Archive for the ‘India’ Category
Rod Nordland, The New York Times, April 18, 2011
KABUL, Afghanistan — First, American officials were talking about July 2011 as the date to begin the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Then, the Americans and their NATO allies began to talk about transition, gradually handing over control of the war to the Afghans until finally pulling out in 2014. Now, however, the talk is all about what happens after 2014.
Afghanistan and the United States are in the midst of negotiating what they are calling a Strategic Partnership Declaration for beyond 2014.
Critics, including many of Afghanistan’s neighbors, call it the Permanent Bases Agreement — or, in a more cynical vein, Great Game 3.0, drawing a comparison with the ill-fated British and Russian rivalry in the region during the 19th and 20th centuries.
It is without doubt a delicate process, and one that comes at a critical time. Afghan officials have expressed concern that the negotiations could scuttle peace talks with the Taliban, now in their early stages, because the insurgents have insisted that foreign forces must leave the country before they will deal. That they are already talking is an indication they are willing to compromise on the timing of a withdrawal — but it is hard to imagine Taliban acceptance of a lasting American presence here.
Formal talks on a long-term agreement began last month under Marc Grossman, the official who has replaced Richard C. Holbrooke, the diplomat who died in December, as the Obama administration’s envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and a delegation visited Kabul under the direction of Frank Ruggiero, a State Department official who ran the Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team until last year.
The reaction regionally was immediate. The Iranian interior minister made a rushed visit to Kabul, followed shortly by the national security advisers of India and Russia.
The Russians, though generally supportive of NATO’s role in Afghanistan, were alarmed at the prospect of a long-term Western presence.
“The Russian side supports the development of Afghanistan by its own forces in all areas — security, economic, political — only by its own forces, especially after 2014,” said Stepan Anikeev, a political adviser at the Russian Embassy here. “How is transition possible with these bases?”
it is they who are “on the side of history.” They do not have to ask America’s permission to lead … and how America and our old allies react to that reality will go a long way to determining just how the geopolitics of the next several decades will play out.
David Rothkopf, Foreign Policy, April 14, 2011
While NATO bickers over strategy in Libya, BRIC leaders have gathered in Sanya, China, to demonstrate the growing strength of an alternative grouping that has among its principle selling points the fact that it is neither Western nor U.S.-dominated. To compare the world’s most potent and enduring military alliance with a loose affiliation of emerging powers that are divided by perhaps more issues than unite them is clearly comparing apples and lychee nuts or guarana seeds, but the juxtaposition of the two events does offer yet another whiff of how the institutions and ideas of the 20th century are giving way to those of the 21st.
In Libya, the potent alliance that “won” the Cold War is coming apart at the seams fighting over strategy, tactics, and objectives in an optional, low-grade intervention in a largely irrelevant country. The U.S. secretary of state is forced to make public pleas for the bumptious commanders of the coalition to get their acts together, while on the ground the weakened forces of the isolated Muammar al-Qaddafi seem to be holding the megapower onslaught at bay. It is too poignant a reminder that intangibles like knowing what you’re fighting for and political will are as important to any battle as the hardware being brought to bear by each side on the other.
In Sanya, Brazil, Russia, India, and the hosts welcomed South Africa into their little club, and if they achieved little else they underscored that they are taking coordination among their countries very seriously and seeking to deepen their ties. However, they did go further and offered a broad agenda including more hints that they will push for alternatives to the dollar-dominated global monetary system that we currently have.
Of course, the BRICs summit resonates with the Libya follies because the original four BRICs voted as a bloc to abstain during the Security Council vote on the imposition of the no-fly zone in Libya and within days of its initiation were publicly speaking out against it. That they were joined in the vote by Europe’s most powerful country, Germany, also sent a message that the opposition to the initiative was meaningful and suggested that future votes in international institutions might see the BRICs (or the BRICS … if the final “S” is for South Africa) emerge at the core of a potent new alternative coalition to the traditional Western or developed powers.
NATO is at a watershed. The Libya “moment,” which President Obama and others wanted to offer up as an example of a new robust, American-led multilateralism, is quickly morphing into a demonstration of NATO’s weaknesses. America wants to be accorded the respect of being the leader but is hamstrung by domestic problems and a lack of strategic clarity. France and Britain seem willing to pick up the slack but others won’t follow. Germany seems increasingly uncomfortable with the burdens placed on it as Europe’s de facto leading power. The military alliance is overly dependent on U.S. power. There are too many chefs. There is not enough overall mission clarity.
Meanwhile, even while the BRICS are a long, long way from being politically cohesive, they are rent with divisions over important issues, and they have zero aspirations to anything as formal or as action-oriented as an alliance, they do have a few things going for them that make them powerful. For one thing, if you didn’t want to call them “the BRICS,” you might simply call them “the majority.” Because taken together, these five countries nearly total half the planet’s people, and if you add in the other countries that have much greater affinities with their views than they do with the Western alliance, it becomes by far the bulk of the world’s population. The Atlantic alliance may be where much of the money and power has been. The “BRICS Plus” represents not only the bulk of the world’s people and resources but also where the fastest growth is.
The Hindu, April 16, 2011
The Congress on Friday said the BRICS joint declaration endorsed India’s stand on the need for U.N. Security Council reforms and against unilateralism, and it reflected the country’s enhanced global footprint.
Party spokesperson Abhishek Manu Singhvi told journalists here that the joint declaration in China largely backed the stand of India, which steadfastly cautioned against unilateralism even in the face of the greatest provocations, particularly when it came to stepping on another country’s territory.
Mr. Singhvi said the party was happy that the BRICS Summit also recognised the urgent need for reforms in the UNSC in which “India has its legitimate expectations.”
Read the rest of this entry »
Nasreen Seria, Bloomberg, April 17, 2011
Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa are “wary” about rules proposed by the International Monetary Fund on when controls can be used to curb short-term foreign-capital inflows, South African Trade Minister Rob Davies said.
While the IMF has agreed that limited use of controls may be appropriate, members of the so-called BRICS group, which met in China last week, are concerned that any restrictions may be to their “disadvantage,” Davies told reporters today in Pretoria.
Interest rates close to zero in the U.S., Europe and Japan have fuelled demand for high-yielding assets in emerging markets, boosting the currencies of Brazil and South Africa, while undermining their exports.
Brazil has imposed taxes on foreign-capital inflows to curb the real, which strengthened 5 percent against the dollar last year. South Africa has stuck to a policy of increasing foreign- currency reserves to curb the rand, which surged 11 percent against the dollar in the same period.
“There was a lot of wariness within the BRIC countries on how these rules will be structured and whether it will be structured to the disadvantage to any of them,” Davies said.
Capital controls were also the subject of the IMF’s semi- annual meeting in Washington this weekend. By keeping interest rates low, countries such as the U.S. are providing the “primary trigger of many of today’s economic woes,” Brazil’s Finance Minister Guido Mantega said yesterday. He defended the use of capital controls as legitimate “measures of self defense.”
While South Africa hasn’t imposed taxes to curb portfolio inflows, the government’s economic plan, called the New Growth Path, makes provision for these kinds of measures should it become necessary, Davies said.
“They have been mooted in the New Growth Path that the package on the table could be added to, as and when circumstances warranted it,” Davies said. “But we haven’t used any of these measures at this point.”
From RT News:
The BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) met in China, G20 gathered here in Washington D.C., and the IMF and World Bank are expected to have their spring meetings. But are institutions like the IMF and World Bank, and the Western Powers who control them, ready to let the rest of the world chime in? Center for Economic and Policy Research’s Mark Weisbrot.
Full text of Sanya Declaration of the BRICS Leaders Meeting
Leaders of five BRICS countries, Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, released on Thursday a joint document, Sanya Declaration, at the BRICS Leaders Meeting in south China’s resort city of Sanya.
Full text of Chinese President Hu Jintao’s remarks at BRICS Leaders Meeting
Chinese President Hu Jintao on Thursday chaired the BRICS Leaders Meeting in south China’s resort city of Sanya.
Ming Jinwei, Xinhua, April 14, 2011
Sanya, China’s southernmost city in Hainan province, is said to be a place where five of the major rivers in the region converge before flowing into the ocean. On Thursday, five emerging economies in the world also met here to help create a new world order.
The leaders of China, Brazil, Russia, India and South Africa wrapped up a one-day summit with repeated calls for reforming the global monetary and financial system and more promises of cooperation among themselves, but uncertainties lingered over how the so-called BRICS mechanism could fit in a fast-changing world.
VISION FOR CHANGE
Five summiteers, from four different continents, spoke four distinct languages.
When the leaders of China, Brazil, Russia, India and South Africa met for the BRICS Leaders Meeting in Sanya, the gathering itself spoke a lot how much the world had changed as decades of strong economic growth pushed major emerging economies not only closer to each other but also to the center of the world stage.
Aware of this change of the world economic order, the BRICS countries called for changes in the global economic governance architecture so that it could better reflect their voices on global economic issues.
“The governing structure of the international financial institutions should reflect the changes in the world economy, increasing the voice and representation of emerging economies and developing countries,” said the Sanya Declaration released at the end of the meeting.
Besides, they also aimed at reforming the international monetary and financial system.
“Recognizing that the international financial crisis has exposed the inadequacies and deficiencies of the existing international monetary and financial system, we support the reform and improvement of the international monetary system,” they said.
The current global economic order, established over decades after World War II, had long been dominated by developed countries, a fact criticized more and more often by major emerging economies.
Traditional economic powerhouses like the United States and some other European countries had not only enjoyed a much larger say at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, they also had tended to make crucial decisions on global economic issues at the exclusive summits of the Group of Eight (G8) countries.
The arrangement had worked for decades, but appeared increasingly incompetent in the past decade as the rise of major emerging economies dramatically changed the world economic landscape, with fast growing developing countries like China and India accounting for a bigger and bigger chunk of the world economy.