5 New Messages
Digest #4507
Messages
Mon Oct 1, 2012 7:07 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://rt.com/
RT
October 1, 2012
Report revives speculations on Azerbaijan-Israel plot against Iran
Azerbaijan And The Caspian: NATO’s War For The World’s Heartland
https://rickrozoff.
Pentagon Chief In Azerbaijan: Afghan War Arc Stretches To Caspian And Caucasus
http://rickrozoff.
Israel might resort to Azerbaijan’s strategic geographic position to strike Iran’s atomic sites, Reuters has reported, reviving rumours officially denied by both Israel and Azerbaijan.
http://www.reuters.
Leaked intelligence from two former Azeri military officers with links to serving personnel and two Russian intelligence sources all told Reuters that Baku and Tel Aviv are considering the Azeri bases for military use against Tehran.
If Tel Aviv is to act without Washington’s support, the Israeli war plan would need to compensate for the handicap of acting alone – notably carrying out long-range reconnaissance, bombardment and rescue missions.
Such a possibility could potentially be drawing near as last week Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned the UN’s General Assembly that Tehran is only a year away from the "red line" for atomic capacity.
Washington has on numerous occasions stressed that the time for diplomacy and sanctions to deal with Iran has not run out. Israel continues to lobby for a potential military solution to concerns over Iran’s atomic facilities; something that many analysts believe will have dire consequences for the region.
Nevertheless, a member of the Azeri parliament's foreign affairs committee admitted to Reuters that Israel would need Baku’s support if it were to attack Iran as it would face a “refuelling” problem if it goes so far as taking the military option.
“I think their plan includes some use of Azerbaijan access,” Rasim Musabayov added. “We have (bases) fully equipped with modern navigation, anti-aircraft defenses and personnel trained by Americans and if necessary they can be used without any preparations.”
But officials in Azerbaijan’s president office have denied the speculation.
"No third country can use Azerbaijan to perpetrate an attack on Iran,” said Reshad Karimov from President Aliyev's staff.
Yet, in February Israeli defense officials confirmed a 2011 deal to sell to Azerbaijan 60 drones as well as antiaircraft and missile defense systems for some $1.6 billion.
"With these drones, (Israel) can indirectly watch what's happening in Iran, while we protect our borders," Musabayov says.
One of the sources linked to the Azeri military reportedly said: “There is not a single official base of the United States and even less so of Israel on the territory of Azerbaijan. But that is 'officially'
The Reuters’ source also claimed that Iran was the main topic of discussion during Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman’s visit in April.
But this spring, Baku firmly denied reports that an agreement has been reached between Azerbaijan and Israel, granting the latter air base access for potential strikes on Iran. A spokesman from the Azeri defense ministry earlier refuted these claims as “absurd and groundless.” Those statements came on the back of a Foreign Policy report that claimed cooperation between Azerbaijan and Israel was "heightening the risks of an Israeli strike on Iran".
Azeri- Iran relation have seen better days. An Azeri-language television channel which is streamed by Tehran portrays president Aliyev as a puppet of Israel and the West. Meanwhile, Azerbaijan sees Iranian hands behind its Islamist opposition and both countries have arrested alleged spies.
“We live in a dangerous neighbourhood,” one presidential aide, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters. “That’s the most powerful driving force behind our relationship with Israel.”
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
RT
October 1, 2012
Report revives speculations on Azerbaijan-Israel plot against Iran
Azerbaijan And The Caspian: NATO’s War For The World’s Heartland
https://rickrozoff.
Pentagon Chief In Azerbaijan: Afghan War Arc Stretches To Caspian And Caucasus
http://rickrozoff.
Israel might resort to Azerbaijan’s strategic geographic position to strike Iran’s atomic sites, Reuters has reported, reviving rumours officially denied by both Israel and Azerbaijan.
http://www.reuters.
Leaked intelligence from two former Azeri military officers with links to serving personnel and two Russian intelligence sources all told Reuters that Baku and Tel Aviv are considering the Azeri bases for military use against Tehran.
If Tel Aviv is to act without Washington’s support, the Israeli war plan would need to compensate for the handicap of acting alone – notably carrying out long-range reconnaissance, bombardment and rescue missions.
Such a possibility could potentially be drawing near as last week Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned the UN’s General Assembly that Tehran is only a year away from the "red line" for atomic capacity.
Washington has on numerous occasions stressed that the time for diplomacy and sanctions to deal with Iran has not run out. Israel continues to lobby for a potential military solution to concerns over Iran’s atomic facilities; something that many analysts believe will have dire consequences for the region.
Nevertheless, a member of the Azeri parliament's foreign affairs committee admitted to Reuters that Israel would need Baku’s support if it were to attack Iran as it would face a “refuelling” problem if it goes so far as taking the military option.
“I think their plan includes some use of Azerbaijan access,” Rasim Musabayov added. “We have (bases) fully equipped with modern navigation, anti-aircraft defenses and personnel trained by Americans and if necessary they can be used without any preparations.”
But officials in Azerbaijan’s president office have denied the speculation.
"No third country can use Azerbaijan to perpetrate an attack on Iran,” said Reshad Karimov from President Aliyev's staff.
Yet, in February Israeli defense officials confirmed a 2011 deal to sell to Azerbaijan 60 drones as well as antiaircraft and missile defense systems for some $1.6 billion.
"With these drones, (Israel) can indirectly watch what's happening in Iran, while we protect our borders," Musabayov says.
One of the sources linked to the Azeri military reportedly said: “There is not a single official base of the United States and even less so of Israel on the territory of Azerbaijan. But that is 'officially'
The Reuters’ source also claimed that Iran was the main topic of discussion during Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman’s visit in April.
But this spring, Baku firmly denied reports that an agreement has been reached between Azerbaijan and Israel, granting the latter air base access for potential strikes on Iran. A spokesman from the Azeri defense ministry earlier refuted these claims as “absurd and groundless.” Those statements came on the back of a Foreign Policy report that claimed cooperation between Azerbaijan and Israel was "heightening the risks of an Israeli strike on Iran".
Azeri- Iran relation have seen better days. An Azeri-language television channel which is streamed by Tehran portrays president Aliyev as a puppet of Israel and the West. Meanwhile, Azerbaijan sees Iranian hands behind its Islamist opposition and both countries have arrested alleged spies.
“We live in a dangerous neighbourhood,” one presidential aide, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters. “That’s the most powerful driving force behind our relationship with Israel.”
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Mon Oct 1, 2012 7:07 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.
Voice of Russia
October 1, 2012
Russia dismisses accusations of involvement in Turkish jet’s downing
Ilya Kharlamov
====
"The plane crashed into the sea, and its pilots never bailed out. This gives the lie to the survival story. Al-Arabiya’s report is an attempt to demonize Bashar Assad, smear Russia and support the latest call by Qatar, made in the UN Security Council, to mount an outside military intervention in Syria."
====
Appearing in Moscow Monday, Russian diplomatic spokesman Alexander Lukashevich dismissed ‘as absolute rubbish’ an allegation by Al-Arabiya that Russian officers based in Tartus helped Syria down a Turkish F-4 reconnaissance jet in the memorable June incident which claimed the lives of two Turkish pilots.
At the time, Turkey accused Syria of violating international law. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promised Turkey American help in preparing ‘an appropriate response’. Syria argued that its air defences had acted automatically after the ill-fated Turkish jet brushed with its national airspace. Within a month or so, the row all but subsided. So what is the purpose of reigniting it?
Russian Middle East analyst Professor Yevgeni Satanovsky believes that the Saudi-funded Al-Arabiya is taking a run for its money and trying to mud ideological waters in the wake of the latest General Assembly debates on Syria:
"The main thwarters of an aggression against Syria are China and Russia. Smearing China, however, might compromise the Arab oil trade with that great Asian power. For this reason, Russia is in focus. It will not waver, because the attack is futile. After exposing themselves as liars in their coverage of the Arab Spring, which they dubbed the Arab Troubles, and the anti-Gaddafi uprising in Libya, Al-Arabiya, Al-Jazeera and many of their Western counterparts are simply not trustworthy.
This time, Al-Arabya went as far as to allege that the two Turkish pilots survived the downing and were later executed by the Syrians with the approval of Moscow.
Russian defence analyst Igor Korotchenko dismisses this allegation as blatant lies:
"The plane crashed into the sea, and its pilots never bailed out. This gives the lie to the survival story. Al-Arabiya’s report is an attempt to demonize Bashar Assad, smear Russia and support the latest call by Qatar, made in the UN Security Council, to mount an outside military intervention in Syria."
Russia observers say they expect more and more anti-Syrian and anti-Russian slander from Al-Arabiya.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Voice of Russia
October 1, 2012
Russia dismisses accusations of involvement in Turkish jet’s downing
Ilya Kharlamov
====
"The plane crashed into the sea, and its pilots never bailed out. This gives the lie to the survival story. Al-Arabiya’s report is an attempt to demonize Bashar Assad, smear Russia and support the latest call by Qatar, made in the UN Security Council, to mount an outside military intervention in Syria."
====
Appearing in Moscow Monday, Russian diplomatic spokesman Alexander Lukashevich dismissed ‘as absolute rubbish’ an allegation by Al-Arabiya that Russian officers based in Tartus helped Syria down a Turkish F-4 reconnaissance jet in the memorable June incident which claimed the lives of two Turkish pilots.
At the time, Turkey accused Syria of violating international law. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promised Turkey American help in preparing ‘an appropriate response’. Syria argued that its air defences had acted automatically after the ill-fated Turkish jet brushed with its national airspace. Within a month or so, the row all but subsided. So what is the purpose of reigniting it?
Russian Middle East analyst Professor Yevgeni Satanovsky believes that the Saudi-funded Al-Arabiya is taking a run for its money and trying to mud ideological waters in the wake of the latest General Assembly debates on Syria:
"The main thwarters of an aggression against Syria are China and Russia. Smearing China, however, might compromise the Arab oil trade with that great Asian power. For this reason, Russia is in focus. It will not waver, because the attack is futile. After exposing themselves as liars in their coverage of the Arab Spring, which they dubbed the Arab Troubles, and the anti-Gaddafi uprising in Libya, Al-Arabiya, Al-Jazeera and many of their Western counterparts are simply not trustworthy.
This time, Al-Arabya went as far as to allege that the two Turkish pilots survived the downing and were later executed by the Syrians with the approval of Moscow.
Russian defence analyst Igor Korotchenko dismisses this allegation as blatant lies:
"The plane crashed into the sea, and its pilots never bailed out. This gives the lie to the survival story. Al-Arabiya’s report is an attempt to demonize Bashar Assad, smear Russia and support the latest call by Qatar, made in the UN Security Council, to mount an outside military intervention in Syria."
Russia observers say they expect more and more anti-Syrian and anti-Russian slander from Al-Arabiya.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Mon Oct 1, 2012 7:07 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.thefront
The Frontier Post
September 30, 2012
Putin’s visit
Islamabad has long been saying it cherishes the desire of and talking a lot of making a “paradigm shift” in its foreign policy and also took a few steps to come closer to the China/Russia-
And thus, a languid and incompetent administration has lost a rare opportunity of not only downsizing the country’s heavy reliance on the West but also getting closer to the dynamically emerging bloc which the future of the world belongs to.
Pakistan’s overwhelming population, if asked, would vote for a change in foreign policy which has time and again sent shock waves to the country’s vital interests. The Russian president was due here for the first time to open the door to a new era of Pakistan and the East coming closer to each other besides entering the SCO as a full member. Mr Putin’s focal person for relations with Pakistan and Afghanistan, Zamir Kabulov, told an Indian newspaper that Islamabad talked a lot of rhetoric with little progress towards “meaningful cooperation”.
Russia-Pakistan relations have been on the rise in recent years but economic ties between them have still lagged behind the desired level. The two countries finalized three memorandums of understanding at a meeting of the Pakistan-Russia Inter-Governmental Commission earlier this month and they were to be signed during President Putin’s planned trip. The MoUs relate to the expansion of the Pakistan Steel Mills and cooperation in the energy and education sectors.
Russia thinks that the MoUs are largely a reiteration of agreements signed last year during President Asif Ali Zardari’s visit to Moscow. Russia’s main concern is Pakistan’s slow progress towards major projects in the energy sector, including Central Asia-South Asia electricity transmission from Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan to Afghanistan and Pakistan (CASA-1000), and construction of rail tracks and motor roads from Tajikistan to Pakistan to create new trade routes in the region.
Russia also showed interest in the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline project and Mr. Putin also pledged an investment of $500 million in CASA-1000 and offered to finance and build other projects. But no headway is seen in these schemes.
Another factor that might have contributed to Mr. Putin “delaying” his visit to Pakistan is that Russia smells rat in its objectives in Afghanistan as Pakistan seems closer to Washington's whims in the region and Moscow thinks that a sustainable resolution of the Afghanistan issue is possible only with its active involvement and this may not be forthcoming because of Pakistan’s foreign policy, which is unnecessarily aligned with the West, particularly the United States.
No wonder if Washington may be influencing Islamabad not to come closer to Moscow because Pakistan has the unfortunate proclivity of yielding to such pressure. For how long Pakistan would want to be left high and dry in the hour of need, is a decision the political leadership has to take and transform it to the new emerging global realities?
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
The Frontier Post
September 30, 2012
Putin’s visit
Islamabad has long been saying it cherishes the desire of and talking a lot of making a “paradigm shift” in its foreign policy and also took a few steps to come closer to the China/Russia-
And thus, a languid and incompetent administration has lost a rare opportunity of not only downsizing the country’s heavy reliance on the West but also getting closer to the dynamically emerging bloc which the future of the world belongs to.
Pakistan’s overwhelming population, if asked, would vote for a change in foreign policy which has time and again sent shock waves to the country’s vital interests. The Russian president was due here for the first time to open the door to a new era of Pakistan and the East coming closer to each other besides entering the SCO as a full member. Mr Putin’s focal person for relations with Pakistan and Afghanistan, Zamir Kabulov, told an Indian newspaper that Islamabad talked a lot of rhetoric with little progress towards “meaningful cooperation”.
Russia-Pakistan relations have been on the rise in recent years but economic ties between them have still lagged behind the desired level. The two countries finalized three memorandums of understanding at a meeting of the Pakistan-Russia Inter-Governmental Commission earlier this month and they were to be signed during President Putin’s planned trip. The MoUs relate to the expansion of the Pakistan Steel Mills and cooperation in the energy and education sectors.
Russia thinks that the MoUs are largely a reiteration of agreements signed last year during President Asif Ali Zardari’s visit to Moscow. Russia’s main concern is Pakistan’s slow progress towards major projects in the energy sector, including Central Asia-South Asia electricity transmission from Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan to Afghanistan and Pakistan (CASA-1000), and construction of rail tracks and motor roads from Tajikistan to Pakistan to create new trade routes in the region.
Russia also showed interest in the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline project and Mr. Putin also pledged an investment of $500 million in CASA-1000 and offered to finance and build other projects. But no headway is seen in these schemes.
Another factor that might have contributed to Mr. Putin “delaying” his visit to Pakistan is that Russia smells rat in its objectives in Afghanistan as Pakistan seems closer to Washington's whims in the region and Moscow thinks that a sustainable resolution of the Afghanistan issue is possible only with its active involvement and this may not be forthcoming because of Pakistan’s foreign policy, which is unnecessarily aligned with the West, particularly the United States.
No wonder if Washington may be influencing Islamabad not to come closer to Moscow because Pakistan has the unfortunate proclivity of yielding to such pressure. For how long Pakistan would want to be left high and dry in the hour of need, is a decision the political leadership has to take and transform it to the new emerging global realities?
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Mon Oct 1, 2012 7:22 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://usa.chinadai
China Daily
September 28, 2012
Japan must show wisdom
U.S. Enlists Japan As Global Military Partner
http://rickrozoff.
====
Noda has restored the Japan-US security alliance - a legacy of the Cold War - as the "foundation" of Japan's foreign policy, a stark shift from three years ago, when then-Japanese prime minister Yukio Hatoyama sought a harmonious "East Asian community" that included China.
Japan's chest beating is no doubt because it has been emboldened by the US' strategic shift to the Asia-Pacific. However, it should realize it is in danger of losing whatever goodwill it had in the region.
====
Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda talked about "wisdom" and "the future" at the United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday.
But his Cabinet's "nationalization" of China's Diaoyu Islands has been anything but wise and only served to remind the world of Japan's imperialist past.
Noda's speech reinforced why it is impossible for the two countries to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the restoration of diplomatic relations on Thursday. This year is the first time the two countries have been unable to officially observe this occasion.
With its antics over the Diaoyu Islands, the Noda administration has brought the development of bilateral ties to a standstill.
In 1972 - 27 years after Japan's surrender to the allied countries - China buried the hatchet and restored diplomatic relations with its one-time enemy. Leaders of the two countries at that time were well aware of their strategic interdependence.
Unfortunately, such wisdom and far-sightedness have not been the hallmark of the Noda administration.
The Japanese government's sweeping denial of the existence of the dispute over the islands and of the consensus the two countries once reached on shelving this dispute has shown Japan is shifting to the right.
Noda has restored the Japan-US security alliance - a legacy of the Cold War - as the "foundation" of Japan's foreign policy, a stark shift from three years ago, when then-Japanese prime minister Yukio Hatoyama sought a harmonious "East Asian community" that included China.
And elected as the new president of Japan's Liberal Democratic Party on Wednesday, former Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe couldn't wait to show how tough he would be if he regained his old job, playing up his determination to revise Japan's Constitution and vowing to protect Japanese territorial claims.
More disturbingly, such views are increasingly finding favor with the Japanese public. Surveys in Japan earlier this year found that 25 percent of Japanese people think their country should increase its military strength, compared with 14 percent three years ago and 8 percent in 1991.
Japan's chest beating is no doubt because it has been emboldened by the US' strategic shift to the Asia-Pacific. However, it should realize it is in danger of losing whatever goodwill it had in the region.
If Japan is trying to act tough on the Diaoyu Islands to recover the clout it has lost after two decades of economic stagnation, it has chosen the wrong place.
Its leaders should show wisdom and stop trying to deny the past.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
China Daily
September 28, 2012
Japan must show wisdom
U.S. Enlists Japan As Global Military Partner
http://rickrozoff.
====
Noda has restored the Japan-US security alliance - a legacy of the Cold War - as the "foundation" of Japan's foreign policy, a stark shift from three years ago, when then-Japanese prime minister Yukio Hatoyama sought a harmonious "East Asian community" that included China.
Japan's chest beating is no doubt because it has been emboldened by the US' strategic shift to the Asia-Pacific. However, it should realize it is in danger of losing whatever goodwill it had in the region.
====
Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda talked about "wisdom" and "the future" at the United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday.
But his Cabinet's "nationalization" of China's Diaoyu Islands has been anything but wise and only served to remind the world of Japan's imperialist past.
Noda's speech reinforced why it is impossible for the two countries to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the restoration of diplomatic relations on Thursday. This year is the first time the two countries have been unable to officially observe this occasion.
With its antics over the Diaoyu Islands, the Noda administration has brought the development of bilateral ties to a standstill.
In 1972 - 27 years after Japan's surrender to the allied countries - China buried the hatchet and restored diplomatic relations with its one-time enemy. Leaders of the two countries at that time were well aware of their strategic interdependence.
Unfortunately, such wisdom and far-sightedness have not been the hallmark of the Noda administration.
The Japanese government's sweeping denial of the existence of the dispute over the islands and of the consensus the two countries once reached on shelving this dispute has shown Japan is shifting to the right.
Noda has restored the Japan-US security alliance - a legacy of the Cold War - as the "foundation" of Japan's foreign policy, a stark shift from three years ago, when then-Japanese prime minister Yukio Hatoyama sought a harmonious "East Asian community" that included China.
And elected as the new president of Japan's Liberal Democratic Party on Wednesday, former Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe couldn't wait to show how tough he would be if he regained his old job, playing up his determination to revise Japan's Constitution and vowing to protect Japanese territorial claims.
More disturbingly, such views are increasingly finding favor with the Japanese public. Surveys in Japan earlier this year found that 25 percent of Japanese people think their country should increase its military strength, compared with 14 percent three years ago and 8 percent in 1991.
Japan's chest beating is no doubt because it has been emboldened by the US' strategic shift to the Asia-Pacific. However, it should realize it is in danger of losing whatever goodwill it had in the region.
If Japan is trying to act tough on the Diaoyu Islands to recover the clout it has lost after two decades of economic stagnation, it has chosen the wrong place.
Its leaders should show wisdom and stop trying to deny the past.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Mon Oct 1, 2012 7:56 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://indrus.
Russia & India Report
October 1, 2012
BRICS: The building block for global governance
D. Aurobinda Mahapatra
The BRICS have argued for diffusion of power concentration at the global level, and at the same time strongly advocated for reform of international bodies
====
On various past occasions multilateral forums like the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) emphasised on a just and fair international order. The multilateral body has reiterated that unless various global players coordinate their acts and work towards a multi-polar world, the world will likely witness further chaos and instability.
One can hope that the recalcitrance of some powers to this reform process will go away soon. This is in fact the emerging imperative of the global governance in the 21st century.
====
On September 25, 2012, the BRICS foreign ministers met on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly. Among issues of deliberations, one that prominently came into focus was the issue of reform of the United Nations in general, and the expansion of the United Nations Security Council in particular. Russian Foreign Minister reiterated his country’s position in supporting India’s candidature for permanent membership of the Council.
During the UN sessions, another multilateral forum comprising India, Brazil, Germany and Japan (G4) also harped on the expansion of the UN Security Council towards making the body truly representative of the united nations of the world.
It is not new that the call for a reformed international body, the UN, has been made. On various past occasions multilateral forums like the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) emphasised on a just and fair international order. The multilateral body has reiterated that unless various global players coordinate their acts and work towards a multi-polar world, the world will likely witness further chaos and instability.
In this background, it is important to analyse the efficacy of the United Nations in shepherding international politics towards realisation of its lofty objectives, adopted some sixty five years ago. The United Nations Charter drew heavily on normative aspects of international politics and proclaimed that all nations are equal and enjoy dignity. The ground reality has proved otherwise. The UN is currently seen more as a talking opera, or a sloganeering house where members express their extreme positions as if they alone stand on the pedestal of truth, or a kind of duelling field where rivals quarrel with each other.
More so, the decision making power has been confined to the veto wielding members. While the membership of the United Nations is as wide as to include all the nations of the world, barring one or two, the actually decision making is confined to very few. This depicts the fundamental discrepancy between the lofty ideals espoused by the august body and its actual working. As the noted Indian philosopher, Sri Aurobindo pointed out in his criticism of the League of Nations (kind of predecessor to the UN) in his pioneering work the The Ideal Human Unity, unless there is genuine equality and fairness in decision making, the international bodies will falter howsoever inclusive its membership may be. The same criticism equally applies to the functioning of the UN.
It is also important to bear in mind that the world has changed significantly since the foundation of the UN in 1945. The main motive behind its foundation in the post-Second World War period was to prevent another catastrophic war and maintain stability in the world. The world then was not free from colonialism, concentration of economic power in the north, and the huge asymmetry between the developed and developing nations.
Since its foundation till the end of the Cold War, the body witnessed vicious politicking among the rival powers and use of its platform for partisan objectives. The situation is different now. First, the Cold War has ended. Second, the UN has widened its role not only as a war-preventing mechanism, but has assumed big roles in the areas of human development, environment, women empowerment, etc.
Second, equally importantly, the asymmetry in global power distribution has shrunk. The rise of the BRICS is certainly a case in this context. The BRICS have argued for diffusion of power concentration at the global level, and at the same time strongly advocated for reform of international bodies like the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and the United Nations and its Security Council. It has argued not only for political decentralisation of power but also economic decentralisation of power in global governance. BRICS members like India and China have made rapid strides in development, and represented the increasing voices from the global south.
Hence the increasing debate about global governance appears salient in the context of the BRICS and other multilateral bodies. In academic discourse, the concept of global governance has recently gained ascendancy. It is positive in the sense that it points out the increasing realisation on some of the global players of the unmanageable nature of global problems whether it is climate change, or religious fundamentalism and extremism, or cultural intolerance, or financial crises. These problems surpass the apparatus of any particular nation, howsoever powerful it may be. Unless there is coordination among members of the United Nations, the problems will emerge more daunting with every passing day.
Mere proclamation of a fair global order will not work. It needs two fundamental alternations in the global decision making process. First, accommodating the rising powers their due share in the process. Second, a corollary to the first, there must be recognition that the problems are not national or regional, rather they transcend borders of nation states.
Take the case of Afghanistan. Since the 19th century when the British attempted to the subdue the Afghan power till today, the Afghan problem is a kind of Gordian knot which will not succumb to mechanism of a particular nation, howsoever powerful it may be. One must acknowledge that it is a global problem, hence it needs global efforts. Similar is the case of climate change. And so is the case of religious fundamentalism and extremism, or even maritime piracy. These global issues call for broad basing of international decision making process, and accommodating rising powers from the South.
BRICS can play a positive role in contributing to the fairness of the global order. India’s Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathai, while declaring Russian support at the sidelines of the UN, expressed India’s policy to “proactively engage with members in the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform and to strive for an early expansion of the Council in both permanent and non-permanent categories of its membership.” The grouping G4 also followed the same line while arguing for the need “to unanimously inject greater political momentum and work together to give an impetus to the reform process” in the United Nations.
One can hope that the recalcitrance of some powers to this reform process will go away soon. This is in fact the emerging imperative of the global governance in the 21st century.
The writer is an Indian commentator. His areas of interests include India-Russia relations, conflict and peace, and strategic aspects of Eurasian politics.
Russia & India Report
October 1, 2012
BRICS: The building block for global governance
D. Aurobinda Mahapatra
The BRICS have argued for diffusion of power concentration at the global level, and at the same time strongly advocated for reform of international bodies
====
On various past occasions multilateral forums like the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) emphasised on a just and fair international order. The multilateral body has reiterated that unless various global players coordinate their acts and work towards a multi-polar world, the world will likely witness further chaos and instability.
One can hope that the recalcitrance of some powers to this reform process will go away soon. This is in fact the emerging imperative of the global governance in the 21st century.
====
On September 25, 2012, the BRICS foreign ministers met on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly. Among issues of deliberations, one that prominently came into focus was the issue of reform of the United Nations in general, and the expansion of the United Nations Security Council in particular. Russian Foreign Minister reiterated his country’s position in supporting India’s candidature for permanent membership of the Council.
During the UN sessions, another multilateral forum comprising India, Brazil, Germany and Japan (G4) also harped on the expansion of the UN Security Council towards making the body truly representative of the united nations of the world.
It is not new that the call for a reformed international body, the UN, has been made. On various past occasions multilateral forums like the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) emphasised on a just and fair international order. The multilateral body has reiterated that unless various global players coordinate their acts and work towards a multi-polar world, the world will likely witness further chaos and instability.
In this background, it is important to analyse the efficacy of the United Nations in shepherding international politics towards realisation of its lofty objectives, adopted some sixty five years ago. The United Nations Charter drew heavily on normative aspects of international politics and proclaimed that all nations are equal and enjoy dignity. The ground reality has proved otherwise. The UN is currently seen more as a talking opera, or a sloganeering house where members express their extreme positions as if they alone stand on the pedestal of truth, or a kind of duelling field where rivals quarrel with each other.
More so, the decision making power has been confined to the veto wielding members. While the membership of the United Nations is as wide as to include all the nations of the world, barring one or two, the actually decision making is confined to very few. This depicts the fundamental discrepancy between the lofty ideals espoused by the august body and its actual working. As the noted Indian philosopher, Sri Aurobindo pointed out in his criticism of the League of Nations (kind of predecessor to the UN) in his pioneering work the The Ideal Human Unity, unless there is genuine equality and fairness in decision making, the international bodies will falter howsoever inclusive its membership may be. The same criticism equally applies to the functioning of the UN.
It is also important to bear in mind that the world has changed significantly since the foundation of the UN in 1945. The main motive behind its foundation in the post-Second World War period was to prevent another catastrophic war and maintain stability in the world. The world then was not free from colonialism, concentration of economic power in the north, and the huge asymmetry between the developed and developing nations.
Since its foundation till the end of the Cold War, the body witnessed vicious politicking among the rival powers and use of its platform for partisan objectives. The situation is different now. First, the Cold War has ended. Second, the UN has widened its role not only as a war-preventing mechanism, but has assumed big roles in the areas of human development, environment, women empowerment, etc.
Second, equally importantly, the asymmetry in global power distribution has shrunk. The rise of the BRICS is certainly a case in this context. The BRICS have argued for diffusion of power concentration at the global level, and at the same time strongly advocated for reform of international bodies like the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and the United Nations and its Security Council. It has argued not only for political decentralisation of power but also economic decentralisation of power in global governance. BRICS members like India and China have made rapid strides in development, and represented the increasing voices from the global south.
Hence the increasing debate about global governance appears salient in the context of the BRICS and other multilateral bodies. In academic discourse, the concept of global governance has recently gained ascendancy. It is positive in the sense that it points out the increasing realisation on some of the global players of the unmanageable nature of global problems whether it is climate change, or religious fundamentalism and extremism, or cultural intolerance, or financial crises. These problems surpass the apparatus of any particular nation, howsoever powerful it may be. Unless there is coordination among members of the United Nations, the problems will emerge more daunting with every passing day.
Mere proclamation of a fair global order will not work. It needs two fundamental alternations in the global decision making process. First, accommodating the rising powers their due share in the process. Second, a corollary to the first, there must be recognition that the problems are not national or regional, rather they transcend borders of nation states.
Take the case of Afghanistan. Since the 19th century when the British attempted to the subdue the Afghan power till today, the Afghan problem is a kind of Gordian knot which will not succumb to mechanism of a particular nation, howsoever powerful it may be. One must acknowledge that it is a global problem, hence it needs global efforts. Similar is the case of climate change. And so is the case of religious fundamentalism and extremism, or even maritime piracy. These global issues call for broad basing of international decision making process, and accommodating rising powers from the South.
BRICS can play a positive role in contributing to the fairness of the global order. India’s Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathai, while declaring Russian support at the sidelines of the UN, expressed India’s policy to “proactively engage with members in the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform and to strive for an early expansion of the Council in both permanent and non-permanent categories of its membership.” The grouping G4 also followed the same line while arguing for the need “to unanimously inject greater political momentum and work together to give an impetus to the reform process” in the United Nations.
One can hope that the recalcitrance of some powers to this reform process will go away soon. This is in fact the emerging imperative of the global governance in the 21st century.
The writer is an Indian commentator. His areas of interests include India-Russia relations, conflict and peace, and strategic aspects of Eurasian politics.
