrorism, drug traffic and organised crime. Lately it has also turned attention to areas such as checking money laundering and ensuring security of major international activities.

India’s desire for full membership of the SCO stems from the hope that it can benefit from the group’s anti-terrorist programme. Such sentiments may be there in sections of the Pakistani establishment too. However, given the character of the terror groups operating in the two countries, there are limits to the benefit that can flow from it.

But there are economic and political dividends to look forward to. The SCO plans to become a free-trade area by 2020. By that time the movement towards a multipolar world may have also gained momentum. --Gulf Today, Sharjah, June 20, 2011.

Is an 'Asian NATO' on the US agenda?

Reproduced below is an article by Jose Miguel Alonso Trabanco, an independent writer based in Mexico specializing in geopoltiucal and military affairs.

by JOSE MIGUEL ALONSO TRABANCO
Global Research

There has been some talk concerning American intentions to forge an Asian NATO, i.e. a US led military alliance meant to advance its members' geopolitical interests in the region. During the Cold War, the US created the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) which also encompassed France and the UK as well as regional pro-Western States such as Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, Pakistan and the Philippines. However, such organization was dissolved in 1977.

Moreover, we also need to take into account the existence of the Australia, New Zealand, United States Security Treaty, better known to all as ANZUS. Both American allies fought together during the Vietnam War, the Gulf War and Operation Enduring Freedom (in Afghanistan). Canberra also supported and participated in the 2003 Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. Furthermore, Australia is an important contributor to the National Missile Defense System. Therefore, one can practically take for granted that any potential Asian or Pacific version of NATO will include these two staunch American allies. Japan has become even closer to the US and an increased level of NATO-Japan dialogue indicates that both parties have agreed to strengthen its political and military links.

In order to assess if Washington is indeed attempting to establish an alliance in the Asia-Pacific region (more or less analogous to its Atlantic counterpart) one must examine what the American motivation could be. Some top American politicians have been promoting such plans. For example, Rudolph Giuliani proposed that NATO should accept Australia, Israel, India, Japan and Singapore. Perhaps it is also what Senator John McCain had in mind when he recommended the establishment of an American-led League of Democracies, an euphemism which means that non European US allies had to be included in a global military coalition (against whom? One could add).

As we will see, there are plenty of reasons the United States will be interested in creating any such organization. American senior geostrategists must have paid great of attention to:

• North Korea's nuclear program.

• The meteoric rise of China as an economic powerhouse. Or, as the US National Intelligence Council terms it, "the unprecedented transfer of wealth from West to East". China has already overtaken Germany as the world's third largest GDP. Beijing possesses the largest foreign currency reserves and the fact that most of them denominated in US dollars gives the People's Republic of China considerable leverage.

• Other regional economies have grown impressively, namely South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Taiwan and Hong Kong. This means that Asia has been and will continue playing an increasingly important role in international politics.

• The emergence of China has also expanded the Middle Kingdom's military, geopolitical, diplomatic and technological power. China is arguably the greatest power in East Asia. Beijing is improving and modernizing its military hardware and it seeks to develop competitive sea power projection capabilities in the long run.
• China and Russia have become closer cooperative partners through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Both powers have agreed to share their influence in Central Asia and prevent American influence from reaching further into the Great Turkestan. Moreover, both have carried out joint military exercises.

• Beijing has courted several regimes openly hostile to American power. In fact China is the primary destination of Iranian oil exports and the idea of building an oil pipeline connecting both has been explored. Furthermore, Myanmar has become one of closest Chinese allies. The 'Middle Kingdom' is large importer of Myanmarese resources (fossil fuels, gems, timber and so on) and Myanmar's ruling junta has allowed the Chinese to open and operate intelligence facilities there. The PRC, in order to ensure supplies of raw materials has become a key trading partner of many African countries as well.

• The resurgence of Russia as a great power is important. The Kremlin has shown some interest in projects concerning the development of energy resources. For instance, in order to diversify its trading partners, Russia has seriously thought about providing fossil fuels to East Asia's largest economies (China, Japan and South Korea). Additionally, the Russian Federation plans to increase its share in East and Southeast Asia's arms markets.

• Even though South Korea still hosts a large number of US military personnel, Seoul (unlike Tokyo) has implemented a foreign policy which has been careful enough not to annoy Beijing.

• Although some American masterminded Color Revolutions were first successful in inciting regime change, it seems both the Chinese and the Russians have meticulously studied this Modus Operandi and Beijing was able to counter such methodology in Myanmar's Saffron Revolution and during the 2008 Tibet riots.
US top planners therefore have decided that America has to augment its presence in Asia if Washington is indeed committed to achieve American hegemony (a.k.a. 'The New American Century'). Washington has stationed troops in South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Diego Garcia, Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Guam and Australia. Such military deployments, US policymakers seem to think, must be amplified through an Asian version of NATO.

The ultimate goal of an Asian NATO would be to prevent China from becoming a formidable challenging power. As a result, US strategists have concluded that America needs to preserve its position as the world's top sea power so that it retains the ability to control strategic sea lanes (like the Malacca Strait and the South China Sea) and to enforce a naval blockade in case war breaks out. The aforementioned means that Asian economies would have to make meaningful concessions to the US if they want to keep their flows of seaborne foreign trade uninterrupted.

As a result of the Iraqi and Afghan quagmires, it is argued that the US has understood that even if America is the world's leading power, it is still unable to unilaterally make its interests prevail. Thus, Washington has realized that it will need several allies to maintain its position unrivaled. So the Americans have been busy trying to deepen their strategic cooperation with traditional allies (Japan, Australia, New Zealand and so on). Moreover, the US has been attempting to seduce India and embed it into an Asian NATO, something that would dramatically alter the whole balance of power in Eurasia.

For the British Empire, India was its most prized possession because it was hugely profitable and, more importantly, its geographic position was strategically significant. According to the CIA World Factbook, India became the world's twelfth largest economy in 2008 thanks to its GDP growth. Moreover, India is strategically located in the southernmost part of the Eurasian landmass and its territory is considerably large. Furthermore Indian population is an important asset because the country has an internationally competitive professional class. Last but not least, it must not be forgotten that India has a stockpile of nuclear weapons.

It seems India has abandoned its Cold War foreign policy of nonalignment. Indeed, it looks like Delhi has been slowly moving towards the Anglo-American orbit and its allies. Some members of Indian political establishment are openly hostile towards China. For example, then Indian Defense Minister George Fernandes claimed China was "India's enemy No. 1". Such a statement confirms that at least some senior politicians in Delhi truly believe the People's Republic of China is some sort of strategic rival even though most of them do not openly express that viewpoint because of diplomatic repercussions.

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is an Indian political force which, among other things, advocates a more aggressive foreign policy and it also supports a strongly nationalist agenda. If the 2008 Mumbai attacks were indeed a covert operation run by the CIA franchise called ISI (which has been resorted to in Chechnya, Afghanistan, the Balkans or wherever plausible denial is needed) one of its objectives would be the political empowerment of Indian forces (like the BJP) much more willing to accept an Indo-American alliance than the current Congress-led administration.

It is revealing that the Dalai Lama (who is still probably a CIA asset) keeps operating unimpeded from Dharamsala (nicknamed 'little Lhasa'), India, which demonstrates that Delhi is politically eager to check China's rising power. Moreover, India is also interested in gaining access to Tibet's abundant deposits of natural resources, particularly fresh water and uranium.

A few years ago, India was willing to engage Iran in negotiations in order to enhance its own energy security. It seems Washington was successful in undermining those talks. One can only wonder what Delhi was promised or given in return. It is also remarkable that the US plans a transfer of nuclear technology to India.

Furthermore, India has also sought closer ties with other American allies. For instance, Delhi has become a large buyer of Israeli-made arms and defence systems.
On the other hand, India is an observer State in the SCO. Yet, Delhi has not requested full membership, allegedly as a result of American diplomatic pressure. India is an important purchaser of Russian-manufactured military hardware, including aircraft and tanks. Besides, Russia and India are collaborating in the development of a fifth-generation stealth fighter.

Russia and India had a close relation during the Cold War. The Kremlin knows that both powers do not have mutually exclusive national interests, which is not something that can be said when one examines Sino-Indian relations. Moscow and Delhi share a desire to counter Islamic unrest in Central Asia. President Medvedev recently announced that the Russian Government will consider sharing nuclear technology with India to boost bilateral ties, an effort clearly meant to outbid the Americans.

In short, the Americans are very much interested in creating an 'Asian NATO'; nevertheless, such organization would be meaningless unless India could be included. That explains why the US has demonstrated a certain willingness to make several concessions to India in order to gain the latter's geopolitical and strategic loyalty. It is unknown at this point if Delhi will join such an alliance. Perhaps India's political elites are still deciding whether they will align with the Atlanticists (the Americans and the Europeans), with the Eurasians (the Russians plus the Chinese) or with neither. After all, Delhi can just play them off against one another in order to extract as many concessions as possible from both without having to take sides. However, if India opts to side with any of those bands, that will send strong geopolitical shockwaves throughout Eurasia. (Distributed by Countercyrrents.org)

José Miguel Alonso Trabanco has a degree in International Relations from the Monterrey Institute of Technology and Higher Studies, Mexico City. His focus is on contemporary and historic geopolitics, the world's balance of power, the international system's architecture and the emergence of new powers.

Nuclear war if Republicans win, says US expert

The gratuitously aggressive US military policy toward Russia will lead to nuclear war, says Paul Craig Roberts.

In an article circulated by Countercurrents.org, he adds, “I am confident that if Americans elect John McCain, or the Republicans steal another presidential election, there will be nuclear war in the second decade of the 21st century. The neocon lies, propaganda, macho flag-waving, and use of US foreign policy in the interests of a few military-security firms, oil companies, and Israel are all leading in that direction.”

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is no scare-monger. He was Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury in the Reagan Administration. He is a former Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal and a former columnist for Business Week, the Scripps Howard News Service and Creator’s Syndicate in Los Angeles. He has held numerous university professorships, including the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He was awarded the Legion of Honor by the President of France and the US Treasury’s Silver Medal for “outstanding contributions to the formulation of US economic policy.”