Geopolitics

[Guest]

<b>Venezuela's Chavez says US ambassador must leave</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->24 minutes ago
CARACAS, Venezuela - President Hugo Chavez said the U.S. ambassador has 72 hours to leave Venezuela and that he's recalling his ambassador from Washington.

Chavez said Thursday night that he is asking U.S. Ambassador Patrick Duddy to leave in part to show solidarity with Bolivian President Evo Morales, who expelled Washington's envoy in La Paz.

"They're trying to do here what they were doing in Bolivia," Chavez said.

<b>"That's enough ... from you, Yankees," he said, using an expletive</b>.

<b>The socialist leader said Venezuela's ambassador to Washington, Bernardo Alvarez, would return to the U.S. "when there's a new government in the United States."</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He is hoping for Obama.

[acharya]

<b>
Russia's Opec bearhug is something to worry about
</b>
* Richard Wachman
* The Observer,
* Sunday September 14 2008

As if the prospect of a global recession isn't enough, consider the latest threat to world economic stability: an alliance between Russia and Opec, the oil-producing cartel dominated by Saudi Arabia.

That's a scary possibility, as Russia supplies one third of Europe's energy needs, while Opec accounts for nearly 40 per cent of global oil production. Together they produce half the world's oil, so any pact that paves the way for Russia to become a full member of the cartel would present a threat to countries such as Britain, which is becoming increasingly dependent on foreign imports as supplies of North Sea oil dry up.

Don't be under any illusion that an Opec-Russia tie-up would act responsibly by striking a fair balance between the amount charged by producers and the price paid by consumer nations in Europe, America and Asia.

Take Russia's behaviour, for example. Three months ago, Gazprom chairman Alexei Miller, in a display of naked self-interest, suggested that the price of oil could soar to $250 a barrel, at a time when the price had already leapt 39 per cent in 2008 to almost $140.

But is such a merger really on the cards? The Russians would clearly like one: last week, it sent its energy minister Igor Sechin to attend Opec's meeting in Vienna and proposed 'extensive co-operation' with the cartel. A memorandum of understanding is being prepared for signature in the coming months.

An alliance would be a boon for the Kremlin, which has already demonstrated in Ukraine and elsewhere that it is prepared to use oil as a political weapon in order to re-establish its influence over the former Soviet empire.

Oil is Russia's biggest bargaining chip, as the soaraway price has done more than anything else to give it the confidence and clout to re-assert itself on the world stage. A pact with Opec would strengthen Moscow at a time when it has lost friends in the West following its invasion of Georgia and its harassment of foreign companies, such as BP, which have business interests in Russia.

An extension of the oil cartel to include Russia, however, will be hard to pull off. Saudi Arabia, by far the most important Opec member, is a conservative state supposedly aligned with the United States, and may be reluctant to alienate such a powerful ally. But it is not impossible: Opec already comprises countries hostile to the US, notably Iran and Venezuela. So why not add Russia?

Hidden from the debate, however, is the fact that Saudi Arabia is a cartel within a cartel. With 21 per cent of all Middle Eastern proven oil reserves, it is the only country with significant surplus capacity. That means it can cushion itself from price falls by bumping up volume in a way that other countries can't. No doubt that was one reason why Russia has been frantically lobbying behind the scenes for Opec to cut production to keep prices high, as it faces capacity restraints and stands to lose billions in foreign reserves.

Even without the Russians, Opec, under the sway of the powerful Saudis, is hardly a benign force that is seeking to make things easy for the West as recession looms.

Last week, the cartel said it would cut production by around 500,000 barrels, bringing a rebuke from the International Energy Agency, which claimed the move would undermine the price relief that consumers have enjoyed in the last month.

But Opec may have overreached itself: by trying keep the price of oil at around $100 a barrel, it has stoked fears that a recession will be deeper than anticipated and will lead to a slump in demand. As a consequence, oil closed on Friday at just under $100 a barrel and could slide further.

But it will take a long time before Opec's influence diminishes: despite all the talk in the US about green technologies that will help the world reduce its dependence on oil, it will be decades before that happens. Opec will remain a force to be reckoned with for the foreseeable future. The Russians know this, as their action last week demonstrated all too clearly.

[acharya]

Argenpress, Argentina
<b>
Elections in the United
States: What’s Important</b>



By Juan Francisco Coloane

With the rise of Sarah Palin, the governor of Alaska, as partner on the John McCain ticket, the issue has been limited to the immediate sphere of personal emotions. It is like a return to the pre-Woodrow Wilson era, with full international isolation of the U.S.

Translated By Chris Kelso

September 8th, 2008



Argentina - Argenpress - Original Article (Spanish)

With the conclusion of the two Party Conventions to confirm the nominees for the presidency and vice-presidency, the agendas in dispute were becoming diluted in the personal biographies of the candidates and in the projection of their respective charismas.

The addition of Sarah Palin to the Republican ticket reveals that the gravitating element is profoundly associated with the role of marketing in politics, where it is spread through the agendas and the political platforms. They obtain votes because of their record, and later, when they are in power, they do things differently. It is politics in its purest form, and it has not changed since the beginning, with very isolated exceptions.

At the end of these two conventions, what was long awaited, happened. The United States, the dominant power of globalization, turned into a village, reducing political exercise; instead of aggressively aiming to resolve transcendental problems, it aimed at issues linking public ornamentation in the characteristics of figures in competition.

This essentially is the spirit with which the Republican Party has decided to confront the eight weeks that remain. As the agenda they had was saturated with eight years of George W. Bush, the party that has planned to be in the White House 16 years in order to eradicate any trace of progressive liberalism, according to the current Vice President Dick Cheney before assuming office eight years ago, decided on the strategy of destroying the opponent, and not for setting up a more attractive theme.

It is a shame. Also taking into account that in the election of Ronald Reagan, and the current President George W. Bush, they have spoken on things from economic content to the contention towards communism in the times of the Cold War.

With the rise of Sarah Palin, the governor of Alaska, as partner on the John McCain ticket, the issue has been limited to the immediate sphere of personal emotions. It is like a return to the pre-Woodrow Wilson era, with full international isolation of the U.S. Without entering into the arena of prejudice, with Sarah Palin emerges a political figure evoking a mix of Doris Day and Connie Francis. The Republicans are masters in this sense. They brought out Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, all at appropriate times, faced with this the Democrats could do little.

People and Not Politics

The Republican bet consists of highlighting the war experience of McCain and the pathos of Palin as a woman, converting into decisive factors for this election. It is not the content of the public politics which is the topic of interest for the voter, but rather the values that the candidates represent.
That is to say, what started and emerged in this election with the rise of Palin to counteract the substance of Barack Obama, is not a U.S. parted in two because of a polarization of political or ideological character, but rather is something worse: in the methodology of the Republican which dominates the political scene, public politics are separated from the individual condition.

A return to the origins of the formation of the U.S. soul: the strictest individualism, exacerbated in a world that is becoming every moment more interdependent. In this sense, the McCain–Palin ticket would be an anathema with regard to the times. “For the Republicans this election is not about issues, but about people,” comments an expert. “No longer is Iraq important, Osama Bin Landen remains at large and the economy matters little,” he emphasizes.

Although making an effort in order to not fall into the trap of marketing, Barack Obama cannot be situated very far from this either. Because of this, the issues to debate and resolve have been reduced to a less specific part, that of values, education, and moralities.

Where is the “El Dorado” of Votes?

The Democratic Party itself has succeeded in the last elections of Senators and Governors, with an agenda far away from social themes. What they concentrated on, facing a generational change of voters that could be referred to broadly as a “pragmatic modernistm,” are the opportunities originating from the post industrial societies, focusing on the profitability of services, higher technology, information, transport, and biosciences.

To go after the vote in the western states, and the women’s vote inside the elector’s sphere, would seem to be the slogan in the final part of this election.
In this sense, not everything is working for the Republican marketing. Before the arrival of Palin, Barack Obama maintained a significant window over McCain in preference from women. In a recent poll (Washington Post-ABC News), Obama had a 55% approval rating from the electoral universe of women. McCain hardly bordered 37%. With the nomination of Palin, unexpectedly she appears to be obtaining more adhesion from men. On the other hand, more than 50% of women think that Palin is not qualified to be vice president. There is an area of seven states in the Midwest and West, with Democratic governments where they have increased the number of representatives.

The positioning of Sarah Palin and the publicity arsenal emphasize the personal values, which represent an appeal to the core ethics of the so-called average U.S. citizen. To this should be added the way she will acquire the campaign in this remaining period. She has started to dominate the political strategy of the adversary's destruction, commanded by the disciples of Karl Rowe, the advisor who contributed to the two victories of George W. Bush.
This average electoral group will determine if the United States will either leave or remain in the heart of darkness.

To resolve the most essential central issues in the economy, or the failure of the U.S. in its aspiration to lead the world, seem like very grandiloquent goals facing a neoconservative electorate, and each time more preoccupied with the close and personal arena. Someone will have to see the gurus of self-help and entrepreneurship, Sex and the City, the age of information and advanced technology. Any ideological contraption that tries to link the content individual with the system, dreams of depravation.

[Guest]

<b>Russia Market Drop May Temper Medvedev Georgia Moves</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Sept. 15 (Bloomberg) -- When it comes to containing Russia, the invisible hand of the markets may be the West's most potent weapon.

<b>Tightening access to international credit and mounting stock losses are hurting Russian billionaires as well as state- owned corporations, prompting calls by businessmen to heed Western complaints over Kremlin policy in Georgia. </b>

The head of the country's biggest business association, the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs, met President Dmitry Medvedev, urging him to take ``anti-crisis'' measures.

``The stock market is plunging, capital is fleeing, there is a severe shortage of liquidity in the banking system, prices for many core exports are falling and inflationary pressures are strengthening,'' the business group's Alexander Shokhin said today in a live televised Kremlin meeting. Current policies ``may turn out to be inadequate,'' he said.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[acharya]

Dagsavisen, Norway
<b>
9/11: The U.S. Did It
To Themselves</b>



By Erik Sagflaat

Maybe the people who executed the operation were Arab, but the brains? Not possible. This was organized by others.

Translated By Lars Erik Schou

15 September 2008
Norway - Dagsavisen - Original Article (Norwegian)

This week, seven years have passed since the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In the Arab world the most are still convinced that the U.S. themselves are responsible. As absurd as it may be, this delusion must be taken seriously.

To reject such conspiracy theories as nonsense is too simple, because it shows a gulf between the perception of reality in Western countries and Muslim countries. Journalists and others who have talked to average people around the bazaars, marketplaces and teahouses tell pretty much the same story. People in the Arab world simply do not believe that Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda are responsible for the attacks.

Maybe the people who executed the operation were Arab, but the brains? Not possible. This was organized by others. By the U.S. and the Israelis, says Mohammed Ibrahim, the proprietor of a clothes shop in Cairo to The New York Times. This attitude is widespread. It also reveals a failing Arab self-image. They simply doubt their own people’s ability to execute such a well planned and complicated attack against a superpower like the United States.

One rumor, even reported on television in some Arab countries, is that Jews who worked in the World Trade Center had been warned and told to stay home that day. That is claimed to be evidence that Israel was involved. That this is supposedly not true is simply not believed. In authoritarian and corrupt Arab nations, the faith in the government and mass media is so slim one has more faith in loose rumors around the bazaar than reliable sources.

It is claimed that the final proof that the U.S. did it is the war in Iraq. In Arab eyes, the U.S. only needed an excuse to secure Iraqi oil. The fact that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had no connection to 9/11 whatsoever is taken as further circumstantial evidence that this was merely the reason George W. Bush and his people needed – and therefore created.

These Arab beliefs expose a very serious communication problem. It speaks of two worlds who do not understand each other, and who cannot speak in a way that increases their understanding. This is dangerous, because the gulf will only become wider unless these problems are solved.

In the wider parts of the population in the Muslim countries, the Bush administration has lost all trust. It is too late to rectify this and George W. Bush started badly. We remember the overwhelming outpouring of sympathy to America hours and days after the attacks of 9/11. This included Arab nations. But Bush did not just declare “war on terror,” he declared a crusade. It was a catastrophic use of words that instantly took the attention away from the common fight on terrorism everyone initially supported. The crusade was perceived as a war cry against Islamic culture. The attempts to rectify the blunder were never heard.

Now we are reaping the bitter harvest. We can hope that the new administration taking over the United States in January can do better. But to rebuild the trust will take a long and focused effort.

[acharya]

Sueddeutsche Zeitung, Germany
<b>
“America Is In Decline”
</b>
Translated By Ron Argentati

13 September 2008



Germany - Sueddeutsche Zeitung - Original Article (German)

Sociologist Richard Sennett explains to Sueddeutsche Zeitung’s Nikolaus Piper why Americans are losing faith in capitalism and the future of their country.

Germany will be able to manage the financial crisis better than the USA. That’s the view of sociologist Richard Sennett, 65-year old professor of economics at New York University and the London School of Economics. He specializes in labor conditions in the industrialized world. Lately, he cast a critical eye on the increased flexibility demanded by globalization. His first major book was entitled “The Fall of Public Man (1977)”. Beyond his main field, he’s best known for his book “The Flexible Man.” His latest book is entitled “The Craftsman” which went on sale at the beginning of this year. In it, he examines the development of technical and industrial skills throughout history. Sennett grew up in a poor neighborhood of Chicago and holds British as well as U.S. citizenship.

Sueddeutsche Zeitung (SZ): Professor Sennett, the United States is in the midst of the worst financial and economic crisis in decades. How is that affecting American society?

Sennett: The effects are enormous. Up until now, this society was able to cover up inequalities because they’ve been living on credit. Through sub-prime loans and the innumerable credit cards held by most Americans, an illusion of growth was created that is now falling apart. People are not only losing their jobs, but their homes as well. They’re unable to continue the standard of living to which they’ve become accustomed. That has deep meaning: Americans believed they were the winners at capitalism. This self-confidence has disappeared and is being replaced by a feeling of decline.

SZ: Do you have evidence for these fundamental assertions?

Sennett: My research field is the world of employment. What we currently have is not only a financial crisis; it has to do with the American worker’s inability to compete effectively with the rest of the world. America hasn’t been successful in developing those capabilities among its population as exist in Europe or China. The phony financial boom of the early 21st century created the illusion that a fundamental loss of skills didn’t matter. Now people are finding out they just were deceiving themselves.

SZ: Jobs are disappearing in the rest of the developed world and migrating to former third-world countries as well. How does the United States differ from Europe in that regard?

Sennett: That depends on which European country you are referring to.

SZ: Let’s say Germany.

Sennett: It might surprise you to hear that Germany is in better shape to deal with the crisis than America is. The German labor force is better educated, Germany still exports high-tech machinery to the entire world, and they have an outstanding system for training apprentices. The United States has an effective illiteracy rate of 28 percent.

SZ: Are you serious?

Sennett: We’re talking about the effective illiteracy rate which means people unable to read a simple contract or lengthier text passages. The education level is very low. The United States imports engineers and computer programmers because it can’t provide the proper skills. I know it sounds odd: America is a wealthy country and still finds itself in decline. That’s where the connection with politics comes in. On November 4th, voters have to decide between nostalgia and a step into the unknown.

SZ: What exactly do you mean by that?

Sennett: Both Senator John McCain and his running mate Sarah Palin represent the longing for a bygone, familiar and safer world. Many Democrats are aware of the fact that things aren’t going well, that labor has been weakened, that some consumption patterns are self-destructive. It just isn’t clear yet what they’ll do with that knowledge.

SZ: To what extent has American labor been weakened? Unemployment is lower in the United States than it is in Germany.

Sennett: One of the reasons the figures look like that is the fact that in the United States, nearly 1.5 million prison inmates aren’t included in the unemployment figure. Neither are those who work part-time. The determining factor is the level of proficiency. A teacher can immediately tell you the difference between the graduate of a good American high school and a German high school. The rule of thumb is, American graduates need one to two additional years to be on a par with their German counterparts. Further along, the outlook is even worse. American firms have too few incentives to further their employees’ education. They hire workers wherever they’re able to find them; they don’t invest in them. Those in the 40 to 50-year old range are often cast aside because nobody wants the bother of bringing them up to date. That’s the difference between the American and the Japanese automobile industries. I often get annoyed with Germans when they talk about the “stupidity” of the American worker . . .

SZ: Do they really say that in Germany?

Sennett: Yes, quite often. But Americans aren’t more stupid; they just don’t have the same continuing education opportunities.

SZ: But doesn’t America make up for that through innovation?

Sennett: A few leading companies do. Wall Street and Silicon Valley, however, don’t give a realistic picture. The average U.S. company is not innovative and is quite inflexible in dealing with its employees and customers alike. This can be measured by America’s exports, which have steadily eroded over the last ten years. German and other European exporting companies, on the other hand, have become more and more innovative and flexible. Nokia is flexible. Microsoft just has a monopoly.

SZ: One consequence of that seems to be America’s tendency toward increased protectionism.

Sennett: Then the problem is elevated to the level of moralizing: If the Chinese are doing better, it’s because they don’t play fairly. But such moralizing can collapse by it’s own weight. Even if the Chinese currency were allowed to float, it wouldn’t help America very much because the Chinese buy most of their goods elsewhere.

SZ: Is the sense of crisis shared by all Americans?

Sennett: I’ve been interviewing workers for 15 years. In that time, I’ve seen increasing uncertainty about the future of jobs in the country. This uncertainty doesn’t appear in any statistic. Yes, people are aware the crisis exists; they just don’t have a name for it yet.

SZ: Are people changing their buying habits?

Sennett: No, and that’s part of the problem. There’s a typically American way of thinking that says if you’re unhappy, go shopping.

SZ: From the economic standpoint, the solution is evident: The USA is going through a purification crisis and at the end people will be saving more.

Sennett: That’s not how it works. Our economy is stagnating right now and that, on a fundamental level, is because of our way of life. If we were to measure accurately, we would probably be shocked at how few people really work full time. It’s an historical irony that immigrants in the American labor force have it better than those born in the United States. There are two reasons for that: first, immigrants’ consumption patterns are very different, especially in the first generation. They try to save money and haven’t yet succumbed to the consumer culture. And most new immigrants put more stock in education and skill development than do those who have been here longer. Classic examples of that are the Koreans, Kenyans, Brazilians and those from the Dominican Republic.

SZ: What will be the political consequences of the crises you describe?

Sennett: Barack Obama is getting a feel for the problems. His first reaction was to go protectionist. He still has no detailed program to deal with the problems, at least not as far as the purely financial aspects are concerned. But he has people working on it. Obama has an excellent economic team. The Republicans, on the other hand, have become a party of fantasies. George Bush fantasizes about global control, McCain’s fantasies all involve strength as a character attribute, and his running mate, Sarah Palin, dreams of a return to the comforting world of small-town America. In my opinion, she’s a decadent figure. If the Republicans win the election, the crises will probably only worsen. Obama still doesn’t know what he should do, but at least he’s a realist. And he has mobilized innumerable young people who know they have to change the country. I can only hope that he gets elected.

SZ: Did you consider it impossible that he would even be nominated back in January?

Sennett: I was afraid that racism in America, and it is still around, might prevent his succeeding and I’m now very happy that I was mistaken.

SZ: Assuming Obama is elected and he chooses you as one of his advisors, what would you advise?

Sennett: The first thing I would advise would be to increase education funding. It’s the only future we have. This past year, school districts across the United States spent 600 times more for sports than they did for science – can you imagine that?

SZ: What, exactly, is wrong in the education system? The whole world envies America’s great universities.

Sennett: The elite universities are, in fact, outstanding, but there are only about one hundred of them. Go one step lower and there’s nothing left to envy. It’s the same everywhere: at the top, America is great but most of society is threatened with destruction. Harvard is a dream that very few can reach and there’s nothing comparable for those who can’t. The greatest myth in America is that we’re a classless society.

SZ: The differences in America are perhaps greater than in Europe, but there are many people there who quickly make it from the bottom to the top.

Sennett: Those are the people you meet because they exist in the right circles. But social mobility in the United States has decreased since the 1970’s. It’s not a matter of a person, born poor, making it to Harvard. What really counts is how many people make it out of poverty and into the middle class. The old idea that each generation can expect to rise higher than the previous one doesn’t work any longer.

SZ: And what’s the cause of that?

Sennett: There are lots of reasons: the educational system, but also the inflexibility of many American institutions. Normal companies aren’t like Google. And then the state: for many blacks in New York, social advancement began when they were hired for government jobs. Now those jobs are disappearing and a young woman who formerly began as a secretary in a government office now can only find menial work.

SZ: Don’t those so-called “McJobs” eventually lead to something better?

Senett: That’s very difficult. Apropos “McJobs,” you’ve got to give McDonald’s credit. Their food may be ghastly, but at least they do something for their employees. But they’re an exception. Another factor impeding social mobility is the failure of many small companies. The rate is far higher in the United States than in Germany or Scandinavia. One of the worst failures of the second Bush administration was the politicization of the Small Business Administration. Offices were given to “deserving” Republicans as rewards for their support – incompetent and useless. That sort of thing doesn’t make headlines, but it’s important nonetheless.

SZ: What role do labor unions play?

Sennett: If we had unions in the United States like the German IG Metall we would be better off. American unions only support workers with seniority.

SZ: But isn’t the UAW, the only union comparable to IG Metall, partly responsible for the decline of the American automobile industry?

Sennett: What gives you that idea?

SZ: The UAW forced American companies to fund employee health care, a cost European and Asian car manufacturers don’t have.

Sennet: That’s a question of the chicken and the egg. The UAW had to do that or else their members would have had no health insurance at all. I’ll tell you something else: you may consider your system of participative management to be lacking, and you may be right. But in America, workers have practically no voice in the workplace. You have no place to turn to when you want to complain. Workers no longer feel independent, especially in those firms that are constantly restructuring. If they could participate in management, that would be different. Many union members in America would find conditions in Germany heavenly.

SZ: Despite unemployment?

Sennett: Do you know what strikes me about Germany and Scandinavia? You take sincere pleasure in complaining. You’re incapable of saying, “Hey! We did a great job!”

SZ: Or as we would say in German, quit bitching.

Sennett: Yes, and that’s very important. Since the end of World War Two, Europeans tend to think of America as an example they need to follow. It isn’t.

SZ: Do you think Germany might be an example for America to follow?

Sennett: In some parts of their social welfare system, yes.

[acharya]

Fars News, Iran
<b>
Brzezinski: Obama’s Advisor
The Creator of Al-Qaeda</b>


Translated By Mohammad Tamizifar

10 Sep 2008



Iran - Fars News - Original Article (Farsi)

Barack Obama, the Democrat nominee in the next U.S. election, is profiting from Zbigniew Brzezinski the old American politician, who is known as the creator of Al-Qaeda, as his foreign policy advisor.

Fars reports that in the approach to the anniversary of the September 11th, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, the public is blaming the terrorist attacks on Al-Qaeda, while fewer people are paying attention to the close involvement of America in the creation of this terrorist organization.

The presence of Zbigniew Brzezinski amongst the foreign policy advisors of Barack Obama, who is preparing to face the republican John McCain in the November elections, has attracted attention to his team.

Brzezinski is known as the creator of Al-Qaeda. He participated in Jimmy Carter’s plan for the financial, training and equipment support of the Afghan Mojahedins. He has himself confessed that he was trying to get the Russians into a Vietnam like conflict and has said also that ending the Soviet Empire was far more important than creating Islamic Jihadists.

Carter’s government, to which Brzezinski was a foreign policy advisor, also approved the sale of fighter and bomber aircrafts to Suharto’s government in Indonesia which were later used by the Indonesian army to bomb east Timor with napalm. These bombings were later named by the Australian Parliament Commission as the cruellest killing since WWII.

Mark Lippert was Obamas’ only foreign policy advisor prior to the presidential election contest. Lippert is a moderate conservative who was responsible for Obama’s right wing policies towards Iran and the Middle east. He was one of the supporters of the raising of the U.S. military budget to over 500 billion dollars. He pursues a more aggressive policy against Iran than does Obama.

Ivo Daalder is a member of the America’s New Century project and is another of Obama’s foreign policy advisors. He, with the support of Rebert Keegan has stated that intervention in international affairs should be with the collaboration of America's allies.

Anthony Lake, another advisor who heads the Prington National Security Project, was a behind the curtain supporter of America’s attack on Haiti during Bill Clinton’s presidency, and is the creator of “Harmony between democracies in the world”, very different of course to what McCain has in mind. Keegan and Daalder were the foreign policy theoreticians who thouht up this idea.

Dennis Ross was the observer of Israeli-Palestinian conflict during Bill Clinton’s period. He believed that the rights given to the Palestinians by international law should be in harmony with the Israeli interest. He has a record of criticizing Carter, because Carter went so far to agree with Desmond Tutu the South African cleric to liken the Israeli invasion of Palestine to that of the South African Apartheid.

[acharya]

<b>9/11 and the policy of lies!</b>
Essa bin Mohammed Al Zedjali
Sunday, September 14, 2008 12:06:44 AM Oman Time

THE whole world remembers what had happened in the US on September 11, 2001, an incident known as the 9/11, which has changed the world since the first term of US President George Bush. The change has continued to take place for seven years in a row with the countries and nations accused by the Bush administration of having a connection with the 9/11 episode made to face the consequences.

Soon after the 9/11 incident the US had declared what is known as the war on terror starting with an unsuccessful war in Afghanistan followed by the most unsuccessful war ever in Iraq. Between the two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the US got involved in several adventures in the world, acting as the only superpower that enjoyed the right to impose its authority on the world showing little regard to the international organisations or international laws that regulate the relations among countries.

The Arabs too were not spared by such policies. Several Arab countries had to face the US intervention in their internal matters especially on the pretext of spreading democracy, defending human rights or combating terror and tracing the terrorist groups. Those terrorist groups are still a big puzzle to the world. We are also not sure about the reliability and accuracy of the reports compiled by the US intelligence apparatuses about the capabilities and the whereabouts of such terrorist groups.

Soon after its pronounced war on terror, the US had formed a front, with the help of its allies who backed its policies, to invade Iraq on the ground that the country possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Again, the charge proved to be another fallacy as the US and its allies failed to provide evidence of their claim even after searching through every inch of the Iraqi land. In order to safeguard the interest of Israel, the US has destroyed the military power of Iraq and its army.

Now the US is proposing to proceed in the same way against Iran just to ensure the safety and security of the Jewish country. It looks like once Israel points an accusing finger at a country, the US will make it her business to target that country politically, military and economically.

The 9/11 has in fact given Israel many advantages that no other country in the world has — all at the cost of the Arab and Muslim countries. Many intellectuals in this world, including Americans, still doubt the authenticity of the incident and have often raised assumptions about the US involvement in plotting the event to provide it a pretext for imposing its full authority on the world. While conspiracy theories have always surrounded the incident of 9/11, they are now being openly discussed even in the US media.

Such intellectuals have considered the 9/11 a big farce conspired by American hands and minds. Some have even pointed to Israeli involvement in the 9/11, something that led the US to immediately devise a new policy based on lies and canards. All this has often led to unjustified accusations against some countries. Arab countries have suffered a lot in the face of such policies. The US has made the presence of one or two people in the group that carried out the so-called attack, having the nationality of the said country, a pretext for arresting and imprisoning many in the Guantanamo jail on suspicion they were also involved in the incident.

In the span of these seven years the world has become aware of the frailty of the American claim on the 9/11 and a large number of countries and nations doubt the effectiveness of the so-called war on terror led by the US troops all these years. The only ray of hope now lies in the coming US elections which will bring a new administration that hopefully follows a wise policy promoting better understanding among the nations and peaceful co-existence rather than setting sights on other countries’ wealth and precious resources. - emzedjali@timesofoman.com

[acharya]

<b>Coming collapse of the hegemonic world</b>
By Chen Xiankui and Tang Wei (China Daily)
Updated: 2008-09-12 07:46
Comments(3) PrintMail

With the clout of China and India rising on the international arena, some people in the West, who are concerned over the already fragile, US-dominated unipolar world political structure or the Western hegemony, have rushed to offer a variety of recipes for inter-power relations in the 21st century and for the world's new power structure.

These recipes include multi-polar, non-polar or collective power models, a "democracy value alliance", a new trans-Atlantic union, and even a joint China-US governance idea.

All these concepts are in essence changed versions of the new US or Western hegemonic model that proposes maintaining the world's established power structure through absorbing some emerging powers. The model also proposes carrying out reforms of the new power structure. In all this the idea is to keep the US and Western hegemonic position intact as much as possible. The new situation emerging from the very beginning of the 21st century indicates that neither the US nor the Western hegemony will last for ever, and there will not be a transfer of the old hegemony to a new one. In the 21st century, the world will see the end of not only the US-dominated hegemony, but also of the hegemonic model that allows a few world powers to control global affairs.

The decease of the US and Western hegemony will not be caused by the challenge from such rising powers as China or other countries. It will be caused by the world's irreversible efforts for a hegemony-free political structure. As the result of this situation, we can expect a hegemony-free and harmonious world in the 21st century in which big countries will fulfill their responsibilities and obligations and small ones can enjoy equality, democracy and assistance from each other.

In the 21st century, the United States, the protagonist of the current unipolar world, will gradually evolve into a common power because of accelerated efforts of many countries which will advocate an end to the unipolar power pattern. Since the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, a "balance of power" has come into being among the major countries. Despite its sole superpower status, the United States cannot always succeed in solving some global issues. It is even incapable of handling some domestic issues such as the subprime crisis. All these transmit to the world a strong signal that the US hegemony and Western dominance are now in an irreversible process of decline and final disappearance.

In dealing with some global issues, today's United States not only needs substantial support from staunch allies, but also needs understanding, participation and cooperation from other key world or regional players. Sometimes, it even has to give up its leading role to other big powers in finding settlements of some intractable issues.

With the spirit of peace and democracy exercising strong restraint within their boundaries, European countries have lost the basic driving force for hegemonic wars against other countries. On the other hand, economic globalization and marketization of the world since the end of the Cold War have activated the urge for peace and development among a number of developing countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Especially the peaceful rise of some powers, such as China, India, Russia, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa, has prompted some Western countries to join the resistance to hegemonism.
<b>
Some new-generation European leaders, though, still want to maintain the Western hegemony with the US at its core. They want to do so by advocating the "values diplomacy" and setting up the so-called democracy and values alliance or by forming a new trans-Atlantic union. But all these wishes will be difficult to fulfill.</b>

The emergence of some peace-promoting powers will be an irresistible historical tide in the 21st century. Their rise will lay a solid groundwork for the final end of the long-standing hegemonism in world politics.

New Delhi has generally chosen a path of peaceful development in South Asia despite its position of supremacy in the sub-continent. China has been even more committed to a peaceful development and always condemns any use of force in solving international disputes.

The strong efforts and calls for a hegemony-free world from these new emerging powers and the massive populations of Asian, African and Latin American countries have exerted a huge pressure on hegemonic countries, prompting them to deal with others on an equal footing.

The change of the world's hegemonic pattern pushed by newly emerging powers serves the basic interest of the whole world, including the West. It will also act as the main impulse to build a conflict-free and harmonious world in the new century.

The authors are with the School of International Studies of Renmin University of China. The article is reprinted from Global Times

(China Daily 09/12/2008 page8)<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->

This article will demonstrate what is in store for the world. There is a switch over that is going on in the Whitehouse.

We have got the Democrats poised to take over, with Obama. They control the senate as well. We have got Obama on one side and behind Obama we got a man named Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski.

Brzezinski:

Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski is a Polish immigrant, an aristocrat of the lower level, who became an eminent person in the Democratic Party Foreign Policy establishment. As Kissinger was for the Republicans, Kissinger being a protégé of Nelson Rockefeller, but Brzezinski, being a protégé of David Rockefeller; co-founder of the Trilateral Commission and dominant figure in the Carter Administration; National Security Council (NSC) director under Carter, and was instrumental in bringing Khomeini to power in Iran, and above all was instrumental in starting the Soviet-Afghan war. Since then he has been a professor; he dominates the CSIS Think Tank, and is very influential in any number of careers inside the Democratic Party.

The current secretary of defense, Robert Gates, is a protégé of Brzezinski; the International Crisis Group are influenced by Brzezinski and George Soros, the multi-billionaire funds for Brzezinski’s foreign policy. Brzezinski is therefore a very powerful individual.

The Clan:

Brzezinski in this document, is referred to as a short-hand; in fact they are a clan and a faction. Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski has two sons, one of them; Ian Brzezinski is a Republican who happens to be right now the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense at the Pentagon for Europe and NATO affairs. Ian Brzezinski was the mastermind behind NATO’s Kosovo bombing and Kosovo’s subsequent declaration as an independent republic (US was the first country to recognize Kosovo) and the Polish Missile Shield Defense plan – a huge event for geo-strategic affairs, particularly focused at Russia.

The second son is Mark Brzezinski, a veteran of the Clinton National Security Council; a democrat, and if Obama gets the Whitehouse, will find himself inheriting his father’s seat, the all important Director of the National Security Council.

Then there is Mika Brzezinski, daughter of Zbigniew Brzezinski; anchorwoman on MSNBC TV; appears with Joe Scarborough (Morning Joe) to churn out the Brzezinski- Obama -Soros line. Ironically, she is best known for her coverage of the WTC attacks on Sept 11, 2001.

So in a nutshell, whenever this document refers to the Brzezinski Group; it is in fact a group of powerful people behind it, such as the Trilateral Commission, Rockefeller, Bilderburg Group, RAND Corporation and a group of very wealthy Wall Street financial faction, which include George Soros and Robert Rubin of Citibank. These people now rule Washington. It is therefore not a question of what happens from now till the official US polls in June 22 – as they are already in power in Washington.

The Past Era:

In the past, the neo-con era was primary assembled by people like George P. Schultz, was also the Chairman of JP Morgan Chase International Advisory Council; Schultz chose Bush, Cheney, the so-called ‘vulcans’ like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Stephen Hadley and Robert Blackwill - who have all gone now. They were supported by media giant, Rupert Murdoch of News Corp and billionaire investor, Warren Buffett, both of whom have subsequently distanced themselves from the failed neo-con policies. They have gravitated towards Obama.

The Switch Over:

It is apparent that the Bush-Cheney neo-conservative networks have lost all power. Their entire policy package has been swept away. This was a process which has been underway for a couple of years now. Some of the highlights being the Baker-Hamilton Commission, the Iraq study group which recommended not to attack Iran, but rather negotiate with them and Syria to come to US’s side (which effectively is done); and the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran which said there is no Iranian nuclear weapons program are evidence alluding to this.

In addition to that, all the straight-talking neo-cons were driven out of government. Rumsfeld is gone, Paul Wolfowitz is gone, Lord Conrad Black, a top neo-con is now in jail, Wolfowitz is also stepped down from the World Bank, and Scooter Libby was prosecuted, convicted, and sort of semi-pardoned. The whole neo-con faction has ended up in very bad shape, washed up and finished. The US deal with North Korea was surmised by John Bolton, another neo-con, as the final collapse of the Bush-Cheney foreign policy. Richard Perle, another neo-con, said it was the final meltdown of the Bush-Cheney foreign policy.

It is all over for the Bush-Cheney neo-con era.

The Coming Era:

We now have the Brzezinski faction – the Trilateral, Rockefeller, Bilderburg, and the Wall Street group of financiers running the show. They fundamentally have decided to turn away from the neo-con methods which were deemed to be a failure.

Brzezinski and his group rule Washington through the Principles Committee. The Principles Committee includes Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, Secretary of State Condi Rice who is a disciple of Josef Korbel (Madeline Albright’s father); they have also got Admiral Mullen, Head of the Joints Chiefs of Staff and indeed Secretary of the Treasury, Paulson – another clear person who tell Bush what to do. As the US goes through the Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac crisis, two companies that between them represent about six trillion dollars worth of mortgages, and which we see Bush wanting to do one thing, but Paulson ordering Bush to the contrary, which sure enough becomes policy later on.

The Difference in Policy:

The neo-con world view is that US, UK and Israel are at war with the rest of the world forever. This was the primary reason for their initiation to the “War on Terror” through the Sept 11 WTC attacks. The neo-cons held the view that Israel was one of the key centers of the world and therefore the neo-cons were concerned with flattening Iraq and flattening Iran. An example would be last September, when a rogue B52 bomber armed with six nuclear cruise missiles, flew from North Dakota to Louisiana and apparently was on its way to the Middle East; this at the same time Israel attacked Syria’s nuclear power reactor on 6th September. It might have been on its way to join in some operation on that date, however It was stopped in Louisiana and as that question went up the chain in command, it turned out the US ruling elite did not want the plane to go to the Middle East. It had in fact been hijacked by Cheney and his gang as a last serious bid for power.

The Brzezinski group would say that the neo-con approach did not and won’t work, primarily because US is too weak, too isolated and all the war funding has made their banks bankrupt, creating the banking panic, hyper inflation, food prices to rise, volatility in the oil pricing and Bears Stearns to collapse, not to mention Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac going down. And above all the US has become too hated, and its armies defeated and demoralized.

Middle East:

The difference in policy is that the Brzezinski group regards the Middle East as a secondary theatre; it is a sideshow for their policy. The main question for world history is – Can the US/UK overcome Russia and China, and above all, can the US and UK smash the Shanghai Co-operation Organization which is the main poll of resistance in the world against the US & British desires of world dominion or imperialism. Brzezinski would say vis-à-vis Syria and Iran; as supported in the Baker Hamilton study group and the NIE report; not to attack Iran or Syria, but rather build them up and turn them against the Russian/Chinese giants which they regard as the main threat in the world (As James Baker put it in 2006, “I can get you Syria as I did during the First Gulf War, I got them to attack Iraq, given the right conditions, I can do it again”).

Russia

What this means now is that the epicenter of world confrontation is shifting rapidly out of the Middle East, and towards the borders of Russia (Polish Missile Defense Plan, Georgia, Kosovo) and China.

As the Polish Missile Defense plan indicates, soon enough there will be something rather violent against Russia.

The presidents of Poland, Ukraine, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia are forming a ‘sanitary belt’ against Russia, much akin as the French did against Bolshevism in 1920s. They are eager to be part of EU /NATO and was famously referred to as the new Europe, by Rumsfeld but actually intended by the UK/US as expendable kamikaze puppets.

If the Brzezinski group can have a Polish missile crisis in the next couple of months, then you can cut the gas pipelines or interfere with natural gas supply going from Russia to Europe as a leverage tool for negotiations for European nations; you can begin to break economic relations and even start a new (cold) war.

At the center of it is the 10 US anti-ballistic interceptor missile setup in Poland allegedly for ‘defensive’ purposes. There is a radar station in the Czech Republic, components of it in Ukraine and Lithuania. The US have thus established themselves right up in the border of Russia.

The goal is to allow the US the possibility of a nuclear first strike, and then to suppress the Russian retaliatory strike. In other words, the second strike coming out of Russia would then be shot down with these missiles.

Georgia

The young Georgian military is effectively a branch of the US. Its armaments are heavily depended on the US and Israel. Between Aug 7th and 8th night, Georgia launched a surprise attack in Ts’khinvali using air bombing, grad missiles, and using heavy artillery, roughly killing 2000 civilian Ossetians and destroying quite a number of Russians too, they destroyed an entire battalion of Russian Peace-Keeping troops in the process, to invite the Russians to move in.

This was done under the auspices of President Sakaashvilli, who came to power during the Roses revolution of 2003/4 which was funded by the Brzezinski group and George Soros.

China

The operations against China includes cutting off of Chinese oil, minerals, and other strategic raw materials. This is the reason for the Anglo-American campaign against Sudan, as it represents 7% of Chinese oil imports; and the Anglo-American campaign against Zimbabwe, a country which is a treasure trove of all kinds of minerals and raw materials and indeed the campaign against Pakistan.

The use of celebrities against Sudan, Tibet, and Zimbabwe, is to defend in the name of “human rights” to fight a clandestine proxy battle against their main threats.

The ultimate end game for the Brzezinski group is that once China has been completely isolated, deprived of allies, and above all cut off oil, minerals and minerals, the plan would be to influence a future weakened Chinese government to secure the Eastern Siberian plateau and thereby play China against Russia.

Pakistan

Pakistan is an interesting case. Pakistan was supposedly part of the old “War on Terror”; but the goal now is to use Afghanistan as a way to destroy Pakistan. In other words, to have Pakistan fall apart into four of five separate countries, the last remnant of Pakistan’s unity: Gen. Musharraf was told by the US to relinquish his power and return to ‘democracy’, the subsequent Benazir Bhutto assassination, and now Musharraf being driven out of power are the results of this push.

The US, British and NATO are running the Afghan war in such a way to constantly humiliate and mortify the national pride of Pakistan - by treating them as absolutely insignificant. Obama, in fact demanded the unilateral bombing of Pakistan; this was done at the Democratic Party Debate in Chicago, last July. It is highly indicative of their goal. Senator Clinton, Senator Dodd and John McCain and even President Bush opposed such a move – but looking at it now, it is clear to see who won out.

The US has been bombing Northern Pakistan, killing people just about every month, killing large amounts of Pakistani paramilitary forces in the process and indeed for a while it seemed like there was going to be a cross-border invasion. Even Afghan President Karzai said he wanted NATO to cross into Pakistan to go after Bin-Laden. The goal is not Bin Laden, but to promote the collapse of Pakistan as a centralized state.

And again, the ultimate question here is why? The reason for this is Pakistan is a traditional ally of China. And in any crisis, the geo-political instinct of Pakistan is to go with China against India and therefore has to be destroyed.

Burma:

Burma is another example. Burma (Myanmar) is an area where the ruling military junta is pro-Chinese. So therefore the recommended approach is to use humanitarian cover to destroy Burma.

It is interesting to note how in Sudan, Zimbabwe, Burma and such places there is no mention of the “War on Terror”. There is nothing about Bin Laden or Al-Qaeda; it is now purely on Human Rights, Humanitarian Concerns and this notion of Rights to National Self Determination for mini states and micro states.

Iran:

The Brzezinski group would rather have a strong Iran. If Russia considers itself the main target, then Russian and China will in no way allow any UN resolutions to be passed against Iran. There will be no more economic sanctions. Brzezinski sees Iran as the new Afghanistan. He played Afghanistan against the Soviet invasion and to some extent helped destroy the Soviet Union as a military might.

The Brzezinski group wants to play Iran against Russia, but in the same process would like to build a strong Iran. Sometimes even a nuclear Iran. For Brzezinski this is nothing new. He is the guy who started the Iran Contra (US missiles going to Khomeini) under Carter’s administration with the help of the Biritish and the BBC Farsi service.

Influence of Brzezinski thought in History:

The Iran Contra Affair:

Brzezinski was the key instrumental figure in overthrowing the Iran’s Shah under Jimmy Carter’s presidency. With his help they overthrew the Shah, he said no to a military coup, and no to a guy called Shapour Bakhtiar who tried to form a military government; he demanded Khomeini and nothing but Khomeini to be in power. Khomeini was British agent left over in the 1950s by the British against the White Revolution of the Shah (an urban development, reconstruction, and modernization plan).

The reasons were twofold: First they wanted this to radiate out from Iran into the five republics of Soviet Central Asia: Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. After all, he is the same guy who famously stated in the 70s: Islamic fundamentalism is the greatest bulwark against Soviet communism.

Secondly, Persia under the Shah was becoming too dominant a power in the Middle East, challenging the US/UK supremacy in that region. The Shah was turning to the Soviets, Italians and the Europeans for technological self sufficiency. He was making Persia into a great industrial power through the White Revolution and his time had come to be neutralized. By the time Khomeini took power, there were 20 peaceful nuclear reactors which were forcibly shut down by Khomeini and British assistance.

The Irag - Iran War:

This was another artifact of the Brzezinski tenure in office. This was again his typical method. If you have Iraq and you don’t like them and you have Iran and you don’t like them either, have them fight against each other.

Venezuala/ FARC and Columbia

Once again, in order to isolate the Venezuela’s leftist president, the strategy used was to have Colombia attack Venezuela. This also explains President Hugo Chavez’s sympathy and funding for FARC rebels. The recent successful American/Israeli proxy rescue efforts at the behest of Colombia were also part of this. Interestingly the neo-con approach would have been bomb Venezuela to kingdom come, but no the clever chess play continues.

Neville Chamberlain and Hitler
<b>
Brzezinski’s pedigree is the British network in Eastern Europe, the really relevant one being that of Hitler. The relationship of Sir Neville Chamberlain and the appeasement policy to Hitler reveals that appeasement is actually a misnomer. Appeasement meant building up Hitler and attempting to point him East against Stalin to keep the British Empire going. In other words play Hitler against Stalin and get rid of both them that way.</b>

Change You Can Believe in:

This is what is in store for the world. No matter who comes to power next year in the US. The Brzezinski group will continue to set a strong focus against Russia and China in the coming times.

<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> <b>Not about literature</b>
The Pioneer Edit Desk
<b>Nobel Prize once again tainted by politics</b>
French novelist Jean-Marie Gustave Le Clézio has been named the winner of this year's Nobel Prize for literature amid pettiness. This prize has had its share of controversy and this year has been no different. The permanent secretary of the Swedish Academy that awards the prize, Mr Horace Engdahl, said a week before the announcement of the winner that the United States was too insular and ignorant to challenge Europe as the centre of the literary world. In his view American writers were too sensitive to their own mass culture. Though Mr Engdahl was speaking generally about American literature, it is not difficult to infer a bias in his comment. Many American writers felt that the remark meant that they would be precluded from consideration for the prize this year. Not surprisingly, their predictions have come true. Perhaps the Swedish Academy can be forgiven for its emphasis on cosmopolitanism. Yet it has traditionally been biased in favour of European writers. In the early history of the prize the winners were largely Scandinavian, coming from the same part of the world as the judges themselves, and were little known even at that time. Even though the prize has become more international over the years, this Euro-centric attitude still prevails. Though the Swedish Academy would deny this, it is perhaps no coincidence that for several years now no American writer has won the Nobel Prize for literature, the last being Toni Morrison in 1993. This despite the fact that American literary output is the largest in the world with some highly rated writers.

It is also true that too many obscure writers have been judged winners of this prestigeous award. For example, the Italian Dario Fo won it in 1997, the Chinese Gao Xingjian in 2000 and Austrian Elfriede Jelinek in 2004. All of these writers were fairly unknown. Whereas, many notable writers such as Leo Tolstoy, Anton Chekhov, James Joyce, Luis Borges, Vladimir Nabokov and Graham Greene were never deemed worthy. They, who were excluded for political reasons or for causes that that had little to do with literature, had a better reputation as writers than some those who have actually won the award. In fact, there have been complaints that the whole process of selection by the Swedish Academy is politicised and often considerations other than literary merit weigh heavily in deciding a winner. This is far from the ideals on which this award was founded and can hardly be expected to promote excellence in literature. The entire selection process should be made more accountable.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Bodhi]

<b>2008 and the Return of the Nation-State</b>
George Friedman
10 November 2008

In 1989, the global system pivoted when the Soviet Union retreated from Eastern Europe and began the process of disintegration that culminated in its collapse. In 2001, the system pivoted again when al Qaeda attacked targets in the United States on September 11, triggering a conflict that defined the international system until the summer of 2008. The pivot of 2008 turned on two dates, August 7 and October 11.

On August 7, Georgian troops attacked the country’s breakaway region of South Ossetia. On August 8, Russian troops responded by invading Georgia. The Western response was primarily rhetorical. On the weekend of October 11, the G-7 met in Washington to plan a joint response to the global financial crisis. Rather than defining a joint plan, the decision - by default - was that each nation would act to save its own financial system with a series of broadly agreed upon guidelines.

The August 7 and October 11 events are connected only in their consequences. Each showed the weakness of international institutions and confirmed the primacy of the nation-state, or more precisely, the nation and the state. (A nation is a collection of people who share an ethnicity. A state is the entity that rules a piece of land. A nation-state - the foundation of the modern international order - is what is formed when the nation and state overlap.) Together, the two events posed challenges that overwhelmed the global significance of the Iraqi and Afghan wars.


The Conflict in Georgia
In and of itself, Russia’s attack on Georgia was not globally significant. Georgia is a small country in the Caucasus, and its fate ultimately does not affect the world. But Georgia was aligned with the United States and with Europe, and it had been seen by some as a candidate for membership in NATO. Thus, what was important about the Russian attack was that it occurred at all, and that the West did not respond to it beyond rhetoric.

Part of the problem was that the countries that could have intervened on Georgia’s behalf lacked the ability to do so. The Americans were bogged down in the Islamic world, and the Europeans had let their military forces atrophy. But even if military force had been available, it is clear that NATO, as the military expression of the Western alliance, was incapable of any unified action. There was no unified understanding of NATO’s obligation and, more importantly, no collective understanding of what a unified strategy might be.

The tension was not only between the United States and Europe, but also among the European countries. This was particularly pronounced in the different view of the situation Germany took compared to that of the United States and many other countries. Very soon after the Russo-Georgian war had ended, the Germans made clear that they opposed the expansion of NATO to Georgia and Ukraine. A major reason for this is Germany’s heavy dependence on Russian natural gas, which means Berlin cannot afford to alienate Moscow. But there was a deeper reason: Germany had been in the front line of the first Cold War and had no desire to participate in a second.

The range of European responses to Russia was fascinating. The British were livid. The French were livid but wanted to mediate. The Germans were cautious, and Chancellor Angela Merkel travelled to St. Petersburg to hold a joint press conference with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, aligning Germany with Russia - for all practical purposes - on the Georgian and Ukrainian issues.

The single most important effect of Russia’s attack on Georgia was that it showed clearly how deeply divided - and for that matter, how weak - NATO is in general and the Europeans are in particular. Had they been united, they would not have been able to do much. But they avoided that challenge by being utterly fragmented. NATO can only work when there is a consensus, and the war revealed how far from consensus NATO was. It can’t be said that NATO collapsed after Georgia. It is still there, and NATO officials hold meetings and press conferences. But the alliance is devoid of both common purpose and resources, except in very specific and limited areas. Some Europeans are working through NATO in Afghanistan, for example, but not most, and not in a decisive fashion.

The Russo-Georgian war raised profound questions about the future of the multinational military alliance. Each member consulted its own national interest and conducted its own foreign policy. At this point, splits between the Europeans and Americans are taken for granted, but the splits among the Europeans are profound. If it was no longer possible to say that NATO functioned, it was also unclear after August 8 in what sense the Europeans existed, except as individual nation-states.

The Global Financial Crisis
What was demonstrated in politico-military terms in Georgia was then demonstrated in economic terms in the financial crisis. All of the multinational systems created after World War II failed during the crisis - or more precisely, the crisis went well beyond their briefs and resources. None of the systems could cope, and many broke down. On October 11, it became clear that the G-7 could cooperate, but not through unified action. On October 12, when the Europeans held their euro-zone summit, it became clear that they would only act as individual nations.

As with the aftermath of the Georgian war, the most significant developments after October 11 happened in Europe. The European Union is first and foremost an arrangement for managing Europe’s economy. Its bureaucracy in Brussels has increased its authority and effectiveness throughout the last decade. The problem with the European Union is that it was an institution designed to manage prosperity. When it confronted serious adversity, however, it froze, devolving power to the component states.

Consider the European Central Bank (ECB), an institution created for managing the euro. Its primary charge - and only real authority - is to work to limit inflation. But limiting inflation is a problem that needs to be addressed when economies are otherwise functioning well. The financial crisis is a case where the European system is malfunctioning. The ECB was not created to deal with that. It has managed, with the agreement of member governments, to expand its function beyond inflation control, but it ultimately lacks the staff or the mindset to do all the things that other central banks were doing. To be more precise, it is a central bank without a single finance ministry to work with. Unlike other central banks, whose authority coincides with the nations they serve, the ECB serves multiple nations with multiple interests and finance ministries. By its nature, its power is limited.

In the end, power did not reside with Europe, but rather with its individual countries. It wasn’t Brussels that was implementing decisions made in Strasbourg; the centers of power were in Paris, London, Rome, Berlin and the other capitals of Europe and the world. Power devolved back to the states that governed nations. Or, to be more precise, the twin crises revealed that power had never left there.

Between the events in Georgia and the financial crisis, what we saw was the breakdown of multinational entities. This was particularly marked in Europe, in large part because the Europeans were the most invested in multilateralism and because they were in the crosshairs of both crises. The Russian resurgence affected them the most, and the fallout of the US financial crisis hit them the hardest. They had to improvise the most, being multilateral but imperfectly developed, to say the least. In a sense, the Europeans were the laboratory of multilateralism and its intersection with crisis.

But it was not a European problem in the end. What we saw was a global phenomenon in which individual nations struggled to cope with the effects of the financial crisis and of Russia. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, there has been a tendency to view the world in terms of global institutions, from the United Nations to the World Trade Organization. In the summer of 2008, none of these functioned. The only things that did function effectively were national institutions.

Since 2001, the assumption has been that sub-national groups like al Qaeda would define the politico-military environment. In US Defense Department jargon, the assumption was that peer-to-peer conflict was no longer an issue and that it was all about small terrorist groups. The summer of 2008 demonstrated that while terrorism by sub-national groups is not insignificant by any means, the dynamics of nation-states have hardly become archaic.

The Importance of the State
Clearly, the world has pivoted toward the nation-state as the prime actor and away from trans-national and sub-national groups. The financial crisis could be solved by monetizing the net assets of societies to correct financial imbalances. The only institution that could do that was the state, which could use its sovereign power and credibility, based on its ability to tax the economy, to underwrite the financial system.

Around the world, states did just that. They did it in very national ways. Many European states did it primarily by guaranteeing inter-bank loans, thereby essentially nationalizing the heart of the financial system. If states guarantee loans, the risk declines to near zero. In that case, the rationing of money through market mechanisms collapses. The state must take over rationing. This massively increases the power of the state - and raises questions about how the Europeans back out of this position.

The Americans took a different approach, less focused on inter-bank guarantees than on reshaping the balance sheets of financial institutions by investing in them. It was a more indirect approach and less efficient in the short run, but the Americans were more interested than the Europeans in trying to create mechanisms that would allow the state to back out of control of the financial system.

But what is most important is to see the manner in which state power surged in the summer and fall of 2008. The balance of power between business and the state, always dynamic, underwent a profound change, with the power of the state surging and the power of business contracting. Power was not in the hands of Lehman Brothers or Barclays. It was in the hands of Washington and London. At the same time, the power of the nation surged as the importance of multilateral organizations and sub-national groups declined. The nation-state roared back to life after it had seemed to be drifting into irrelevance.

The year 1989 did not quite end the Cold War, but it created a world that bypassed it. The year 2001 did not end the post-Cold War world, but it overlaid it with an additional and overwhelming dynamic: that of the US-jihadist war. The year 2008 did not end the US-jihadist war, but it overlaid it with far more immediate and urgent issues. The financial crisis, of course, was one. The future of Russian power was another. We should point out that the importance of Russian power is this: As soon as Russia dominates the center of the Eurasian land mass, its force intrudes on Europe. Russia united with the rest of Europe is an overwhelming global force. Europe resisting Russia defines the global system. Russia fragmented opens the door for other geo-political issues. Russia united and powerful usurps the global stage.

The year 2008 has therefore seen two things. First, and probably most important, it resurrected the nation-state and shifted the global balance between the state and business. Second, it redefined the global geopolitical system, opening the door to a resurgence of Russian power and revealing the underlying fragmentation of Europe and weaknesses of NATO.

The most important manifestation of this is Europe. In the face of Russian power, there is no united European position. In the face of the financial crisis, the Europeans coordinate, but they do not act as one. After the summer of 2008, it is no longer fair to talk about Europe as a single entity, about NATO as a fully functioning alliance, or about a world in which the nation-state is obsolete. The nation-state was the only institution that worked.

This is far more important than either of the immediate issues. The fate of Georgia is of minor consequence to the world. The financial crisis will pass into history, joining Brady bonds, the Resolution Trust Corp. and the bailout of New York City as a historical oddity. What will remain is a new international system in which the Russian question - followed by the German question - is once again at the centre of things, and in which states act with confidence in shaping the economic and business environment for better or worse.

The world is a very different place from what it was in the spring of 2008. Or, to be more precise, it is a much more traditional place than many thought. It is a world of nations pursuing their own interests and collaborating where they choose. Those interests are economic, political and military, and they are part of a single fabric. The illusion of multilateralism was not put to rest - it will never die - but it was certainly put to bed. It is a world we can readily recognize from history.
http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplay...cle.aspx?id=227

[Guest]

<b>The year 2025: Oil, dollar out; Russia, Islam in</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The report says the warming earth will extend Russia and Canada's growing season and ease their access to northern oil fields, strengthening their economies. But Russia's potential emergence as a world power may be clouded by lagging investment in its energy sector, persistent crime and government corruption, the report says.

Analysts also warn that the same kind of organized crime plaguing Russia could eventually take over the government of an Eastern or Central European country. The report is silent on which one.

<b>It also says countries in Africa and South Asia may find themselves unstable and ungoverned, as state regimes collapse or wither away under security problems and water and food shortages brought about by climate change and a population increase of 1.4 billion.</b>

The potential for conflict will be greater in 2025 than it is now, as the world's population competes for declining and shifting food, water and energy resources.

Despite a more precarious world situation, the report also says al-Qaida's terrorist franchise could decay "sooner than people think." It cites its growing unpopularity in the Muslim world, where it kills most of its victims.

"The prospect that al-Qaida will be among the small number of groups able to transcend the generational timeline is not high, given its harsh ideology, unachievable strategic objectives and inability to become a mass movement," the report states.

<b>The report forecasts a geopolitical rise in non-Arab Muslim states outside of the Middle East, including Turkey and Indonesia, and says Iran could also be a central player in a new world order if it sheds its theocracy.</b>

The report, a year in the making, also suggests the world may complete its move away from its dependence on oil, and that the U.S. dollar, while remaining important, will decline to "first among equals" among other national currencies.

<b>U.S. global power also will likely decline, as Americans' concerns about putting resources into solving domestic problems may cause the United States to pull resources from foreign and global problems</b>.

<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

<b>RUSSIAN ANALYST PREDICTS DECLINE AND BREAKUP OF USA</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->A leading Russian political analyst has said the economic turmoil in the United States has confirmed his long-held view that the country is heading for collapse, and will divide into separate parts.

Professor Igor Panarin said in an interview with the respected daily IZVESTIA published on Monday: "The dollar is not secured by anything. The country's foreign debt has grown like an avalanche, even though in the early 1980s there was no debt. By 1998, when I first made my prediction, it had exceeded $2 trillion. Now it is more than 11 trillion. This is a pyramid that can only collapse."

The paper said Panarin's dire predictions for the U.S. economy, initially made at an international conference in Australia 10 years ago at a time when the economy appeared strong, have been given more credence by this year's events.

When asked when the U.S. economy would collapse, Panarin said: "It is already collapsing. Due to the financial crisis, three of the largest and oldest five banks on Wall Street have already ceased to exist, and two are barely surviving. Their losses are the biggest in history. Now what we will see is a change in the regulatory system on a global financial scale: America will no longer be the world's financial regulator."

<b>When asked who would replace the U.S. in regulating world markets, he said: "Two countries could assume this role: China, with its vast reserves, and Russia, which could play the role of a regulator in Eurasia." </b>

Asked why he expected the U.S. to break up into separate parts, he said: "A whole range of reasons. Firstly, the financial problems in the U.S. will get worse. Millions of citizens there have lost their savings. Prices and unemployment are on the rise. General Motors and Ford are on the verge of collapse, and this means that whole cities will be left without work. Governors are already insistently demanding money from the federal center. Dissatisfaction is growing, and at the moment it is only being held back by the elections and the hope that Obama can work miracles. But by spring, it will be clear that there are no miracles."

He also cited the "vulnerable political setup", "lack of unified national laws", and "divisions among the elite, which have become clear in these crisis conditions."

<b>He predicted that the U.S. will break up into six parts - the Pacific coast, with its growing Chinese population; the South, with its Hispanics; Texas, where independence movements are on the rise; the Atlantic coast, with its distinct and separate mentality; five of the poorer central states with their large Native American populations; and the northern states, where the influence from Canada is strong.</b>

<b>He even suggested that "we could claim Alaska - it was only granted on lease, after all." </b>Panarin, 60, is a professor at the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and has authored several books on information warfare.

Developing...
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
looks like under Vodka influence.

[Guest]

<b>Putin Reaps Praise at Home for Freezing Ukraine </b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Jan. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s standoff with Ukraine over supplies of natural gas may have angered European Union leaders and denied heat to millions; at home, it’s winning him plaudits.

In turning off gas supplies to Ukraine and Europe, Putin showed Russians that he is in charge as a recession looms, and that the West must treat him as a key player in global energy. He also is pushing for higher long-term revenue for state- controlled OAO Gazprom, and has damaged West-leaning Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko.

<b>“The more they criticize Putin abroad and the more they fight with Russia, the greater his political weight grows,”</b> said Mikhail Delyagin, an economic adviser to former Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov and director of the Institute for Globalization Studies in Moscow.
...........<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Husky]

Haven't read this yet beyond the intro.

http://www.portraitofindia.com/liberal1.htm
via satyameva-jayate.org/2009/01/22/on-slumdog-millionnaire-prejudices-guest-post-by-saurav-basu/#comment-20429
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Portrait of India </b>

India's Liberalization  - A Boon or Curse

Part-1

East India Company's (EICs)  Noble Motives and Glorified Commodities

In the year 1600 East India Company was formed and given exclusive right to trade with India and south east Asia by British Monarchy under the concept of Free Trade and Globalization. It was also given the right to civilize India. In the year 1965 club of Rome (top industrial houses-real owners of EICs or MNCs) divided the world in 10 economic segments and gave unbridled authority to ruthlessly exploit Segment 9 (India belongs to this segment 9) a group of mineral (diamond, gold, uranium, life saving medicinal plants, organic food and drinking water) oil natural gas rich south east Asian nations consisting one third of population of world- under liberalization (liberalize domestic economy to globalize its owners) and privatization (privatize so that Free Trade can further control domestic economy via global owners) to a group of MNCs. This article examines the group of MNCs involved, and tries to trace back the current ownership of these MNCs to the same owners, controllers of East India Companies 400 years earlier. Also we wish to present that the ideologies of trade are same as far as EICs or MNCs are concerned, what changed was just a flip of words. It is the same grand children of the original owners of East India Company which subjugated us ruthlessly, exploited miserably, slaughtered close to millions of innocents for sheer economic gain and to dislodge whom India took almost 100 years of intense struggle. We never recovered from the economic, social land geographical loss of that oppressive British EIC rule. It is the reemergence of this colonial monster EICs as MNCs in the modern time again to help modernize and civilize India may lead to another round of 400 year spiritual disaster-the only strength that we retained from being commercialized, if we do not watch the real intentions and motivations of these EICs turned MNCs and their Indian collaborators-domestic Indian Partners.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Rest at link

[Guest]

<b>U.S. Military: Mexico Could Collapse Under Drug Violence</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Mexico is in danger of a “rapid and sudden collapse” due to criminal gangs and drug cartels, according to a troubling new report by the U.S. Joint Forces Command on worldwide security threats.

<b>The report also cites Pakistan as a nation facing possible collapse.</b>

“In terms of worst-case scenarios for the Joint Forces and indeed the world, two large and important states bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse: Pakistan and Mexico,” the report states.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[acharya]

From another forum

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> the nature of India's self-image, which thanks to our colonial history, is largely dictated by the three archetypes that centuries of psyops have contrived to shape and reinforce.

It should be noted that these three archetypes are not merely the foci of how we perceive ourselves when evaluating geopolitical circumstances and developing strategy. Psyops are a double-edged blade, honed by decades and centuries of mutual reinforcement... so that these archetypes have also shaped the lenses through which the originators of those psyops, themselves, perceive India and Indians!

Briefly, there are three major archetypes.

1) The brave, noble and faithful soldier of the Empire.

This is the archetype evolved over centuries of colonial rule when Indian troops provided manpower to British colonial expeditions. Of all the three archetypes it is the most flattering. It projects Indians (or at least, certain "martial races" among Indians) as doughty foot-soldiers, who when bravely led and strategically marshalled by Western commanders could defend the Empire's interests against its enemies from Benghazi to Shanghai.

This archetype was used to manipulate Indian royalty, and later (post 1885) the Macaulay-fashioned Indian political elite, to support British war efforts around the globe. The British regularly flattered their subservient Kshatriya Scions, Sikh Maharajas and Muslim Nawabs with military-sounding titles and medals... it became the fashion for such potentates to affect Western-style military uniforms and ribbons, even if they themselves were too fat or gouty to go to the bathroom unassisted. As long as they opened up their coffers and supplied manpower from among their citizenry, they were heaped with praise as brave defenders of the Empire's bastions.

The Pakistan army took this archetype to heart, as we all know, and strove to become simultaneously absolute rulers of Pakistan and faithful soldiers of the West. Only since 1990 have they sought to serve a new master in Islamism... and even in this effort, as the GUBO decade shows, their subscription to the "faithful soldier" archetype has undermined their whole-hearted participation. No wonder the West wants to keep Pakistan alive at all costs.

It should be noted that this archetype never envisioned the Indian rising any higher in the ranks than a private soldier, or perhaps an NCO. Those in command were always Western. Thus, even though the UN is never shy about asking India to commit its soldiers to peacekeeping missions, we hear about instances where blue-helmet troops from white European nations refuse to take orders from Indian officers. At another level, the challenge posed to this stereotype by white-collar Indian techies serves to aggravate the anti-outsourcing and anti-H1B outrage among white Americans today (in their mythology, Indians are supposed to drive cabs and pump gas, not write code). But I digress.

2) The Gunga-Din, or sufferer in a good cause.

This is the second stereotype of Indians created and reinforced by Western psyops since the colonial era. It is the image of an Indian who is fatalistic and superstitious, too weak of spirit to fight actively for any interest of his own, but with just enough strength of character to accept suffering on behalf of a "good" (read "Western") cause.

When, in order to finance their participation in the First World War, the British forced millions of Indian farmers to switch from subsistence to cash crops... they justified this genocide-by-starvation, in terms of the Gunga Din archetype. The Indians who died were too weak to fight wars, too primitive to forge a nation unto themselves, but suffered for the sake of the great and benevolent British Empire (starving to death so that its bills might be paid). Many "moderates" of the Indian National Congress at the time were content to accept such atrocities as Champaran, because they too accepted the Gunga Din archetype as justified.

Today, when the Hindoo is asked to "make concessions on Kashmir", to "restrain himself against Pakistan" in the face of terrorist attacks, to be passive cannon-fodder for the forces of Jihad so that the Pakistanis can concentrate on serving American interests along their Afghan border... it is the Gunga Din archetype (and self-image) that the Americans are appealing to.

In effect, we (India) are being asked to fulfill the Gunga Din archetype, sitting passively and taking it on the chin for the Western "team", so that Pakistan can be flattered and bribed to fulfill the Faithful Soldier archetype. It seems entirely natural to American strategists to expect that we willingly do this, because of these archetypes defining their views of the Indian subcontinent.

M.K. Gandhi was one visionary who turned this Gunga Din archetype on its head, to the astonishment of the British who thought that passive Indians would never suffer and die in any cause other than one dictated by their colonial masters. Today, the MoorkhMohan-Maino combine has brought our nation back to Gunga Din-hood with a vengeance.

3) The benighted heathen.

This is the third and least flattering (or most insulting, if you prefer) colonial archetype that defines the Indian image. It describes an essentially savage mass that is ruled by superstition and behaves no better than animals. Un-Christian, uncultured and unclean. This is the Indian archetype that was fostered by Bentinck's psyops about Thuggee and Suttee... and is continued today by the BBC and CNN psyops about Povertee , Untouchabilitee, Child Sex Slaveree and Slumdog Dharavee.

Christian missionary propaganda also uses this archetype liberally to justify their predatory conversion activities , connecting its allegations of hopeless, boundless misery with the "unsaved" nature of Hindoo souls.

The implication of this archetype is that India NEEDS to be subservient to the enlightened West if it is to survive at all. From this archetype stem all the most pessimistic and negative scenarios ever bandied about... Indians will perish in famine, Indians will never reach agricultural self-sufficiency, Indians are essentially poor and hopeless no matter what cosmetic developments may take place in their economy, the Indian state will fall apart because it is too weak to withstand internal divisions. Thus India needs a godfather... preferably a benevolent Western one... if we are to accomplish anything, or even to survive at all.

The Pakistanis have internalized this benighted-heathen archetype as the entirety of their image of India ... not realizing that in doing so, they are f*cking themselves, and entrenching their own vulnerability to being manipulated by Western psyops. Because for all their denial, the same archetype cuts equally in Pakistan's direction as well (now enhanced by images of gun-toting six year olds in Madrassas).


So... why am I bringing this Three Archetypes business up on this particular thread?

Because, fellow BRF-ites, I fear that we too are governed by these Three Archetypes far more than we should be. Even when discussing strategic options with regard to Pakistan and Afghanistan.

When we discuss our frustration at the current state of affairs, with MoorkhMohan showing "restraint" to Pakistan while our people are killed by terrorists, we are reacting to ongoing reinforcement of the Gunga Din archetype. Much of what we call "dhimmitude" is not merely "dhimmitude" to the ancestral memory of Islamic power... as our history shows, Islamic power on the subcontinent was all but extinguished by the Marathas and Sikhs through the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Behind our compulsion to act as dhimmis with respect to Pakistan today, is a good measure of Gunga Din-hood (or vestigial dhimmitude to the West).

When we talk about deploying 120,000 troops to Afghanistan, we are effectively subscribing to the Faithful Soldier archetype. Yes, we imagine that we will be able to do this by maintaining supply lines via Iran, keeping our own independent command, choosing which regions of Afghanistan we will deploy in etc. etc. but this is all fantasy. We know fully well who sets the agenda for international intervention in Afghanistan today. Unkil will be in charge of dictating supply lines, deployments, doctrine, ROE, and for that matter making all political decisions at all levels. We will receive a lot of flattery, as our be-ribboned Maharajas did during the British days, but ultimately we will be supplying the faithful soldiers to accomplish the strategy of the West.

Lastly the benighted Indian archetype, which I think is finding its outlet on the <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo-->( <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo-->( of this thread. Oh, look at us, if Unkil gets defeated by Taliban and Pakistan what will we do? Without the West to protect us how will we survive? This is the *real* fear behind all the lame-brained theorizing that "if the Islamists win in Afghanistan/Iraq and America loses, Jihad will receive a shot in the arm for having defeated a superpower".

We have always fought the Jihadis ourselves and always defeated the Jihadis ourselves... and yet, we have this overarching fear of extinction if Unkil abandons his anti-Jihadi cause (as if that cause ever had anything to do with our own).

Friends, I can think of only three instances in the past century where Indian civilian leadership thought out of the box and broke through the perimeter of self-image (and outsiders' expectations) defined by these three archetypes.

One was M.K. Gandhi, turning the Gunga Din's capacity to absorb suffering into a force for political accomplishment against the colonial masters, such as nobody could have imagined.

The second was Indira Gandhi showing the world that we were nobody else's Faithful Soldiers, during the Bangladesh war. Our capacity was not limited to serving in the ranks of an army commanded by others. We could determine our own geopolitical interests, fashion our own military strategy to achieve them, and command our own troops towards the swift and decisive execution of that strategy.

The third was the A.B. Vajpayee government conducting the 1998 nuclear tests (though perhaps some credit should go to PVNR for making the tests possible). The Benighted Indian showed that he was as capable of protecting himself, and the integrity of his nation, as any of his former superiors. No wonder the enraged West responded with reams of psyops about how "India had ignored its millions of starving benighted heathens to build a nuclear bomb", etc.

These instances changed the rules of the game with respect to the world's treatment of India. They were tremendously effective, not only because our leaders managed to extend themselves beyond the three-archetype perimeter... but because the world itself had become so ingrained with a view of India and Indians defined by the three-archetype perimeter. They were utterly shocked, dumbfounded and clueless how to react when we "broke the mold". The initiative was entirely in our hands, against far more powerful adversaries.

And yet, apart from these exceptions, the bulk of our policymaking (and even the patterns of our political thought process) seem dictated by the above three archetypes. We cannot afford this.

Confirming to the Faithful Soldier archetype (sending 120,000 troops to join NATO in Afghanistan) is no solution to our frustration with the Gunga Din archetype (restraint in the face of Pakistani terrorism, peace talks on Kashmir). Nor should we be compelled to follow either of these ultimately Unkil-serving strategies by the blackmail of the Benighted Indian archetype ("nuclear flashpoint" propaganda, the Congress government's media assault on our armed forces, the Malegaon witch-hunts, or fear that Unkil pulling out of Afghanistan will make Jihad invincible).

Let's reject the perimeter defined by ALL these three archetypes, and think out of the box. If Unkil is defeated by the Pakis and Afghans... isn't it possible that this eventuality may present an opportunity, rather than a threat? Let's start from there.

<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[ramana]

The undermining of the image is in full swing

nation without the sub-altern

The guy sits in Canada and writes with commie slant!

[Guest]

This is a case in point. Anyone can write anything. Many of us can write a lot completely opposite to what Prashant Kadam wrote. In fact we can even write much more patriotic songs than Mere Desh ki Dharti that heaps praise on vulgar Gandhi and wicked Nehru. It is the vehicle, the media, that carries these dirty jokes on the Hindus that is at fault. Their liberties against Hindus are the the most vicious and our Bharat is in dire need of a Cultural Revolution.

[Guest]

<b>Kyrgyzstan to close U.S. base used to supply Afghanistan</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->MOSCOW — In a setback to the escalating U.S. military efforts in Afghanistan , the president of Kyrgyzstan said Tuesday that his government will shut down the American air base in his country.

U.S. officials say that the Manas Air Base is vital to plans to send an additional 30,000 American troops to Afghanistan , a linchpin of President Barack Obama's efforts to pacify the country.

The announcement by President Kurmanbek Bakiyev came in Moscow , not in his own capital, and shortly after the Russian government reportedly agreed to lend Kyrgyzstan $2 billion , write off $180 million in debt and add another $150 million in aid. Although the Russian government didn't release a statement about the decision, the timing and place of the announcement indicated that the Kremlin had been involved.
...........<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->