Is New Russia a Reliable Partner?

As Ukraine and NATO accused Russia of sending troops to launch a new offensive in eastern Ukraine, experts had warned of a showdown between Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Western leaders at the G20 summit held in Australia.
Before reaching Brisbane, Putin had denied sending tanks into Ukraine and said that he would not bring up the issue of the G20 meeting ‘it'll make no sense’. He however had a tough time.
But to show his muscles, Vladimir Putin had come to Australia accompanied by 4 warships, which he stationed off the country’s northeastern coast.
One can understand that in these circumstances Russia’s popularity has touched new lows. Tony Abbott, the Australian Prime Minster bluntly told the Russian President: “Russia would be so much more attractive if it was aspiring to be a superpower for peace and freedom and prosperity, if it was trying to be a superpower for ideas and for values, instead of trying to recreate the lost glories of tsarism or the old Soviet Union.”
The world media agreed that the West ‘lined up to browbeat him over Ukraine’; as a result, Putin left before the farewell lunch.
All is not well between India and Russia too. Take the project of a fifth generation fighter aircraft (FGFA). New Delhi is more and more concerned about the slow progress of the joint venture between India and Russia.
A few months ago, Mid Day reported: “Driving India's worries is the fact that the Russians are neither explaining why a prototype aircraft caught fire during a technology demonstration earlier this year nor addressing other technical doubts expressed by India.”
The worst is that despite being equal partners in the FGFA project, Moscow is not keen to share technical details about its next generation stealth fighter.
In 2010, officials of Hindustan Aeronautics Ldt. (HAL) and Russia’s Sukhoi Design Bureau had signed a preliminary agreement to jointly design and produce a FGFA to be later used by both countries. Delhi and Moscow are said to have invested US $ 295 million for the preliminary designs. Unfortunately, differences on the work share have cropped up between HAL and Sukhoi with the Indian side rightly insisting on parity. Ultimately the project is supposed to cost over $30 billion for about 400 aircraft, out of which India requires a total of 144. But when the IAF asked a twin-seat variant, Moscow demanded an additional $1 billion, which was refused by Delhi.
The precursor for the FGFA is the PAK-FA (an acronym for Perspektivnyi Aviatsionnyi Kompleks Frontovoi Aviatsy or Prospective Aircraft Complex of Frontline Aviation); also referred to as the T-50 by Sukhoi, the aircraft first flew in January 2010. Moscow says that five prototypes are currently being tested.
According to The Business Standard on January 15, 2014, during a meeting at the MoD in Delhi to review FGFA progress, some Indian officials affirmed that: “the FGFA's engine was unreliable, its radar inadequate, its stealth features badly engineered, India's work share too low, and that the fighter's price would be exorbitant by the time it enters service.”
In November, Russian Deputy Premier Dmitry Rogozin visited New Delhi (ahead of Vladimir Putin’s arrival in India in December) to discuss issues related to the FGFA. Some sources said that the differences have now been ironed out and that a deal is expected to be inked in December during Mr. Putin’s visit. It is highly improbable.
Another irritant has recently emerged in the bilateral relations between India and Russia; it will also have to be sorted out before Putin’s arrival: a ‘Chinese’ Brahmos appeared at the Zhuhai Airshow 2014 in China.
The new CX-1 supersonic anti-ship cruise missile (ASCM) developed by China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC) strangely resembles the Russian-Indian BrahMos cruise missile.
Russia immediately rubbished the claim that it has offered to China the BrahMos missile technology. NPO Mashinostroyenia (NPOM), DRDO’s partner declared that reports saying that they had ‘given’ to China the BrahMos technology, in order to develop its CX-1 missile, are completely inaccurate. Another Russian military source is quoted by Russia and India Reporter (RIR): “NPOM believes that neither the BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles nor the Yakhont missiles manufactured in Russia have anything in common with the Chinese missiles except for some external characteristics …Judging by the photos, indeed, the missiles are observed as having a similar external shape.” It however admitted “the missiles have a similar maximum speed and flying range,” though “these characteristics cannot be used to make a judgment about the rocket. There are many other indicators.”
Well, the Government will have to look into the issue in greater detail and check if the Russians are as reliable partners as they have been in the past.
A small mercy, Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha announced that the Indian Air Force (IAF) was able to find the technical defects in the Sukhoi-30 (SU-30) aircraft which resulted in a crash of one aircraft and the grounding of the fleet.
Raha said: “The court of inquiry has not yet finalised the final findings. But preliminary findings we know and we know we will be able to tackle it. I don't want to tell you exactly the reason, but we know the reason."
On October 14, a Su-30 had crashed when both seats of the aircraft were ejected; fortunately both pilots survived. At that time, a MoD released a statement: "One Su-30 fighter of the IAF was involved in an accident … in which both ejection seats had fired whilst the aircraft was coming in to land. A Court of Inquiry (CoI) had immediately been constituted to investigate the cause of accident. Meanwhile, as is the procedure in such cases, the flying of the Su-30 fleet has been temporarily suspended [while] certain specific checks are being conducted on the aircraft."
The CoI has not been able to give its conclusions so far, as the Russians insist that it was a ‘pilot error’. Anyway, according to Raha, the IAF will start flying the aircraft in a few days.
This does not stop Russia to be more and more aggressive in its marketing ways. Alexander Kadakin, Russia's ambassador to India recently declared that “fighter planes fall into two categories – the hunters and the hunted.”
While the French “are pitching their Rafale as the dogfight duke that is the crème de la crème of jet fighters,” the Russians assert that Chinese-made Sukhoi-27s would be able to swat the Rafales like ‘mosquitoes on an August night.’
The Russians say that the Rafale is “a largely unknown commodity in aviation circles. Like most French fighters, it is most likely an unassuming, unspectacular but honest aircraft.”
Ambassador Kadakin explained to some Indian journalists: "We (Russia) are still very surprised that Rafale is being bought, because if the Rafale is intended to oppose Pakistani or Chinese planes, then the Sukhoi which the Chinese produce, or mobilizes, but which is only 50 percent of the Sukhoi which you (India) produce, then even for the Chinese Sukhoi, these Rafales will be like mosquitoes on an August night. They will be shot down like mosquitoes. That's why I don't understand why..."
Francois Richier, the French envoy to India wisely answered that he would not like to make any comments uttered by a ‘grumpy competitor’, adding “The negotiations [for the Rafales] are progressing well." He quoted statements made by Indian defence officials in the recent past about the progress and the recent visit to Delhi of Chairman of French Dassault Aviation:"It is a signal that it is moving in the right direction."
To conclude, an amazing story found on chinasmack.com: according to the website, which provides to English-speaking readers ‘glimpse into modern China and Chinese society by translating popular, trending Chinese internet content and netizen discussions’. The story shows the functioning of Old Soviet Union. Du Wenlong, a Chinese military expert admitted on Yunnan TV: “Back when we [the Chinese Air Force] were importing Su-27s, Russia was also having economic difficulties. They only wanted three things: One, flashlights; two, vacuum flasks; three, dog pelt coats. 10,000 dog pelt coats, that created a lot of pressure/difficulties for us. It takes 18 dog pelts to make one dog pelt coat. So that winter we killed all the dogs in the three provinces of Henan, Shandong, etc. in order to trade for Su-27s. So dogs in China had made significant contributions to China’s military and weapons modernization.”
Whether the story is true or not, the times have changed, though it is apparent that Vladimir Putin is still suffering from the Soviet Union ‘nostalgia’.
Let us hope that this will not disrupt India’s old partnership with Russia, though Delhi should remain firm with Moscow and refuse to take any bullying.

Will the wind blow from the East?

The tides are changing.
As Narendra Modi takes oath as the new Prime Minister of India, Asia is fast becoming the center of the world.
Agence France-Presse reported that China and Russia signed in Shanghai “a long-awaited natural gas supply deal, securing the world’s top energy user a major new source of the clean-burning fuel and opening a market to Moscow as Europeans look elsewhere for their energy”. A big big deal!
For Reuters, it represents a triumph for Putin “as he seeks to forge new markets in Asia as European countries reduce their reliance on Russian gas in the wake of the Ukraine crisis.”
Xi Jinping, the Chinese President and his visiting Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin said in a statement: “This is another major milestone achievement in China-Russia energy strategic cooperation.”
According to the terms of the deal between the Russian state-controlled company Gazprom and China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC), the Russian company will supply 38 billion cubic metres (bcm) of gas to CNPC each year for 30 years; a contract of more than 400 billion US dollars.
The gas will be transported along a new pipeline linking Siberian gas fields to China’s main industrial centres in southern China.
This comes at a time when a strong leader comes to the helm in India.
No doubt that the new occupant in the Minister’s room in South Block will have to take into account this new development.
The economic accord happened on the sideline of the 4th Summit of the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia (CICA). This not well-known grouping wants to be ‘a multi-national forum for enhancing cooperation towards promoting peace, security and stability in Asia.’
Behind the words and the string of ‘Confidence Building Measures’ to fight against new threats, one can see Beijing’s and Moscow’s will to counter the US presence in Asia.
President Xi Jinping urged the participants (mainly from Central Asia) “to settle differences and disputes through consultation and negotiation.”
This was good to hear after watching for months Chinese expansionism in the South China and East China Seas. How it will translate on the ground (or in the seas) is another question.
Xi also said: "We need to innovate in our security concept, establish a new regional security cooperation architecture, and jointly build a shared and win-win road for Asian security."
The South China Morning Post quotes Li Lifan, an expert in Russian affairs at the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences who analyses: "The suspicions towards the US have pushed China and Russia to move closer, forming a 'sub-alliance' relationship that sees both sharing a common stance."
There is no doubt against whom the new ‘sub-alliance’ is directed: the US and Europe which ‘dared’ to slap sanctions against Putin after the developments in Ukraine.
Xi noted that Asia enjoys a rising status in the international landscape and the continent will “play an increasingly important role in promoting a multi-polar world and democracy in international relations.”
Promoting ‘democracy’ in China will make many observers smile. Interestingly for Delhi, Xi warned against “the establishment of military alliances in Asia and called for a new regional security co-operation mechanism.” Xi was probably delighted by Modi’s return call to Obama.
The new Chinese stance means that, while Beijing is ready to go for a alliance with Moscow and some of other Central Asian ‘friends’, India should not think to share its security concerns with Vietnam or Japan.
But what are the views on Modi in China?
Soon before the results of the Indian elections were announced, The Global Times, the English mouthpiece of the Communist Party said that Beijing expected ‘a tougher [Indian] stance on political disputes [i.e. the border, more particularly the disputed LAC], but [that Modi will] take a more flexible economic policy toward China.”
The Global Times asserted that “Modi, 63, who serves as chief minister of Gujarat in western India, is famed for his pro-business approach, and has made four trips to China to woo Chinese investment.”
Quoting The Economist, Gujarat was described as ‘India's Guangdong’, with “the state accounted for 5 % of India's population but 16 % of its industrial output and 22 % of its exports.”
After the announcement of the results, Liu Zongyi, a research fellow of Shanghai Institute for International Studies, admitted in the columns of the same newspaper: “This is a turning point in Indian politics because no party has managed to get a simple majority since 1984 when the Congress party won over 400 seats riding.”
The Chinese scholar affirmed: “This is Modi's victory. The prime minister-elect has won a thumping endorsement from Indian industrial and commercial circles, middle class, young people and the ‘low castes’ due to his resolute governance style, clean image, outstanding record, as well as his low caste background, which sharply contrast with his counterparts from the Congress.”
Where Liu is probably wrong, (like his US and Western colleagues) is when he said: “it's possible that he may fan religious conflicts”, though he acknowledged: “The narrow-minded and extreme nationalist stand of the BJP has changed and the major task facing Modi is to create a stable domestic and neighboring environment to revive the ailing economy.”
Liu believed that “some Western media are fomenting discord between China and India. They portrayed Modi as ‘India's Abe’ who will take a tough stance against China,” however, Liu predicted that “Modi is unlikely to act as vehemently as Abe, as it would be of no benefit to India's economy at all.”
Many observers in China see the border issue as the main obstacle to a smooth bilateral relationship. However, according to Liu: “China and India have established a spectrum of effective cooperation and communication mechanisms including China-India strategic dialogue, special representatives meet on border problem and trilateral talks among Russia, India and China.”
The new government is advised to “reflect on its relationship with the US over the past decade in which India has only been a chess piece of the US to contain China.”
Modi does not really need China’s advice.
There is however another important, not often mentioned, factor which is bound to play a role in case of tensions. While the situation on China’s borders (see the new bomb blast which killed some 30 people in Urumqi yesterday) is extremely instable, the Indian electorate (an unknown concept in China) has massively voted for Modi and the BJP in the Himalayan belt. From Ladakh (1/1) to Himachal (4/4), Uttarakhand (5/5) and Arunachal (1/2), 10 out of 12 Lok Sabha seats have gone to the BJP (Sikkim has voted for the Sikkim Democratic Front). As the local populations become more and more restive in Tibet and Xinjiang and often violently oppose Beijing’s rule, the Himalayans in India have massively voted for Modi and shown their strong patriotic fabric. One can easily imagine that it is a game changer in case of a conflict.
It will certainly play a crucial role if, in the months to come, China continues with its expansionist policies. The tide has changed here too.

Referendum in Crimea grabs China by the throat

My article Referendum in Crimea grabs China by the throat appeared in NitiCentral.

Here is the link...

Chinese President Xi Jinping, also chairman of the Central Military Commission, told the plenary session of 12th National People's Congress on March 11: "We expect peace, but we shall never give up efforts to maintain our legitimate rights, nor shall we compromise our core interests, no matter when or in what circumstances."
A day earlier he had met the PLA’s deputies and urged them “to courageously assume their responsibility in safeguarding national sovereignty and interests.”
That sounds simple, but unfortunately for Mr. Xi, ‘interests’ are no longer black and white like in Mao’s days.
The issue of Ukraine/Crimea is a case in point.
At the end of February, Western capitals were terribly outraged (or feigned to be outraged), when Russian troops started ‘exercises’ in the Crimean Peninsula of Ukraine; before Moscow instigated a referendum to decide whether Crimea would join its destiny with Russia, Beijing was in a dilemma.
Russia is China’s close friend and ally; President Xi even attended the opening of the Winter Olympics at Sochi to be seen with his Russian counterpart.
Moscow may now face ‘severe’ economic sanctions such as visa restrictions, asset freeze or an increased US military cooperation with Poland and the Baltic republics; Barak Obama may even suggest an ‘expulsion’ from the G-8, but as Ajai Shukla put it in the Business Standard: “ The psyche and mindset of Russian strategists, shaped by four centuries of European history, made it inevitable that Moscow would draw the line at Ukraine after a quarter century of unrelenting NATO and EU expansion towards Russia's frontiers.”
History has never been black and white; in the age of globalization, it is even more so today.
In January 1954, the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, born in Russia near the Ukrainian border (and married to a Ukrainian), agreed to transfer Crimea to Russia. The Soviet leader who had served as Party Secretary in Ukraine knew that, by becoming part of the Ukrainian Socialist Republic, Crimean region would economically benefit from the hydro-electric potential of the Dnieper river. He did not foresee the forthcoming collapse of the Soviet Union, which then enjoyed two major ports on the Black Sea (Sevastopol and Odessa); they were strategically located for the defence of the then Soviet Union (and later Russia).
Remember that in 2010, the deposed Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich signed an agreement with Russia extending the lease of the Sevastopol for use by Russia's Black Sea Fleet from 2017 to 2042, with the option of further extension till 2047.
This was obviously not a good development for Washington and the Western capitals which probably dreamt of a ‘Europe from Atlantic to Ural’ as enunciated by General Charles de Gaulle in the early1960s.
Today, Beijing is in an awkward position. For decades, Beijing invited top experts in key military technology fields from Ukraine to come and share their knowledge with China.
Huanqiu, the Chinese version of The Global Times mentioned the military cooperation between China and Ukraine in the 1990s: “In 10 years, China has recruited thousands of experts from Russia and other Commonwealth of Independent States to engage in over 2,000 technological projects. In 2006 alone, groups of Ukraine scientists visited China about 150 times to participate in scientific research and give lectures and there were over 2,000 individual visits.”
One of the 3 ships sold by Ukraine to China in the 1990s, was the aircraft carrier Varyag, today rebuilt as the Liaoning, China's first aircraft carrier which made recently the headlines.
In April 2010, the press agency Interfax reported the signature of a contract with China to build high-speed hovercrafts, of the Zubr-type, at the Morye shipyard in Feodosia. A $350 million contract for the construction of four high-speed amphibious hovercrafts was concluded by Ukrainian arms trader Ukrspetsexport in 2009; two were to be built in Ukraine and two in China with Ukrainian ‘participation’.
At the time of a crisis, like we are witnessing today, this is terribly complicating the situation for the Mandarins in Beijing.
It is even more entangled! In an Op-ed in The South China Morning Post, Paul Letters explains that Crimea's planned referendum has put Beijing in a quandary, whatever the result, and raised fears about the idea spreading in the Middle Kingdom; Letters analyses: “Russia has taken us back to imperialism by occupying a neighbouring country, but is Moscow's support for a vote for Crimeans to determine their own destiny such a terrible idea? It is if you're the government of China.” Why?
In the West, a referendum is used when it is convenient; today it is being denounced; some of the Western media even alluded at Hitler's using referenda to ratify the grabbing of new territories by the Reich.
But it has extensively been used in the past; remember the French voted against the entry in the EU and had to revote ‘yes’ a few years later.
For China, it is worse as a referendum could mean ‘splitting’ the Motherland. If a country like Spain is against a vote to decide the future of the Catalan and Basque countries (Madrid is even against Scotland's entry into the EU fearing that it would encourage the Basques and the Catalans to secede), in China it would mean that Tibet, Xinjiang or Inner Mongolia could rightly ask for a referendum for ‘self-determination’.
Since the beginning of the Ukrainian crisis, Beijing has been walking on eggs. China's foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang cleverly avoided to directly answer, he just said: "China has always upheld the principles of diplomacy and the fundamental norms of international relations". Paul Letters said: “You could feel the Politburo squirming in their seats”.
What about Hong Kong?
A referendum is the last thing Beijing would like to happen, even if their State is known as the People’s Republic of China (and their Parliament, the National People’s Congress); the less ‘People’ put their nose (or give their opinion) in the State’s affairs, the better it is for the Party’s rule.
Let not even talk about the so-called minorities such as the Uyghurs or the Tibetans. Nobody wants to know their opinions.
Indeed, life is complicated for the apparatchiks in Beijing. It was easier a few decades ago, there was the Good (Communist China), the Bad (America and its ‘lackeys’) and sometimes the Ugly (the Soviet Revisionists). Today, everything is mixed up and it is difficult to untangle ideological, business and other core interests.
It is perhaps why, Xing Guangcheng, director of the Research Center for Chinese Borderland History and Geography, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences speaks of neutrality. He wrote: “Ukraine is located at the demarcation point between the EU and Russia. The best choice it could make is making no choice: It should choose neither the EU nor Russia.”
Whether it is possible is another question.
Even if China decides to only lean softly on the Russian side, one could ask, what about India? Nobody probably has time to think of these issues in South Block, elections are coming!

The Beginning of a New START

Great news for Christmas. The US Senate has ratified the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia. 
I happened to be attending a Seminar on Disarmament in Mumbai. During the previous days, participants raised doubts: will the Republican-dominated Senate agree to follow President Obama in this small, but significant step. They finally did. A nice Christmas present for humanity.

Senate Approval of New START Moves Nuclear Arms Control Forward
Hans Kristensen
Federation of American Scientists
The Federation of American Scientists today applauded the Senate’s ratification of the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) between the United States and Russia.
The Senate voted 71 to 26 in favor of ratification of the treaty.
The approval of the treaty is a victory for common sense and an impressive achievement for the Obama administration in overcoming stubborn opposition from Cold Warriors to modest nuclear arms reductions.
New START does not require destruction of a single nuclear warhead, but it reduces the limit for how many of them can be deployed on long-range ballistic missiles and heavy bombers.
The United States and Russia possess more than 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons and will continue to do so when the treaty limit is reached seven years from now.
During the past year and in an effort to ensure Congressional support for New START, the administration has committed to significant increases in spending on modernizing nuclear weapons and the production complex over the next decade: well over $100 billion for modernization of missiles and bombers, and more than $85 billion for modernizing warheads and production facilities.
This modernization will have to be balanced against the other important goal of U.S. nuclear policy: securing international support for strengthening non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and materials. Demonstrating clear intentions to reducing the number and role of nuclear weapons will be essential to winning support for this agenda.
Despite its limitations, the approval of the New START treaty brings U.S-Russian strategic relations back on track, reestablishes a vital on-site inspection regime, and potentially opens the way for negotiations on additional reductions in the future.
Those negotiations must establish limits on and verification of U.S. and Russian non-deployed and non-strategic nuclear weapons, and prepare the ground for broadening nuclear arms control to the other nuclear weapons states.

No visit to Russia for the Dalai Lama

Complicity between Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Chinese Vice-President Xi Jinping

This confirms some of my earlier postings on the subject. Russia is aligning its Tibet policy on Beijing.
The decision was probably taken during President Hu Jintao's visit to Moscow in April.
The Russian Government had been apparently decided several months ago that the Dalai Lama would not be granted a visa to visit the Buddhist republics of the Russian Federation. The statements of the Russian Embassy are just a conformation. 
With Beijing not ready to listen to Washington and Moscow openly siding with the Chinese, the position of the Dalai Lama become more tricky, at least as far as 'negotiations' are concerned. Read my earlier postings.


Wary of China, Russia says no to Dalai visit
Sachin Parashar,
Times of India
Jun 16, 2010,
NEW DELHI: In yet another manifestation of China’s might, Russian diplomats have met their Chinese counterparts in Delhi to assure Beijing that Moscow won’t allow the Dalai Lama to visit Russia "under the present circumstances". Stating that the spiritual leader’s activities had acquired a political tinge, Russian officials said their advice to the Dalai Lama was to improve relations with China and refrain from political activities.
The Russians were pushed into damage-control mode after Beijing was said to have been offended by an alleged remark by Russian ambassador to India Alexander Kadakin that Russia may issue a visa to Dalai Lama. The Chinese, however, had not registered any official protest. The Russian embassy denied that any such remark had been made by the ambassador.
The Russians have attributed the confusion to a "mistake" in the transcript of an interview which Kadakin gave to an agency recently, on a visit to Himachal Pradesh. "The Russian foreign minister has made it clear that Russia treasures strategic partnership with China and has no intention of damaging it. For this reason, Russia’s advice for the Dalai Lama is to improve relations with Beijing and stay away from politics," said a Russian embassy official in Delhi.
"If he chooses to pay a pastoral [religious] visit, there should be no problem. But he will have to look differently on the purpose of his visit first. For now, a visit by the Dalai Lama or a visa for him is out of the question," he added.
According to the Russian embassy, its diplomats have met the Chinese embassy councillor in Delhi to brief him on the Russian position and provide him with the authentic text of Kadakin’s interview.
The Dalai Lama has visited Russia several times, the last one being in 2004, to the traditionally Buddhist dominated areas of Kalmykia near the Caspian Sea. However, with Moscow being excessively keen on building good relations with Beijing, it has since refused to issue visa to the Tibetan leader.
Only last month, Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov criticized Dalai Lama for his "provocative" stand.

The Axis Mundi tilting

Will America lead once more?
“Time and again in our Nation’s history, Americans have risen to meet — and to shape — moments of transition. This must be one of those moments. We live in a time of sweeping changes” thus spoke Barak Obama, stressing the strategic choices of the US in the latest National Security Strategy Report.
The President of the United States believes that his country is today: “part of a dynamic international environment, in which different nations are exerting greater influence, and advancing our interests will require expanding spheres of cooperation around the word.” He cites China, India, and Russia as being “critical to building broader cooperation on areas of mutual interest.”
Obama’s conclusion is: “America’s greatness is not assured… in a young century whose trajectory is uncertain, America is ready to lead once more.”
The US President is certainly right in saying that America’s top slot in world leadership is not assured.
The first indication came in Copenhagen. On April 18, some of world's most powerful heads of State had assembled in Copenhagen's Bella Center to work out a solution for the future of the planet.
Most of the top shots were there: Obama, Sarkozy, Merkel, Manmohan Singh, Lula. The meeting was dubbed the ‘mini-summit of the 25’. But there was an anomaly: facing the US President was seated China's deputy foreign minister, He Yafei. His boss, the Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao had remained in his Hotel room. He had not been ‘properly’ invited, he said.
It took a few months to get a clearer picture as to what happened during the last day of the Climate Change Conference. But it is now clear that the UN climate conference in Copenhagen will go down in history as a turning point. New forces emerged while old were sidelined.
The Spiegel was able to get a recording of the last meeting. According to the German magazine, it reveals “how China and India prevented an agreement on tackling climate change at the crucial meeting. The powerless Europeans were forced to look on as the agreement failed.”
I was in France at the time of the Conference. During the preceding days, the French President was upbeat, explaining on TV and in the newspapers that France and Europe would lead the World towards a better future.
Unfortunately for him, during the final meeting, it did not happen that way: the Chinese Premier was not even present. Sarkozy used strong arguments to present the position of Europe which had pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent, but "in return, China, soon be the biggest economic power in the world, told the world: commitments apply to you, but not to us." Sarkozy shouted, “ce n’est pas acceptable” (it is not acceptable); he even spoke about hypocrisy (from the Chinese side), but this did not change anything.
The Spiegel says: “As if viewed through a magnifying glass, the contours of a new political world order become visible, one shaped by the new self-confidence of the Asians and the powerlessness of the West.”
The next day China convened a last-minute meeting of the BASIC countries (South Africa, Brazil, India and China). Beijing did not want to be alone to carry the blame for the failure of the Conference. The four countries managed to take a common position despite Obama dropping in uninvited at the end of the meeting. The Europeans were nowhere to be seen.
This explains Jairam Ramesh’s recent statement: “following an ambush by the West”, India’s support was ‘absolutely essential’ for China. The Environment Minister added: “The Chinese know, in their heart of hearts, that we saved them from isolation. It is not an exaggeration to say that the top Chinese leadership acknowledges the Copenhagen spirit”.
This, I believe, marked a turning point in the influence of Europe in the World affairs. In the years to come, the slide can only accelerate.
It deteriorated further with the Greek crisis. You must have heard about the PIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain).
The rising government deficits and debt levels of these countries triggered a wave of panic on the European (and later world) financial markets. It began in Greece, with serious concerns about the cost of financing the public debt; it then spread across other States of the Euro Zone. Finally, on 2 May 2010, the Eurozone and the IMF had to decide to grant a €110 billion loan to Greece, while Athens had to implement extremely harsh Greek austerity measures (which may in turn trigger a recession). On 9 May 2010, Europe's Finance Ministers approved a package worth nearly a trillion dollars to insure European financial stability. Will it help?
The point is that when Obama says “America’s greatness is not assured”, the European Union and its member-States are also not at all assured of their future role in a changing world.
The situation on the world scene is moving tremendously fast. In April, two important meetings were held in Brazil. Siddharth Vadharajan of The Hindu wrote: “At this week's summits of IBSA and BRIC nations, India and Brazil were the lucky two who had overlapping membership in both forums. But South Africa, which is only part of the former, would very much like BRIC to become BRICS, while China, which is part of the latter — as well as of the climate change ginger group of BASIC with India, Brazil and South Africa — would not be averse to IBSA becoming CHIBSA.”
A senior Indian official accompanying the Prime Minister explained: “What makes BRIC a good fit today is that the four countries have complementary factor endowments and national skills.”
But that is not all. We are witnessing the birth of a new world order. Russian President Dmitri Medvedev said that the four countries could collaborate in fields such as nuclear and space technologies, aircraft manufacturing, nanotechnology and other fields.
But more importantly, these strange acronyms represent a challenge to the United States’ domination. And India knows it well, treading carefully with its newly-found partners.
Another example: after Turkey and Brazil announced a deal with Iran which would see Iran send some of its low-enriched uranium to Turkey (a previous IAEA proposal which Tehran had earlier refused), Zhai Dequan wrote in The People’s Daily an article, Iran deserves a break: “The recent tripartite agreement on nuclear-material swapping among Iran, Turkey and Brazil shows that influential countries other than major Western powers have started helping resolve sensitive global issues. Such efforts should be applauded and encouraged.”
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reacted strongly. Reuters quotes her saying that actions taken by countries like Brazil to help find a diplomatic solution to Iran's nuclear program have made the world more dangerous. She affirmed: "We think buying time for Iran, enabling Iran to avoid international unity with respect to their nuclear program, makes the world more dangerous not less."
Without entering into the merits of the deal, it becomes more and more obvious that we are no longer living in a unilateral world and new players, the so-called emerging countries have come to have a say in world affairs.
A small, though significant news items demonstrates the way the new world players try to sideline America. On 13 May, Novosti, the Russian state-owned news agency, quoted the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov: “Russia is ready to help settle the conflict between China and the Tibetan spiritual leader, Dalai Lama.”
During a speech in the Federation Council, Russia’s Upper House of Parliament, Lavrov affirmed: “We are following carefully what is happening between the leadership of China and the Dalai Lama and we know that the Chinese leadership is deeply committed to the Dalai Lama dissociating himself from any kind of political activity and separatist tendencies in regard to one or another territory in China.”
According to Lavrov: “If all the parties make attempts to separate clearly pastoral contacts from political associations, this would be a solution to the problem. We are ready to assist in this.”
Clearly, the move was triggered by the visit of President Hu Jintao to Moscow a week earlier.
During his stay, Hu called upon Russia and China to consolidate their strategic partnership and promote ‘multipolarity’ in the international system as well as ‘democratization of international relations’. In other words, the United States cannot continue to rule the world unilaterally.
Moreover, Hu spoke of China’s ‘new security concept’. For Beijing, this means “to rise above one-sided security and seek common security through mutually beneficial cooperation … and promote the democratization of the international relations.” The surprising announcement about Tibet was clearly in line with Beijing’s new policies who feels Washington is interfering in its dealing with the Dalai Lama.
When asked about Lavrov’s declaration, China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Ma Zhaoxu stated: “as China's strategic partner, Russia has always firmly supported China's positions and principles on Tibet-related issues. China has highly praised Russia's position.”
For Beijing, it was a way to show its unhappiness with the US before the visit of Hilary Clinton who was scheduled to reprimand China about human rights and Tibet. To ask Moscow to be the intermediary is one way to pull the carpet out from under Washington’s feet.
The Axis Mundi is undoubtedly slowly tilting towards the East.
“We live in a time of sweeping changes”, rightly said Obama.

Dalai Lama and the Russian Card

My article Dalai Lama and the Russian Card appeared in The Statesman. Click here to read.

A move from Beijing through Moscow

It is clear from this article of the People's Daily that the move to offer Moscow's services for mediating between Dharamsala and Beijing has been made in consultation with Beijing.
The trick is that if the Dalai Lama accepts, he will have to even renounce 'genuine autonomy' for Tibet. No politics, says Lavrov.
And Beijing "has highly praised Russia's position", says the People's Daily.


Russian Foreign Minister calls Dalai Lama symbol of 'Tibet independence'
The People's Daily online
May 21, 2010 
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov held two discussions during the recent week on Russia's position on the Dalai Lama issue, noting that Russia is opposed to linking religious issues with politics, according to a report by the Global Times on May 21.
The foreign minister held the talks because there has been some domestic controversy on whether Russia should contact the Dalai Lama after the Russian Foreign Ministry refused a visit application from the Dalai Lama to its Republic of Kalmykia.
Lavrov said the Dalai Lama has always attempted to take advantage of his religious role to meet goals that have nothing to do with religion. In the eyes of numerous foreigners, the Dalai Lama has become a symbol of the "Tibet independence."
In response to Lavrov's remarks, China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Ma Zhaoxu said on May 20 that as China's strategic partner, Russia has always firmly supported China's positions and principles on Tibet-related issues. China has highly praised Russia's position.
According to a report by Russia-based Interfax on May 20, Lavrov said on May 19 at the State Duma, the lower house of the Federal Assembly, that the normalization of relations between China and the Dalai Lama mainly depends on the Dalai Lama's stance.
"China has sufficient reasons not to resume contact with the Dalai Lama as long as he continues to make provocative statements and engage in political activities," Lavrov said.
Whether the Dalai Lama acknowledges this or not, he has become a symbol of "Tibet independence."

Dharamsala and The Russian Card?

While one daily gets fed with glamourous and ‘sweaty’ cricket news by the Indian media, more startling news often goes unnoticed.
It was the case on May 13 when Novosti, the Russian state-owned news agency quoted Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov: “Russia is ready to help settle the conflict between China and the Tibetan spiritual leader Dalai Lama”.
During a speech in the Federation Council, Russia's upper house of Parliament, Lavrov said that Moscow supports the development of interreligious and inter-confessional ties, though Moscow was “against aspects of religion that have been distorted into politics”.
And then, the news: “We are following carefully what is happening between the leadership of China and the Dalai Lama and we know that the Chinese leadership is deeply committed to the Dalai Lama dissociating himself from any kind of political activity and separatist tendencies in regard to one or another territory in China."
Lavrov explained that occasional attempts to politicize the Dalai Lama's role as a spiritual leader have not brought any results, including in his relations with Buddhists in Russia: “If all the parties make attempts to separate clearly pastoral contacts from political associations, this would be a solution to the problem. We are ready to assist in this.”
This statement was rather unexpected; first, because Moscow does not interfere in ‘Beijing’s internal affairs’; further, a few days earlier when the Buddhists in Kalmykia asked the Russian Foreign Ministry to issue an entry visa to the Dalai Lama, it was apparently refused, though Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, President of the Republic of Kalmykia affirmed that Elista, the capital of Kalmykia was expecting a visit of the Dalai Lama to consecrate a temple.
During a news conference Ilyumzhinov clarified his personal position: “Church is separated from the state in our country, but as a person professing Buddhism, I wait for Dalai Lama's visit."
The three Russian Republics of Kalmykia, Buryatia and Tuva have a predominantly Buddhist population. These small, but strategically located republics have nearly 1 million Buddhists reprsenting about 0.5% of the total population of the Russian Federation.
The Tibetan leader has visited the Buddhist republics several times in the past, but since 2007 the Dalai Lama has been denied entry to Russia. His last visit dates 2004, when he paid a religious visit to Kalmykia to consecrate the land for a Buddhist temple.
Telo Tulku Rinpoche, the Kalmyk Head Lama recently confirmed that the Russian authorities have declined the request of the Kalmykia Buddhist Association for a visa to the Dalai Lama. He said a letter from the Russian government stated: "the Dalai Lama's visit to Russia would be taken by Beijing especially sensitively in the current year marking a jubilee of China's and our common victory in WWII."
In these circumstances, the declaration of Lavrov is rather surprising
It is true that in the recent years academic interest has grown a great deal in the Buddhist republics.
Dr. Garri Irina from the Institute for Mongolian, Buddhist and Tibetan Studies in the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Ulan-Ude (Buryata) wrote: “Tibet and Buryatia are countries very closely related to each other. First of all, both regions share a common historical destiny of Tibet-Mongolian civilization which is rooted in Tibetan Buddhism and submission to the authority of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. …Both regions passed through a similar history of persecution of religion and its subsequent revival. …There are more than 200 Buddhist communities in Russia now.”
A revival of Buddhism (the Tibetan Mahayana tradition) is visible in these republics located north of Outer Mongolia (Tuva and Buryata) and on the Caspian Sea (Kalmykia).


Recently historians have discovered several documents showing the close connection between the rulers of Tibet and the Russian Empire. For example, 25 secret letters from Thubten Gyatso, the Thirteenth Dalai Lama to his representative to Russia, a Buryat monk called Agvan Dorzhiev have come to light. The letters, dating between 1910 to 1925, demonstrate that the Dalai Lama was interested in getting political support from Soviet Russia, mainly to balance the British influence in Tibet and keep the Chinese Nationalists at bay. The Lhasa government maintained a strict confidentiality in its communications with St Petersburg and till recently, it was not known.
This is not enough to explain the sudden offer from Moscow to ‘assist’ Beijing and Dharamsala to find a common ground. It is however true that Moscow has always kept an eye on what was happening in the hill station of Himachal. In 1973, a declassified cable from the US ambassador Patrick Moynihan to the State Department in Washington quotes Gyalo Thondup, the Dalai Lama elder brother: “Thondup also mentioned that the Soviets had been in touch with Tibetan refugees in Nepal and in India. They had explored the possibility of refugee cooperation in intelligency [sic] operation and in other activities in Tibet. Thondup said he had discouraged Tibetans from cooperating with the Soviets, but some Tibetans were quite interested in this. He indicated that these contacts had started three or four years ago with then Foreign Minister [Secretary] T.N. Kaul's encouragement, they were more active two years ago than they were now.”
More importantly, President Hu Jintao visited Moscow on May 8 and May 9; hardly a week before Lavrov’s declaration. The occasion was the 65th anniversary of Russia’s Great Patriotic War and the victory over the Nazis. During his stay, Hu lauded the sacrifices made by the Russian people during the fight against ‘fascism’.
Hu’s participation was interpreted “as a signal of Hu’s determination to forge a close strategic alliance” says Russel Hsiao in the China Brief of the Jamestown Foundation.
Hu called upon Russia and China to consolidate their strategic partnership, and promote ‘multipolarity’ in the international system as well as ‘democratization of international relations’.
President Hu met his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev (they had already met on April 15 during the BRIC conference). Hu affirmed that “Beijing and Moscow share extensive interests on many major issues.”
Moreover, Hu spoke China’s ‘new security concept’. For Beijing, this means “to rise above one-sided security and seek common security through mutually beneficial cooperation … and refrain from interfering in other countries' internal affairs and promote the democratization of the international relations”.
This last concept points to the ‘unilateral’ role played by the US on the world stage today as well as the greater importance Beijing wants international ‘democratic’ institutions, such as the UN to have in the future.
This does not elucidate why the Russian Foreign Minister offered to mediate between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese government, except, of course, if Beijing was in the know and the announcement was made in consultation with Beijing. Recently, Ma Zhaoxu, the spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry urged the United States to stop ‘supporting anti-Chinese separatist forces’. Beijing is unhappy about the constant reprimand coming from the US about human rights and Tibet. To ask Moscow to be the intermediary is a way to pull the carpet from under Washington’s feet and show the world that the Americans are not the only ones who care for Tibet. It is consistent with Beijing’s policy: in July 1981 CCP General Secretary Hu Yaobang told Gyalo Thondup that the Dalai Lama could return to China, but he would have to stay in mainland China and not get involved in any political activities.
The Dalai Lama’s answer was that his only interest was the fate of 6 million Tibetans, not his personal welfare.
Dharamsala has not reacted so far, but it is worth watching the situation unfolding.

Was Beijing informed of the Russian move

As I mentioned in a recent posting, an article in RIA Novosti "Russia ready to help reconcile China, Dalai Lama" quotes Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov as saying: "Russia is ready to help settle the conflict between China and the Tibetan spiritual leader Dalai Lama". This raises a lot of questions. 
The move is particularly surprising after Hu's visit to Moscow and the 'new security concept' ("in essence, to rise above one-sided security and seek common security through mutually beneficial cooperation … and refrain from interfering in other countries' internal affairs').
Was Beijing informed about Lavrov's declaration?
Is Beijing trying to send a message to the Dalai Lama through a 'friend'; the message being "drop politics, concentrate on religion and we can find a solution"?
Possible! 
 

Hu Calls on Russia to Shape New International Political Order
China Brief Volume: 10 Issue: 10
May 13, 2010
Russell Hsiao
At the invitation of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Chinese President Hu Jintao visited Moscow from May 8 to May 9. The occasion marked the 65th anniversary of Russia’s Great Patriotic War, which celebrates the Soviet Union's victory over the Nazis in World War II. Hu lauded the sacrifices made by the Russian people during the fight against "fascism," and used the occasion to highlight the history of cooperation between China and Russia. The Chinese head of state’s participation at the symbolic parade can be interpreted as a signal of Hu’s determination to forge a close strategic alliance with Russia against the backdrop of the World War II anniversary event. Indeed, according to Russian state-owned RIA Novosti, Hu called upon Russia and China to consolidate their strategic partnership, and promote "multipolarity" (duojihua) in the international system and the "democratization of international relations" (guojiguanxi minzhuhua) (World Journal [Chinese], May 10). To be sure, China's vision of a "democratic international order" would place legitimate authority with the United Nations, where China and Russia—as veto-wielding permanent members of the UN Security Council—possess great influence.
Hu’s packed itinerary included meeting with President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, attending Russia’s 65th anniversary Victory Day Parade on the Red Square, and meeting with Russian veterans that fought in China’s northeast against the Japanese Imperial Army. Other prominent Chinese officials that accompanied Hu’s visit included Secretary of the Central Secretariat of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and Director of the General Office of the CCP's Central Committee Ling Jihua, Secretary of the Central Secretariat of the CCP and Director of the CCP's Policy Research Office Wang Huning, and Chinese State Councilor Dai Bingguo, among others (China Daily, May 8). Hu's visit represents a continuation in the flurry of high-level contacts between the two sides and marks the second time that the heads of state met within the span of one month. Medvedev and Hu met on the side of the financial conference held in Brasilia on April 15 for the 2010 BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) conference.
During Hu’s meeting with Russian veterans that fought with the Chinese against Japan, President of the Russian Academy of Military Sciences and General of the Russian Army Makhmut Gareyev noted that, "the Soviet and the Chinese people assumed the heavy responsibility of fighting the aggressors during the world anti-fascist war, paid a huge sacrifice and made an outstanding contribution to the final victory" (PRC Embassy [Denmark], May 9). Hu reciprocated Gareyev's statement by emphasizing that, "we [China and Russia] should advocate a correct view of history and the new security concept of mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality and coordination under the current fluctuating and complex international situation, cooperate closely in international affairs and jointly maintain regional and world peace" (PRC Embassy [Denmark], May 9).
In his meeting with Putin, Hu told the Russian prime minister that "China-Russia relations are now enjoying a sound momentum of development and the two countries have made much headway in their cooperation in all fields" (PRC Foreign Ministry, May 9). Hu stressed that as strategic partners, Beijing and Moscow share extensive interests on many major issues. Under the current historic circumstances, he added, the two countries should work together, support each other and deepen their all-round strategic cooperation to better safeguard their common interests and world peace and promote common development (PRC Foreign Ministry, May 9). Putin praised Hu's presence at the ceremonies as demonstrating the high-level strategic cooperative partnership between the two nations (PRC Foreign Ministry, May 9).
Using the diplomatic stage offered by Medvedev's invitation, Hu advanced China’s "new security concept" (xin anquan guan) as the harbinger for future cooperation between Beijing and Moscow. According to the Chinese Foreign Ministry, China's "new security concept," is, "in essence, to rise above one-sided security and seek common security through mutually beneficial cooperation … and refrain from interfering in other countries' internal affairs and promote the democratization of the international relations" (PRC Foreign Ministry, "China's Position Paper on the New Security Concept," August, 6, 2002). While this is not the first time that the Chinese leadership articulated this concept, the largely symbolic yet historically significant stage commemorating the end of World War II lays bare the observation that in spite of some signs of competition with Russia, Beijing still sees Moscow as a strategic partner in its effort to shape a new international political order (China Times [Taiwan], May 10).

Will Russia help the Dalai Lama?

If this is true, it is a really interesting news. 
Does it mean that the Russian leadership is interested by the vote bank of the Buddhist Republics of the Russian Federation (Buryatia, Tuva and Kalmykia)?
Or is it the beginning of a new Great Game? 
Moscow could use these Buddhist populations to advance a pawn towards China.
The situation should be followed closely. Beijing  is bound to react.
The Russians are chess Grand-Masters. Indians also are, but only on the chessboard, not in geopolitics.


Russia ready to help reconcile China, Dalai Lama
MOSCOW, May 13 (RIA Novosti)
13/05/2010
Russia is ready to help settle the conflict between China and the Tibetan spiritual leader Dalai Lama, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Thursday.
Lavrov said that Moscow supports the development of interreligious and interconfessional ties, but is against aspects of religion that have been distorted into politics.
"We are following carefully what is happening between the leadership of China and the Dalai Lama and we know that the Chinese leadership is deeply committed to the Dalai Lama dissociating himself from any kind of political activity and separatist tendencies in regard to one or another territory in China," Lavrov said during a speech at the Federation Council, Russia's upper house of parliament.
The Dalai Lama, who fled Tibet in 1959, has repeatedly said he seeks autonomy for Tibet rather than independence from China.
Beijing accused the Nobel Peace Prize winner of orchestrating the March 2008 unrest in Tibet, which left 19 people dead and 623 injured, according to official Chinese reports. The Dalai Lama has denied the allegations.
Lavrov said that occasional attempts to politicize the Dalai Lama's role as a spiritual leader do not bring any desired results, including the development of ties between the Dalai Lama and Buddhists in Russia.
"If all the parties make attempts to separate clearly pastoral contacts from political associations, this would be a solution to the problem. We are ready to assist in this," Lavrov said.
There are some 700,000 followers of Buddhism in the Russian Federation, or about 0.5% of the total population.
China is repeatedly infuriated when world leaders meet with the Dalai Lama as China accuses him of heading a separatist group seeking independence for Tibet. China has always claimed Tibet as its territory and says it has autonomy.
In February, U.S. President Barack Obama received the Dalai Lama at the White House, which led to a souring of relations between Washington and Beijing.
Ma Zhaoxu, a spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, urged the United States to seriously take into account China's stance and stop "supporting anti-Chinese separatist forces."
Last October, the Dalai Lama received an award from the U.S. Congress in honor of his human rights work.

The Soviet Experience

The Nobel Peace Prize Laureate has decided to send 30,000 extra troops to Afghanistan. He also asked France to provide some 1,500 more soldiers.  President Sarkozy is not convinced.

Have Obama's advisers read about the Soviet experience in Afghanistan? One can doubt. 
The recently declassified documents published by the National Security Archives in the US are extremely educative. Perhaps the most interesting part is not that foreign troops have no chance to win a war in Afghanistan (a known fact), but that the 'Afghan adventure' precipitated the fall of the Soviet Empire. 
Will a similar fate await today's lone superpower? Obama could well be a new Gorbachev. 
His recent attitude in China tends to prove that he may not be able to keep the United States at the top of the world.



THE SOVIET EXPERIENCE IN AFGHANISTAN: RUSSIAN DOCUMENTS AND MEMOIRS
Edited by Svetlana Savranskaya
October 9, 2001
Recently declassified documents from archives in the former Soviet Union and memoirs of senior Soviet military and political leaders present the complex and tragic story of the ten years of the Soviet military involvement in Afghanistan.  Most observers agree that the last war of the Soviet Union created or aggravated the internal dynamics that eventually culminated in the dissolution of the country itself.  The documents presented here shed light on the most important moments in the history of the Soviet war in Afghanistan—the Afghan government’s requests for assistance, the Soviet Union’s initial refusal of troops, the reversal of this policy by a small group of the Politburo and the Soviet decision to invade; the expansion of the initial mission to include combat operations against the Afghan resistance; early criticism of the Soviet policy and of the People’s Democratic party of Afghanistan (PDPA) regime; and the decision to withdraw the troops.  Taken together, these materials suggest some lessons that mright be drawn from the Soviet experience of fighting a war in Afghanistan.