asiapacificresearch--2020-11-18--India and ASEAN to Create a “Belt and Road Alternative”?

Chinese Belt and Road Initiative ( BRI or B & R ) , a global transport and economic project , is well known world-wide .
While some countries endorse it , many others consider it a form of Chinese expansion designed to subordinate the economies of other countries to China .
India , for one , shares this opinion towards B & R .
In order to minimize China ’ s influence on neighboring countries , including its long-standing economic and political partners , India is now forced to propose an alternative to B & R in the form of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trade agreements .
In addition to opposing B & R and China , this is also required to develop India ’ s economy .
India is known for its poor geographical location for trade with its neighboring countries , given the Himalayan Mountains stretching along the entire north side of the country .
On the one hand , they create a barrier between India and China , whose relationships can hardly be considered free of issues .
On the other hand , India ’ s trade relations are primarily represented by countries that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ USA being the main trade partner for 2019-2020 , for example ) .
Countries that border India overland , with the exception of the hostile Pakistan and PRC , are Nepal , Bhutan , Myanmar , Bangladesh and Afghanistan , all of which have relatively poor purchasing power .
The economy of the landlocked northern Indian states is particularly affected by this situation .
And generally , it is difficult to realize the full trade potential of such a huge country by means of sea transport alone .
In order to overcome the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overland trade routes to the east , Myanmar , for instance , so as to gain access to the countries of the Indochinese Peninsula through it , and afterwards to the entire Southeast Asia .
As a result , a strategy of foreign policy called Look East was formed , whose main goal is to expand economic and political cooperation between India and the nations of Southeast Asia .
Naturally , this cooperation was supposed to be based on developing trade routes .
It should be noted that this development , among other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between India and Singapore , which is ranked among the most economically developed countries not only in Southeast Asia , but also worldwide .
India officially launched the Look East policy in 1991 .
According to popular belief , the key purpose of the Look East policy was to develop a partnership with the USA : allegedly , America , already preoccupied with restraining the rapidly developing China at that time , sought to create its own axis of influence , running from US allied India to Southeast Asia , where at that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already among the US partners .
Indeed , from the perspective of Indian-American interaction , Look East has proved to be greatly beneficial , but it is hard to say whether this immediate benefit was more important for India than the fact of developing cooperation , including trade , with countries sharing land borders with it .
In the end , an alliance that includes India and countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations ( ASEAN ) , in terms of both population and economic strength , is quite capable of competing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It is also quite clear that India will play the key role in this association , and this fits perfectly in line with its economic , political , geopolitical and other objectives .
As for the ASEAN countries , it is also very profitable for them to have such a strong ally as India in the face of the ever increasing power of China .
Additionally , just like India , they needed to develop their economic relations and trade routes , and India was a very important area for them in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were interested in cooperation , and from 1993 to 2003 the trade turnover between India and ASEAN increased from $ 2.9 billion to $ 12.1 billion .
The most economically developed countries of this region — Malaysia , Singapore and Thailand — became India ’ s main trading partners in Southeast Asia .
In August 2009 , despite opposition from some experts who believed that the trade balance would not benefit India , an agreement on a Free Trade Area between India and ASEAN countries was signed and became effective in early 2010 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mutual trade turnover between India and ASEAN reached $ 81.3 billion , primarily composed of Indian imports from ASEAN .
However , a mutually beneficial trade between distant regions , apart from wise agreements , also requires basic physical support , such as convenient and reliable transportation routes .
An important part of the Look East policy was creating a modern and extensive highway connecting India with countries of Southeast Asia .
It started in 2001 with the project of India-Myanmar Friendship Road .
The starting point of the route was chosen to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ border between India and Myanmar .
Over time , the project evolved and the newly constructed road extended to the Thai city of Masot on the Thai-Myanman border .
The road between Moreh and Masot has become the Myanmar part of the highway , which connected Impal , the capital of the northern Indian state of Manipur , Neipyido , the capital of Myanmar , and Bangkok , the capital of Thailand .
At present time the road is almost finished , with some sections already being reconstructed .
Now the project is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ However , following the Look East policy , the Indian side proposed to extend and branch the highway to Cambodia , Laos and Vietnam by connecting it to the East–West Economic Corridor running from Thailand through Cambodia to Vietnam .
Nowadays , the project is often talked about in the plural form : India-Myanmar-Thailand Trilateral Highways , as the road is constantly branching off .
The construction was and continues to be carried out under considerable difficulties : among other things , the Indian party had to take upon itself the reconstruction of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ invested tens of billions of dollars in this project .
Nevertheless , New Delhi , Neypyido , Bangkok and other regional capitals expect a great return in the near future .
It is hard to say whether the ongoing road network project will be able to compete with a vast variety of similar planned objects within the B & R Initiative , but according to the project participants , implementing it will give a significant boost to trade and other forms of economic cooperation both within the ASEAN-Indian Free Trade Zone and throughout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ please click the share buttons above or below .
Forward this article to your email lists .
Crosspost on your blog site , internet forums .
etc .
Dmitry Bokarev is a political observer , exclusively for the online magazine “ New Eastern Outlook ” .

Chinese Belt and Road Initiative (BRI or B&R), a global transport and economic project, is well known world-wide. While some countries endorse it, many others consider it a form of Chinese expansion designed to subordinate the economies of other countries to China. India, for one, shares this opinion towards B&R. In order to minimize China’s influence on neighboring countries, including its long-standing economic and political partners, India is now forced to propose an alternative to B&R in the form of its own international transport routes and beneficial trade agreements. In addition to opposing B&R and China, this is also required to develop India’s economy.
India is known for its poor geographical location for trade with its neighboring countries, given the Himalayan Mountains stretching along the entire north side of the country. On the one hand, they create a barrier between India and China, whose relationships can hardly be considered free of issues. On the other hand, India’s trade relations are primarily represented by countries that can be reached over the sea (USA being the main trade partner for 2019-2020, for example). Countries that border India overland, with the exception of the hostile Pakistan and PRC, are Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, all of which have relatively poor purchasing power. The economy of the landlocked northern Indian states is particularly affected by this situation. And generally, it is difficult to realize the full trade potential of such a huge country by means of sea transport alone.
In order to overcome the geographical limitations, India decided to establish overland trade routes to the east, Myanmar, for instance, so as to gain access to the countries of the Indochinese Peninsula through it, and afterwards to the entire Southeast Asia. As a result, a strategy of foreign policy called Look East was formed, whose main goal is to expand economic and political cooperation between India and the nations of Southeast Asia. Naturally, this cooperation was supposed to be based on developing trade routes. It should be noted that this development, among other things, was aimed at strengthening communication between India and Singapore, which is ranked among the most economically developed countries not only in Southeast Asia, but also worldwide. India officially launched the Look East policy in 1991.
According to popular belief, the key purpose of the Look East policy was to develop a partnership with the USA: allegedly, America, already preoccupied with restraining the rapidly developing China at that time, sought to create its own axis of influence, running from US allied India to Southeast Asia, where at that time at least Thailand and Philippines were already among the US partners. Indeed, from the perspective of Indian-American interaction, Look East has proved to be greatly beneficial, but it is hard to say whether this immediate benefit was more important for India than the fact of developing cooperation, including trade, with countries sharing land borders with it. In the end, an alliance that includes India and countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), in terms of both population and economic strength, is quite capable of competing with both China and the United States. It is also quite clear that India will play the key role in this association, and this fits perfectly in line with its economic, political, geopolitical and other objectives. As for the ASEAN countries, it is also very profitable for them to have such a strong ally as India in the face of the ever increasing power of China. Additionally, just like India, they needed to develop their economic relations and trade routes, and India was a very important area for them in this regard.
Generally, both sides were interested in cooperation, and from 1993 to 2003 the trade turnover between India and ASEAN increased from $2.9 billion to $12.1 billion. The most economically developed countries of this region — Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand — became India’s main trading partners in Southeast Asia.
In August 2009, despite opposition from some experts who believed that the trade balance would not benefit India, an agreement on a Free Trade Area between India and ASEAN countries was signed and became effective in early 2010.
In 2018, the volume of mutual trade turnover between India and ASEAN reached $81.3 billion, primarily composed of Indian imports from ASEAN.
However, a mutually beneficial trade between distant regions, apart from wise agreements, also requires basic physical support, such as convenient and reliable transportation routes. An important part of the Look East policy was creating a modern and extensive highway connecting India with countries of Southeast Asia.
It started in 2001 with the project of India-Myanmar Friendship Road. The starting point of the route was chosen to be the city of Moreh on the border between India and Myanmar. Over time, the project evolved and the newly constructed road extended to the Thai city of Masot on the Thai-Myanman border. The road between Moreh and Masot has become the Myanmar part of the highway, which connected Impal, the capital of the northern Indian state of Manipur, Neipyido, the capital of Myanmar, and Bangkok, the capital of Thailand. At present time the road is almost finished, with some sections already being reconstructed. Now the project is known as the India-Myanmar-Thailand Trilateral Highway. However, following the Look East policy, the Indian side proposed to extend and branch the highway to Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam by connecting it to the East–West Economic Corridor running from Thailand through Cambodia to Vietnam.
Nowadays, the project is often talked about in the plural form: India-Myanmar-Thailand Trilateral Highways, as the road is constantly branching off.
The construction was and continues to be carried out under considerable difficulties: among other things, the Indian party had to take upon itself the reconstruction of 69 Myanmar bridges. India has already invested tens of billions of dollars in this project. Nevertheless, New Delhi, Neypyido, Bangkok and other regional capitals expect a great return in the near future. It is hard to say whether the ongoing road network project will be able to compete with a vast variety of similar planned objects within the B&R Initiative, but according to the project participants, implementing it will give a significant boost to trade and other forms of economic cooperation both within the ASEAN-Indian Free Trade Zone and throughout Southeast Asia.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dmitry Bokarev is a political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
Featured image is from InfoBrics


asiapacificresearch--2020-11-19--Korybko to Indian Media: India Is Doing America’s Bidding Against China

First published on APR in June 2020 .
Andrew Korybko gave an interview to Indian journalist Parth Satam last weekend about India ’ s relations with China , the US , and Russia , just days before Monday night ’ s deadly clash between Indian and Chinese troops .
Two excerpts were ultimately included in the article that Mr. Satam was writing about this topic .
Given its importance in light of the latest clash , OneWorld is publishing the interview in its entirety with Mr. Satam ’ s permission .
Parth Satam : Can the present India-China border standoff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the changing geopolitical scenario driven by the US pullout in Afghanistan , the abrogation of Article 370 ( special status for Kashmir ) by the Modi government , and the growing Indian proximity to the US where India is toeing the American line on Chinese issues ( e.g .
joining the anti-China chorus on the COVID pandemic ) ?
Andrew Korybko : Absolutely , that ’ s the most accurate way to assess the current situation .
The preexisting differences between China and India on a host of issues were exacerbated by India @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Beijing condemned New Delhi for violating UNSC Resolutions on the disputed region , then some Indian officials reaffirmed their claims to Aksai Chin , which provoked a defensive reaction from China .
This escalating issue was then exploited by the US , which has a shared interest with India in “ containing ” China , as they both perceive it .
That ’ s why American officials have started comparing the latest incident to the situation in the South China Sea in an attempt to draw a parallel of so-called “ Chinese aggression @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comprehensive global strategic partnership ” with India ( per what they both agreed to call it during Trump ’ s visit in February ) .
It was therefore predictable that there would eventually be a flare-up since the situation is so tense , and India is being encouraged by the US to assert its claims .
It naturally follows that India is also toeing the American line on other anti-Chinese issues as well , especially those related to the COVID-19 pandemic and “ poaching ” foreign companies from the People ’ s Republic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a way that supports the US ’ grand strategic goals .
PS : Strategists from both side of the political divide in India ( albeit suspicious towards China ) broadly agree that China does not intend to go to war with India despite its technological , military , and industrial superiority due to larger geopolitical priorities and is undertaking this current intrusion into Indian territories to signal to not threaten its interests in PoK and other anti-Chinese Indian moves ( joining the QUAD , support to the Dalai Lama ) etc .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ assessment ?
AK : I personally disagree with the characterization of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan as “ PoK ” , as well as describing the latest border incident as a Chinese “ intrusion ” , but I do agree with the spirit of the view that China does not intend to go to war with India .
However , that doesn ’ t necessarily mean that India doesn ’ t intend to go to war with China , even if only a brief border one similar in essence to what transpired between India @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that be the case , then I also predict that there would be a similar outcome , namely that India will not achieve its military objectives , though it might very well succeed with certain strategic ones .
For instance , India — whether rightly or wrongly , and irrespective of whether one supports its view or not — feels uncomfortable about China ’ s de-facto leadership of both BRICS and the SCO .
New Delhi ’ s efforts to court Moscow as part of a grand “ balancing ” act have only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the point of making Russia as openly suspicious of China as India is .
If there ’ s a Chinese-Indian border war , however , then India would send several powerful signals to the whole world even if it militarily loses the likely brief conflict .
First , India would position itself as the country most directly “ countering/containing ” China , which would appeal to its new American ally and the latter ’ s network of like-minded allies as well .
Secondly , India would compel Russia to either choose a side @ @ @ @ @ @ @ balance ” between it and China .
By default , any further tilt towards India along the lines of Russia ’ s present trend ( e.g .
selling more advanced offensive weapons systems ) would be interpreted very negatively by China , potentially weakening their strategic partnership to New Delhi and Washington ’ s indirect advantage .
And thirdly , BRICS and the SCO would never be the same again , which also serves American interests .
I don ’ t endorse that scenario because I personally hope that it doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ understand what goals India is aiming for in the event that it happens .
India also desperately needs another external enemy other than Pakistan to rally its domestic audience and distract them from the current economic difficulties and sharp partisan divides that have recently developed in the country .
By presenting itself as the “ American bulldog ” against China , India hopes that it would receive preferential investment and other forms of support from the US and its allies , also enabling it to reach a more equitable trade deal with America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Russian position on the Indian proximity to the US ?
Is the Russian Federation frustrated with India merely maintaining a transactional relationship in terms of weapons purchases or does it wish to take the partnership in newer dimensions ( i.e .
wanting it to be a part of the Eurasian Economic Union project ) ?
AK : I ’ m not an official representative of the Russian government so I can ’ t speak about their formal position , but from what I ’ ve observed , they ’ ve expressed both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the so-called “ Indo-Pacific ” as “ an artificially imposed concept ” created by the US during a press conference in February 2019 , and he repeated his skepticism about it during the Raisina Dialogue in New Delhi back in January .
At that second-mentioned time , however , he expressed hope that Russia ’ s “ Indian friends are smart enough to understand ” that the US is simply trying to use this scheme to “ contain ” China .
Nevertheless , Russia has regularly reiterated its commitment to diversifying relations with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ largely dependent on military-technical cooperation .
This is evidenced by the joint statement that was released during Prime Minister Modi ’ s attendance at the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok as President Putin ’ s guest of honor , where both leaders reaffirmed their strategic relations and promised to take them further than ever before .
Two projects that are presently in the works are the Vladivostok-Chennai Maritime Corridor ( VCMC ) and selling BrahMos missiles to ASEAN states .
Russia ’ s position on India ’ s growing proximity to the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ India ’ s position towards Russia ’ s growing proximity to China .
Both Great Powers respect the other ’ s sovereign right to reach whichever partnerships they ’ d like , though they ’ d prefer that neither of them occur at the other ’ s expense ( whether real , perceived , or speculatively latent ) .
One solution for stabilizing their relations into the future would be to jointly lead a new Non-Alignment Movement ( Neo-NAM ) , which I elaborated on in an article that I co-authored earlier this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Moscow State Institute of International Relations ( MGIMO ) , which is run by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs .
Titled “ The Prospects of Russia and India Jointly Leading a New Non-Aligned Movement ” , it can be read in full for free here .
The proposal is already being actively discussed in one of Russia ’ s top think tanks , the Valdai Club , and certainly deserves further study given the important “ balancing ” role that it can play in the future international system .
In a gist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them to pool their collective resources ( especially diplomatic and economic ) towards creating a third pole of influence in the increasingly bipolar world led by the American and Chinese superpowers .
Not only could that help maintain trust between Russia and India , but it could also prevent one or the other from becoming their counterpart ’ s “ junior partner ” , something that they each fear for understandable reasons .
That said , I ’ ve since expanded on my academic proposal to incorporate my prior work on the importance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at length in my analytical piece about how “ Improved Russian-Pakistani Relations Will Help Moscow Balance The New Bipolarity “ .
I assert that this could perfect Russia ’ s “ balancing ” act by upholding its trust with China despite any progress that might be made on the Neo-NAM simultaneously with making India think twice about the consequences of more fully pivoting towards the US .
In sum , the solution to the dilemma posed by Russia ’ s increasingly close relations with China as perceived by India and India ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perceived by Russia is for them both to come together to jointly lead a Neo-NAM , though Moscow ’ s chances of successfully maintaining this complex “ balancing ” act between China and India would be greatly strengthened by the continued improvement of its relations with Pakistan for the aforementioned reasons .
This scenario presents what I sincerely believe to be the best outcome for all five players — Russia , India , China , the US , and Pakistan — and would therefore greatly contribute to establishing a relative sense of order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arena .
Note to readers : please click the share buttons above or below .
Forward this article to your email lists .
Crosspost on your blog site , internet forums .
etc .
This article was crossposted from OneWorld .
Mr. Satam ’ s article that included the two earlier mentioned excerpts from this interview was published at the Mission Victory India autonomous defence think tank under the title “ What is China ’ s Intent ?
The Answer is in the Regional Diplomatic Scenario & the New Cold War with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ followed on Facebook and Twitter .
Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia , China ’ s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity , and Hybrid Warfare .
He is a frequent contributor to Global Research .

First published on APR in June 2020.
Andrew Korybko gave an interview to Indian journalist Parth Satam (June 2020) about India’s relations with China, the US, and Russia, just days before Monday night’s deadly clash between Indian and Chinese troops. Two excerpts were ultimately included in the article that Mr. Satam was writing about this topic. Given its importance in light of the latest clash, OneWorld is publishing the interview in its entirety with Mr. Satam’s permission.
***
Parth Satam: Can the present India-China border standoff be viewed as a larger part of the changing geopolitical scenario driven by the US pullout in Afghanistan, the abrogation of Article 370 (special status for Kashmir) by the Modi government, and the growing Indian proximity to the US where India is toeing the American line on Chinese issues (e.g. joining the anti-China chorus on the COVID pandemic)?
Andrew Korybko: Absolutely, that’s the most accurate way to assess the current situation. The preexisting differences between China and India on a host of issues were exacerbated by India’s abrogation of Article 370. Beijing condemned New Delhi for violating UNSC Resolutions on the disputed region, then some Indian officials reaffirmed their claims to Aksai Chin, which provoked a defensive reaction from China. This escalating issue was then exploited by the US, which has a shared interest with India in “containing” China, as they both perceive it. That’s why American officials have started comparing the latest incident to the situation in the South China Sea in an attempt to draw a parallel of so-called “Chinese aggression” and therefore justify their ever-intensifying “comprehensive global strategic partnership” with India (per what they both agreed to call it during Trump’s visit in February). It was therefore predictable that there would eventually be a flare-up since the situation is so tense, and India is being encouraged by the US to assert its claims. It naturally follows that India is also toeing the American line on other anti-Chinese issues as well, especially those related to the COVID-19 pandemic and “poaching” foreign companies from the People’s Republic so as to re-engineer global supply chains in a way that supports the US’ grand strategic goals.
PS: Strategists from both side of the political divide in India (albeit suspicious towards China) broadly agree that China does not intend to go to war with India despite its technological, military, and industrial superiority due to larger geopolitical priorities and is undertaking this current intrusion into Indian territories to signal to not threaten its interests in PoK and other anti-Chinese Indian moves (joining the QUAD, support to the Dalai Lama) etc. What’s your response to this assessment?
AK: I personally disagree with the characterization of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan as “PoK”, as well as describing the latest border incident as a Chinese “intrusion”, but I do agree with the spirit of the view that China does not intend to go to war with India. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that India doesn’t intend to go to war with China, even if only a brief border one similar in essence to what transpired between India and Pakistan in February 2019. Should that be the case, then I also predict that there would be a similar outcome, namely that India will not achieve its military objectives, though it might very well succeed with certain strategic ones.
For instance, India — whether rightly or wrongly, and irrespective of whether one supports its view or not — feels uncomfortable about China’s de-facto leadership of both BRICS and the SCO. New Delhi’s efforts to court Moscow as part of a grand “balancing” act have only been mildly successful but not enough to the point of making Russia as openly suspicious of China as India is. If there’s a Chinese-Indian border war, however, then India would send several powerful signals to the whole world even if it militarily loses the likely brief conflict.
First, India would position itself as the country most directly “countering/containing” China, which would appeal to its new American ally and the latter’s network of like-minded allies as well. Secondly, India would compel Russia to either choose a side (unlikely) or more vigorously “balance” between it and China. By default, any further tilt towards India along the lines of Russia’s present trend (e.g. selling more advanced offensive weapons systems) would be interpreted very negatively by China, potentially weakening their strategic partnership to New Delhi and Washington’s indirect advantage. And thirdly, BRICS and the SCO would never be the same again, which also serves American interests.
I don’t endorse that scenario because I personally hope that it doesn’t transpire, but I’d certainly understand what goals India is aiming for in the event that it happens. India also desperately needs another external enemy other than Pakistan to rally its domestic audience and distract them from the current economic difficulties and sharp partisan divides that have recently developed in the country. By presenting itself as the “American bulldog” against China, India hopes that it would receive preferential investment and other forms of support from the US and its allies, also enabling it to reach a more equitable trade deal with America later on.
PS: What is the Russian position on the Indian proximity to the US? Is the Russian Federation frustrated with India merely maintaining a transactional relationship in terms of weapons purchases or does it wish to take the partnership in newer dimensions (i.e. wanting it to be a part of the Eurasian Economic Union project)?
AK: I’m not an official representative of the Russian government so I can’t speak about their formal position, but from what I’ve observed, they’ve expressed both sentiments in recent years. Lavrov described the so-called “Indo-Pacific” as “an artificially imposed concept” created by the US during a press conference in February 2019, and he repeated his skepticism about it during the Raisina Dialogue in New Delhi back in January. At that second-mentioned time, however, he expressed hope that Russia’s “Indian friends are smart enough to understand” that the US is simply trying to use this scheme to “contain” China.
Nevertheless, Russia has regularly reiterated its commitment to diversifying relations with India beyond their present mostly transactional nature largely dependent on military-technical cooperation. This is evidenced by the joint statement that was released during Prime Minister Modi’s attendance at the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok as President Putin’s guest of honor, where both leaders reaffirmed their strategic relations and promised to take them further than ever before. Two projects that are presently in the works are the Vladivostok-Chennai Maritime Corridor (VCMC) and selling BrahMos missiles to ASEAN states.
Russia’s position on India’s growing proximity to the US appears to be a mirror image of India’s position towards Russia’s growing proximity to China. Both Great Powers respect the other’s sovereign right to reach whichever partnerships they’d like, though they’d prefer that neither of them occur at the other’s expense (whether real, perceived, or speculatively latent). One solution for stabilizing their relations into the future would be to jointly lead a new Non-Alignment Movement (Neo-NAM), which I elaborated on in an article that I co-authored earlier this month for the official journal of the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO), which is run by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Titled “The Prospects of Russia and India Jointly Leading a New Non-Aligned Movement”, it can be read in full for free here. The proposal is already being actively discussed in one of Russia’s top think tanks, the Valdai Club, and certainly deserves further study given the important “balancing” role that it can play in the future international system. In a gist, the idea calls for both of them to pool their collective resources (especially diplomatic and economic) towards creating a third pole of influence in the increasingly bipolar world led by the American and Chinese superpowers.
Not only could that help maintain trust between Russia and India, but it could also prevent one or the other from becoming their counterpart’s “junior partner”, something that they each fear for understandable reasons. That said, I’ve since expanded on my academic proposal to incorporate my prior work on the importance of Russian-Pakistani relations, which I explain at length in my analytical piece about how “Improved Russian-Pakistani Relations Will Help Moscow Balance The New Bipolarity“. I assert that this could perfect Russia’s “balancing” act by upholding its trust with China despite any progress that might be made on the Neo-NAM simultaneously with making India think twice about the consequences of more fully pivoting towards the US.
In sum, the solution to the dilemma posed by Russia’s increasingly close relations with China as perceived by India and India’s increasingly close relations with the US as perceived by Russia is for them both to come together to jointly lead a Neo-NAM, though Moscow’s chances of successfully maintaining this complex “balancing” act between China and India would be greatly strengthened by the continued improvement of its relations with Pakistan for the aforementioned reasons. This scenario presents what I sincerely believe to be the best outcome for all five players — Russia, India, China, the US, and Pakistan — and would therefore greatly contribute to establishing a relative sense of order in today’s extremely anarchic international arena.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was crossposted from OneWorld.
Mr. Satam’s article that included the two earlier mentioned excerpts from this interview was published at the Mission Victory India autonomous defence think tank under the title “What is China’s Intent? The Answer is in the Regional Diplomatic Scenario & the New Cold War with the US“. Mr. Satam can be followed on Facebook and Twitter.
Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Featured image is from OneWorld


asiapacificresearch--2020-11-20--A Plan for a High-income Chinese Economy

In the West the population is at present sheltering to protect itself from Covid , entering the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression , and facing the threat of unemployment and reduced living standards .
On the other side of the world in China , something going in exactly the opposite direction is occurring .
China unveiled its new Five-Year Plan .
This will take a country which in 1949 was almost the poorest in the world , and its almost 1.4 billion population , into the ranks of high-income economies by international classification – with all the steps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , health , education and social conditions this brings with it .
There has never been such a large scale economic and social ‘ miracle ’ in the entire history of humanity – the population of China is larger than the combined population of all other high-income economies in the world .
This transformation therefore poses the most profound possible questions for socialists , socialist theory , and the international left .
If , as some on the left claim , China is a capitalist country then the only conclusion that can be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remains a progressive system .
If capitalism can raise almost one fifth of humanity from nearly the world ’ s most grinding poverty to high income status in 70 years , that is within a single lifetime , it is nonsense to claim that capitalism has exhausted its possibilities .
If capitalism had delivered 850 million people from internationally defined poverty , as China has , then capitalism would have delivered gigantic progress for humanity .
Capitalism would have delivered an immense improvement , a qualitative step forward in life , for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Union and the US combined .
Furthermore this capitalist system would also have been demonstrated to be able to deliver similar results not only to China but to be a path that could be followed by other major countries – for example Vietnam , a country of almost 100 million people , is delivering economic growth and reduction of poverty at a rate , if at an earlier stage of development , essentially the same as China ’ s .
If capitalism can deliver such benefits it is utopian not to support capitalism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is an impossible mystery .
Why has such unparalleled economic development and improvement in living conditions not been delivered by the other countries following the capitalist system ?
In summary , the ‘ leftist ’ claim China is a capitalist country paradoxically , and doubtless against the subjective intentions of those on the left who put it forward , leads to the conclusion that capitalism can deliver historically unparalleled improvements in living standards !
There is in fact no such mystery because China , and Vietnam , are not capitalist but socialist countries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been made .
And this is why the left has a real model for economic development across the world – something it is vital for the left to understand , most immediately in developing countries .
Socialism is not a utopia , it is not a dream , it is not something which was achieved in 1917 in Russia and has never been achieved since .
It is something real , totally practical , and which delivers immediate benefits to truly gigantic numbers of people .
The following article by John Ross , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s new Five Year Plan analyses the historical facts which have to explained by any analysis of China , the nature of its new plan , and the step forward that this represents as the country enters the stage of development of a high income economy .
The press conference which followed the Plenary Session of the CPC ’ s Central Committee put forward guidelines not only for China ’ s next Five-Year Plan , for 2021-2025 , but also for more medium-term development of China up to 2035 .
The two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will inaugurate a qualitatively new period in China ’ s economic development which is of global significance .
This goes beyond the fact that China ’ s short-term economic prospects are better than for any other major country – the IMF estimates in 2020-2021 it will account for 60 % of global growth .
The new Five-Year Plan inaugurates a fundamental transition .
China in 2020 became a ‘ moderately prosperous ’ economy by its own national classification – also achieving its goal of the elimination of absolute poverty .
But most countries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comparisons – dividing economies into low , medium and high-income groups .
By this criterion in approximately 2022-23 , the middle of the next Five-Year Plan , China will enter the ranks of global ‘ high income economies.
’ Achieving this new level of development determines the Five-Year Plan ’ s nature .
Previously China planned for escaping underdevelopment , whereas this plan centres on the different tasks of building a high-income economy .
Furthermore , due to US actions , it will do so in a different international context and where serious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of climate change and of economic recovery from a pandemic which Western failure to control has created the deepest global economic downturn since the Great Depression .
To understand this Five-Year Plan ’ s place in China ’ s national development , the almost incredible character of what has been achieved must be understood .
In 1949 China was almost the world ’ s poorest country – only 10 counties had lower per capita GDPs .
Only 73 years later , the span of a single lifetime , China will count among the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Communist Party of China took power in 1949 in essence it put forward a promise to China ’ s people : ‘ if China adopts our methods the Chinese people will be taken from a century of humiliation , regain control of their own destiny and rejuvenate their country.
’ The achievement by China of high-income international status during the next Five-Year plan is a key symbol on the economic field that this promise was delivered – following similar achievements in national unification , elimination of foreign military forces , gigantic improvements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , culture and numerous other fields .
Internationally the scale of what is represented by the new Five-Year Plan is clearly understood by historical comparison .
Today , by World Bank classification , only 16 % of the world ’ s population lives in high income economies .
But China is 18 % of the world ’ s population .
China becoming a high-income economy will therefore more than double the proportion of the world ’ s population living in such states .
It is a fact that no such comparable single improvement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proportion of humanity has ever taken place in the whole of history .
This staggering achievement brings new challenges .
Some are internal – a high income economy is far more complex than a low or medium one .
But some are external .
The US has embarked on an attempt to block China ’ s development .
This path was launched by Trump with tariffs and technology bans .
But there is no indication that US policy will fundamentally change no matter who wins the US presidential election .
This is what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dual circulation ’ economy so crucial in the new plan .
Many US analysts consider Trump made tactical errors in his attack on China .
That the tariffs were a mistake as they were paid by the US population and attacked China on terrain where it was strong , and the US could not compete – good quality medium technology manufacturing .
Instead , it was argued , the US attack should be concentrated on its strong point – high technology .
The US should concentrate on weakening China ’ s most high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Trump and Biden are therefore urged to create a ‘ technology blockade ’ of China .
There are certainly doubts whether the US can achieve this goal – it is against the interests of other countries and its own high technology companies which previously had strong markets in China .
But it would be a naïve , unrealistic , strategy for China to base its policy on an assumption that US policy will collapse due to its own contradictions .
Therefore , to progress as a high-income economy , China will have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Every part of the production chain must be potential achievable in China – best described as ‘ domestic circulation ’ .
This is different to the 1978-2016 period in which China could rely to a great extent on importing technology .
China remains committed to globalisation , which would be the best path of development for the world , and uses every opportunity for internationalisation , but in the new situation its domestic economy will dominate .
Obviously , this requires great national effort – money has to be poured into R @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investments are required to embody and produce new technology .
Fortunately , China has the financial resources for this .
This issue overlaps with international problems which are not just due to US policy but also to common problems of humanity and particularly climate change .
Regarding this it is China ’ s prowess in the field of renewable energy manufacturing technology that makes possible the meeting , and potential exceeding , of the goals of the Paris Climate Change accords .
China had outlined its goal of ‘ ecological civilization ’ conceptually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Xi Jinping ’ s statement at the UN on 22 September that : ‘ We aim to have [ carbon dioxide ] emissions peak before 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality before 2060.
’ For example , Adam Tooze , one of the West ’ s most eminent economic analysts and historians , noted in the US Foreign Policy magazine : ‘ with those two short sentences China ’ s leader may have redefined the future prospects for humanity.
’ To achieve these goals , they will have to begin to be embodied in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be among the most eagerly noted of its targets .
Note to readers : please click the share buttons above or below .
Forward this article to your email lists .
Crosspost on your blog site , internet forums .
etc .

In the West the population is at present sheltering to protect itself from Covid, entering the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression, and facing the threat of unemployment and reduced living standards. On the other side of the world in China, something going in exactly the opposite direction is occurring. China unveiled its new Five-Year Plan. This will take a country which in 1949 was almost the poorest in the world, and its almost 1.4 billion population, into the ranks of high-income economies by international classification – with all the steps forward in life expectancy, living standards, health, education and social conditions this brings with it.
There has never been such a large scale economic and social ‘miracle’ in the entire history of humanity – the population of China is larger than the combined population of all other high-income economies in the world.
This transformation therefore poses the most profound possible questions for socialists, socialist theory, and the international left. If, as some on the left claim, China is a capitalist country then the only conclusion that can be drawn from these facts is that capitalism remains a progressive system. If capitalism can raise almost one fifth of humanity from nearly the world’s most grinding poverty to high income status in 70 years, that is within a single lifetime, it is nonsense to claim that capitalism has exhausted its possibilities. If capitalism had delivered 850 million people from internationally defined poverty, as China has, then capitalism would have delivered gigantic progress for humanity. Capitalism would have delivered an immense improvement, a qualitative step forward in life, for a higher proportion of humanity than the European Union and the US combined.
Furthermore this capitalist system would also have been demonstrated to be able to deliver similar results not only to China but to be a path that could be followed by other major countries – for example Vietnam, a country of almost 100 million people, is delivering economic growth and reduction of poverty at a rate, if at an earlier stage of development, essentially the same as China’s. If capitalism can deliver such benefits it is utopian not to support capitalism.
But in that case, there is an impossible mystery. Why has such unparalleled economic development and improvement in living conditions not been delivered by the other countries following the capitalist system?
In summary, the ‘leftist’ claim China is a capitalist country paradoxically, and doubtless against the subjective intentions of those on the left who put it forward, leads to the conclusion that capitalism can deliver historically unparalleled improvements in living standards!
There is in fact no such mystery because China, and Vietnam, are not capitalist but socialist countries. That is why such progress has been made. And this is why the left has a real model for economic development across the world – something it is vital for the left to understand, most immediately in developing countries. Socialism is not a utopia, it is not a dream, it is not something which was achieved in 1917 in Russia and has never been achieved since. It is something real, totally practical, and which delivers immediate benefits to truly gigantic numbers of people.
The following article by John Ross, which appeared in China.org.cn, on China’s new Five Year Plan analyses the historical facts which have to explained by any analysis of China, the nature of its new plan, and the step forward that this represents as the country enters the stage of development of a high income economy.
***
By John Ross
The press conference which followed the Plenary Session of the CPC’s Central Committee put forward guidelines not only for China’s next Five-Year Plan, for 2021-2025, but also for more medium-term development of China up to 2035. The two are interrelated because the next Five-Year Plan will inaugurate a qualitatively new period in China’s economic development which is of global significance. This goes beyond the fact that China’s short-term economic prospects are better than for any other major country – the IMF estimates in 2020-2021 it will account for 60% of global growth. The new Five-Year Plan inaugurates a fundamental transition.
China in 2020 became a ‘moderately prosperous’ economy by its own national classification – also achieving its goal of the elimination of absolute poverty. But most countries use World Bank classification in making international comparisons – dividing economies into low, medium and high-income groups. By this criterion in approximately 2022-23, the middle of the next Five-Year Plan, China will enter the ranks of global ‘high income economies.’
Achieving this new level of development determines the Five-Year Plan’s nature. Previously China planned for escaping underdevelopment, whereas this plan centres on the different tasks of building a high-income economy. Furthermore, due to US actions, it will do so in a different international context and where serious challenges face humanity – particularly the threat of climate change and of economic recovery from a pandemic which Western failure to control has created the deepest global economic downturn since the Great Depression.
To understand this Five-Year Plan’s place in China’s national development, the almost incredible character of what has been achieved must be understood. In 1949 China was almost the world’s poorest country – only 10 counties had lower per capita GDPs. Only 73 years later, the span of a single lifetime, China will count among the world’s high-income economies.
When the Communist Party of China took power in 1949 in essence it put forward a promise to China’s people: ‘if China adopts our methods the Chinese people will be taken from a century of humiliation, regain control of their own destiny and rejuvenate their country.’ The achievement by China of high-income international status during the next Five-Year plan is a key symbol on the economic field that this promise was delivered – following similar achievements in national unification, elimination of foreign military forces, gigantic improvements in health, life expectancy, education, culture and numerous other fields.
Internationally the scale of what is represented by the new Five-Year Plan is clearly understood by historical comparison. Today, by World Bank classification, only 16% of the world’s population lives in high income economies. But China is 18% of the world’s population. China becoming a high-income economy will therefore more than double the proportion of the world’s population living in such states. It is a fact that no such comparable single improvement in the position of such a large proportion of humanity has ever taken place in the whole of history.
This staggering achievement brings new challenges. Some are internal – a high income economy is far more complex than a low or medium one. But some are external. The US has embarked on an attempt to block China’s development. This path was launched by Trump with tariffs and technology bans. But there is no indication that US policy will fundamentally change no matter who wins the US presidential election.
This is what makes the much-discussed concept of a ‘dual circulation’ economy so crucial in the new plan. Many US analysts consider Trump made tactical errors in his attack on China. That the tariffs were a mistake as they were paid by the US population and attacked China on terrain where it was strong, and the US could not compete – good quality medium technology manufacturing. Instead, it was argued, the US attack should be concentrated on its strong point – high technology. The US should concentrate on weakening China’s most high technology companies as with Huawei and Tiktok. Trump and Biden are therefore urged to create a ‘technology blockade’ of China.
There are certainly doubts whether the US can achieve this goal – it is against the interests of other countries and its own high technology companies which previously had strong markets in China. But it would be a naïve, unrealistic, strategy for China to base its policy on an assumption that US policy will collapse due to its own contradictions. Therefore, to progress as a high-income economy, China will have to increasingly rely on its own technology. Every part of the production chain must be potential achievable in China – best described as ‘domestic circulation’. This is different to the 1978-2016 period in which China could rely to a great extent on importing technology.
China remains committed to globalisation, which would be the best path of development for the world, and uses every opportunity for internationalisation, but in the new situation its domestic economy will dominate.
Obviously, this requires great national effort – money has to be poured into R&D and scientific research. Large investments are required to embody and produce new technology. Fortunately, China has the financial resources for this.
This issue overlaps with international problems which are not just due to US policy but also to common problems of humanity and particularly climate change. Regarding this it is China’s prowess in the field of renewable energy manufacturing technology that makes possible the meeting, and potential exceeding, of the goals of the Paris Climate Change accords.
China had outlined its goal of ‘ecological civilization’ conceptually previously but global attention was paid to Xi Jinping’s statement at the UN on 22 September that: ‘We aim to have [carbon dioxide] emissions peak before 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality before 2060.’ For example, Adam Tooze, one of the West’s most eminent economic analysts and historians, noted in the US Foreign Policy magazine: ‘with those two short sentences China’s leader may have redefined the future prospects for humanity.’
To achieve these goals, they will have to begin to be embodied in the new Five-Year Plan and globally these will be among the most eagerly noted of its targets.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.


asiapacificresearch--2020-11-20--Modi’s Escalating War Against India’s Forests and Tribal People

This article was originally published in May 2019 .
The result of the biggest election in history , India 2019 , is terrible news for tribal peoples in the world ’ s biggest democracy .
Politicians with authoritarian nationalist inclinations like India ’ s newly invigorated Narendra Modi are in vogue around the world , and while many minority groups are feeling the impact of this surge to the right , the past year has seen an alarming escalation of the threat against tribal and indigenous peoples worldwide .
The “ Trump of the Tropics ” , Brazil ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ condemnation for his attack on indigenous peoples in Brazil , and rightly so .
However , the sheer scale of India ’ s assault on its tribal people is unprecedented : around 8 million people are set to be evicted from their homes , and tens of millions may soon be subject to draconian laws which allow them to be “ shot on sight ” with essentially no due process or legal recourse .
India ’ s famous forests are the battleground on which Modi ’ s administration have waged war against the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of India ’ s tribes live in forests and rely on these ecosystems to survive .
These vast tracts are rich in biodiversity and are home to some of the country ’ s most iconic animals , notably the tiger .
Tribes like the Chenchu , of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh , have always lived harmoniously with the tigers , whom they honour and revere , but do not fear .
According to one Chenchu man , Thokola Guruvaiah : In February 2019 , India ’ s Supreme Court ordered the eviction of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s forests following a petition by conservation groups , who claim that human presence in the forests poses a threat to wildlife ( though once the inhabitants have been evicted , these same conservationists tend to take no issue with hordes of tourists colonising the land in loud , polluting four wheel drives . )
This perceived ( but entirely false ) threat that tribal people pose to wildlife has already led to 100,000 people being evicted from their ancestral homelands .
Though these families and communities should be compensated , all too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ materialize .
The results of such evictions are devastating , and people who were never in poverty , thanks to the bounty of the forest , are then needlessly forced into destitution .
Anyone callous enough to say that this suffering is a price worth paying for tiger conservation should note one important fact : in the first tiger reserve in India where tribal people won the right to stay permanently on the land , tiger numbers increased by over three times the national average .
As their rights are being systematically eroded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tribal people are the best conservationists and guardians of the natural world .
These communities have made their living as hunter-gatherers or subsistence farmers for generations , so their day-to-day survival has always depended on their profound understanding of their environment and ability to maintain healthy wildlife populations : 80 % of the planet ’ s biodiversity is in tribal territories .
They possess unique insight and expertise that is proving invaluable to science and conservation and will prove essential in the urgent fight against climate breakdown .
Eight million evictees is more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or London .
Where will they go ?
How will they survive once they are cut off from the resources they depend on , but have no money or means to obtain elsewhere ?
Appallingly , it was wilful dereliction of duty from the government that led to this clear miscarriage of justice : there was no-one to put the argument against the eviction motion because the government didn ’ t bother to send a lawyer to court to defend their own law .
Following widespread criticism and protests the government was forced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stayed their ruling until July .
Following the election result there will be less pressure on the government to act , so when the court reconvenes , it seems likely that the ruling , in some form or other , will be upheld .
If so , the now poor and desperate evictees may well be shot should they attempt to re-enter the forest to gather food , firewood or medicinal plants .
This is according to the government ’ s proposed amendments to the Indian Forest Act , 1927 ( IFA ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year .
Although this legislation was created initially by the British to establish legal control over India ’ s forests , the new proposals are , remarkably , even more draconian than the original colonial law .
Forest officials , “ justified ” by “ conservation , ” will have a startling level of impunity , including the power to shoot people virtually without redress , enforce “ communal punishments ” against an individual ’ s entire village , and suspects will be presumed guilty and treated like criminals until they can prove @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , no forest officer can be arrested for any offence committed in ‘ discharge of his official duties ’ without an investigation , and state governments can ’ t sanction an inquiry into wrongdoing without constituting an inquiry under an executive magistrate .
Where similar policies have been in force , it ’ s led to “ shoot first , ask questions later , ” and the results have been catastrophic .
At Kaziranga National Park in Assam , for instance , where staff were told “ never allow any unauthorized entry – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were killed between 2010 and 2016 alone .
In 2016 , a seven year old boy was shot and suffered life-changing injuries .
While the law is supposed to prevent poaching , Survival International has revealed that in fact innocent people have been killed by rangers , including a man with learning difficulties looking for a lost cow .
Out of the estimated 370 million indigenous people worldwide , over 100 million live in India , meaning the country is home to over a quarter of the world ’ s indigenous population .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ around the globe , the sheer scale of what ’ s happening in India is unparalleled : the number of individuals , families , and communities who are poised to have their lives utterly destroyed is mind-bendingly huge .
As a Chenchu man told one of my colleagues recently : Note to readers : please click the share buttons above or below .
Forward this article to your email lists .
Crosspost on your blog site , internet forums .
etc .
Credits to the owner of the featured image

This article was originally published in May 2019.
The result of the biggest election in history, India 2019, is terrible news for tribal peoples in the world’s biggest democracy. Politicians with authoritarian nationalist inclinations like India’s newly invigorated Narendra Modi are in vogue around the world, and while many minority groups are feeling the impact of this surge to the right, the past year has seen an alarming escalation of the threat against tribal and indigenous peoples worldwide.
The “Trump of the Tropics”, Brazil’s President Jair Bolsonaro, has received widespread condemnation for his attack on indigenous peoples in Brazil, and rightly so. However, the sheer scale of India’s assault on its tribal people is unprecedented: around 8 million people are set to be evicted from their homes, and tens of millions may soon be subject to draconian laws which allow them to be “shot on sight” with essentially no due process or legal recourse.
India’s famous forests are the battleground on which Modi’s administration have waged war against the nation’s tribal peoples. Many of India’s tribes live in forests and rely on these ecosystems to survive. These vast tracts are rich in biodiversity and are home to some of the country’s most iconic animals, notably the tiger.
Tribes like the Chenchu, of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, have always lived harmoniously with the tigers, whom they honour and revere, but do not fear. According to one Chenchu man, Thokola Guruvaiah:
“We love [tigers] as we love our children. If a tiger or a leopard kills our cattle, we don’t feel disappointed or angry, instead we feel as if our brothers have visited our homes and they have eaten what they wanted.”
In February 2019, India’s Supreme Court ordered the eviction of around 8 million people from India’s forests following a petition by conservation groups, who claim that human presence in the forests poses a threat to wildlife (though once the inhabitants have been evicted, these same conservationists tend to take no issue with hordes of tourists colonising the land in loud, polluting four wheel drives.) This perceived (but entirely false) threat that tribal people pose to wildlife has already led to 100,000 people being evicted from their ancestral homelands. Though these families and communities should be compensated, all too often the promised benefits don’t materialize.
The results of such evictions are devastating, and people who were never in poverty, thanks to the bounty of the forest, are then needlessly forced into destitution. Anyone callous enough to say that this suffering is a price worth paying for tiger conservation should note one important fact: in the first tiger reserve in India where tribal people won the right to stay permanently on the land, tiger numbers increased by over three times the national average.
As their rights are being systematically eroded, more and more evidence shows that tribal people are the best conservationists and guardians of the natural world. These communities have made their living as hunter-gatherers or subsistence farmers for generations, so their day-to-day survival has always depended on their profound understanding of their environment and ability to maintain healthy wildlife populations: 80% of the planet’s biodiversity is in tribal territories. They possess unique insight and expertise that is proving invaluable to science and conservation and will prove essential in the urgent fight against climate breakdown.
Eight million evictees is more people than the population of New York or London. Where will they go? How will they survive once they are cut off from the resources they depend on, but have no money or means to obtain elsewhere? Appallingly, it was wilful dereliction of duty from the government that led to this clear miscarriage of justice: there was no-one to put the argument against the eviction motion because the government didn’t bother to send a lawyer to court to defend their own law. Following widespread criticism and protests the government was forced to intervene, and the Supreme Court stayed their ruling until July. Following the election result there will be less pressure on the government to act, so when the court reconvenes, it seems likely that the ruling, in some form or other, will be upheld.
If so, the now poor and desperate evictees may well be shot should they attempt to re-enter the forest to gather food, firewood or medicinal plants. This is according to the government’s proposed amendments to the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (IFA), which were leaked in March this year. Although this legislation was created initially by the British to establish legal control over India’s forests, the new proposals are, remarkably, even more draconian than the original colonial law.
Forest officials, “justified” by “conservation,” will have a startling level of impunity, including the power to shoot people virtually without redress, enforce “communal punishments” against an individual’s entire village, and suspects will be presumed guilty and treated like criminals until they can prove their own innocence.
Under the proposals, no forest officer can be arrested for any offence committed in ‘discharge of his official duties’ without an investigation, and state governments can’t sanction an inquiry into wrongdoing without constituting an inquiry under an executive magistrate. Where similar policies have been in force, it’s led to “shoot first, ask questions later,” and the results have been catastrophic.
At Kaziranga National Park in Assam, for instance, where staff were told “never allow any unauthorized entry – kill the unwanted,” 65 people were killed between 2010 and 2016 alone. In 2016, a seven year old boy was shot and suffered life-changing injuries. While the law is supposed to prevent poaching, Survival International has revealed that in fact innocent people have been killed by rangers, including a man with learning difficulties looking for a lost cow.
Out of the estimated 370 million indigenous people worldwide, over 100 million live in India, meaning the country is home to over a quarter of the world’s indigenous population. Though indigenous rights are of grave concern around the globe, the sheer scale of what’s happening in India is unparalleled: the number of individuals, families, and communities who are poised to have their lives utterly destroyed is mind-bendingly huge.
As a Chenchu man told one of my colleagues recently:
“Without us the forest won’t survive, and without the forest we won’t survive. Staying in a town, even for a couple of days, is a nightmare for us. If you are asking us to live there forever then we are sure to die. Nobody has the right to send us out of this forest, and if you are doing that then indirectly you are asking us to die.”
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Jonathan Mazower works for Survival International.
Credits to the owner of the featured image


asiapacificresearch--2020-11-19--First Reaction of the Leading Asian Countries to the Results of the US Elections

The close attention widely paid to the recent election campaign in the United States is understandable .
We are talking about a change in the leadership of a country , which continues to occupy the position of one of the main pillars of the modern world order .
Leaving aside the theme of the nature of the “ democratic procedure ” in the United States ( which caused “ disappointment ” for many , to put it mildly ) , let us note the main thing in this context : each of the other significant participants in the world political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attached to it .
In this regard , the first reaction of the three leading Asian countries ( China , India and Japan ) to the preliminary results of the American elections seems to be remarkable .
First , attention was drawn to the haste of expressing congratulations to Joe Biden , in which the prime ministers of India and Japan did not lag much behind their European counterparts .
At the same time , no official reaction followed from Beijing to the democratic candidates declaration of “ victory ” .
Apparently , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ official announcement of the results of the elections held in the USA .
Despite the fact that the Chinese press is actively discussing everything that is somehow connected with them .
First of all , it is noted that Donald Trump leaves American policy to his successors in a state of “ degradation ” .
This implies an internal political situation , in the catastrophic deterioration of which Trump , however , is definitely less to blame than his opponents .
As for Washington ’ s course in the Chinese direction , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ owe the extremely important ‘ Phase 1 Agreement ’ in the field of trade .
The parties are implementing the main provisions of this document without interruption , despite understandable restrictions due to the coronavirus pandemic and the aggravation of the political sphere of bilateral relations .
Moreover , the latter is more likely a product of the “ creativity ” on the part of the US political establishment ( represented in the current administration by M. Pompeo ) , over which Trump never managed to establish control .
It is precisely because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political relations with the United States that the Chinese Global Times looks to the future with more than a small amount of skepticism .
Believing , however , that there are resources for their improvement , which both sides should not waste .
The NEO has repeatedly noted that the highest ranking of these resources are trade and economic ties between the United States and the PRC ( People ’ s Republic of China ) .
In bilateral trade , the volume of which exceeds 600 billion dollars , there are serious problems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Agreement of the “ 1st Phase ” .
The main supporter of the further development of relations with the PRC remains American business .
China drew attention to the fact that at the third international exhibition the China International Import Expo ( CIIE ) ( Shanghai , November 5 – 10 ) 197 American companies ( 5 more than the previous one , CIIE-2019 ) occupied the most extensive exhibition area .
According to the Global Times , foreign exhibitors welcomed the message about J. Biden claim to victory in the recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to improve bilateral relations appears on the part of the new Washington administration , the “ Taiwan problem ” has become extremely aggravated in recent years .
In this regard , Taiwan ’ s reaction to the results of the American elections was remarkable .
At first , it was almost mourning in nature , because just during the presidency of Donald Trump , the trend ( to one degree or another always present in American politics ) to provide comprehensive support to the Taiwanese leadership to acquire a full-fledged statehood for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , special importance had been attached to the defense sphere of bilateral cooperation .
However , Taipei ’ s initial sadness was quickly replaced by official joy expressed in congratulations sent to Joe Biden by President Tsai Ing-wen of Taiwan .
A similar metamorphosis in the camp of “ Taiwanese separatists ” provoked caustic comments from the same Global Times .
In the assessments of Indian experts on the results of the elections held in the United States and against the background of all sorts of speculations about the half-Indian K. Harris as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which states , however , that she is a “ proud American ” ) , there is obviously a factor of a possible improvement in US-China relations .
The fact is that it was during the presidency of Donald Trump that the Indian leadership took a number of important steps towards the United States .
Especially in the last six months a sharp aggravation of relations with China due to the conflict in Ladakh .
In the wake of the ( hypothetical ) improvement in US-China relations , Delhi will be faced with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Beijing ?
Japan , in an absolutely obvious way , is sincerely ( unlike many others ) happy with Joe Biden , more for the expected departure of Trump as leader of a key ally .
Which , as they say , “ really got ” Tokyo .
First , by regularly spoiling the mood with reminders of the US trade deficit with Japan of $ 70 billion annually .
This is a good fact for Tokyo , but it is better to keep it as least noticeable as possible .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to talk , and the persistent D. Trump set a deadline ( at the end of this year ) for taking specific measures to correct the “ obvious disgrace ” .
Washington ’ s deliberate aggravation of US-China relations ( and even against the background of the coronavirus pandemic ) reduces the global economic situation , which negatively affects the foreign business of Japanese companies in general and in China in particular .
According to the Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper , Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga is going to discuss all these and other issues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States , which is due to take place immediately after the inauguration of the US president , scheduled for January 20 , 2021 .
Finally , it is not superfluous to comment ( with a short excursion into recent history ) on the ostentatious joy that the allies and closest partners of the United States are expressing with unprecedented speed to the ( potential ) new American president .
Let us recall that when at one time the overseas “ knight without fear and reproach ” courageously fought against windmills ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and all kinds of “ totalitarian regimes ” ) , his allies made a not so small profitable deal .
Four years ago , they suddenly felt like an abandoned wife , who , in anger and tears , exclaimed : “ Come back , I will forgive everything ” .
And now , when a ray of hope has dawned , the “ abandoned ” says , smiling and wiping away her tears : “ Dear , let ’ s forget the old and start all over again ?
” It will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the same scale .
For Donald Trump is not a one-time aberration in the political life of the United States .
Expressed in a style popular at the time , four years ago America “ breathed in the long-awaited air of freedom ” and is unlikely to allow itself to once again throw on the yoke of obligations to cunning allies and all sorts of “ independent ” rogues .
Because it is not clear with whom and in the name of what to fight today .
More precisely , it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with whom and for what .
Moreover , the problems inside the country are “ through the roof ” .
However , one should not underestimate the factor of the possible return to the American administration of one of those “ three witches ” who at one time whispered and prophesied to the then American “ Macbeth ” , that is , President Barack Obama , the prospect of a “ humanitarian catastrophe ” in Libya .
After that , the United States was drawn into the military adventure of its European allies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the people of Libya are still unraveling .
Since the world game is shifting to Asia , a sharp strengthening of the “ humanitarian ” component of American foreign policy can be expected here .
Moreover , the aforementioned second face of the new US administration was also marked with a “ humanitarian ” diagnosis .
The formation of another trio of American political “ witches ” may complete the candidacy for the post of Secretary of Defense .
However , in connection with the situations in XUAR , Tibet , Hong Kong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Asian direction manifested itself quite clearly and “ under the devil-Pompeo ” .
That is , with the coming to power in the United States of the new administration , one should hardly expect immediate and radical shifts in the regional political puzzle .
As for the non- “ immediate ” and not “ radical ” ones , it is too early to say anything definite about them today .
Note to readers : please click the share buttons above or below .
Forward this article to your email lists .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ forums .
etc .
Vladimir Terekhov is an expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region , exclusively for the online magazine “ New Eastern Outlook “ .
Credits to the owner of the featured image

The close attention widely paid to the recent election campaign in the United States is understandable. We are talking about a change in the leadership of a country, which continues to occupy the position of one of the main pillars of the modern world order.
Leaving aside the theme of the nature of the “democratic procedure” in the United States (which caused “disappointment” for many, to put it mildly), let us note the main thing in this context: each of the other significant participants in the world political game associated some of their own expectations attached to it. In this regard, the first reaction of the three leading Asian countries (China, India and Japan) to the preliminary results of the American elections seems to be remarkable.
First, attention was drawn to the haste of expressing congratulations to Joe Biden, in which the prime ministers of India and Japan did not lag much behind their European counterparts. At the same time, no official reaction followed from Beijing to the democratic candidates declaration of “victory”. Apparently, it will not even be until the official announcement of the results of the elections held in the USA. Despite the fact that the Chinese press is actively discussing everything that is somehow connected with them.
First of all, it is noted that Donald Trump leaves American policy to his successors in a state of “degradation”. This implies an internal political situation, in the catastrophic deterioration of which Trump, however, is definitely less to blame than his opponents.
As for Washington’s course in the Chinese direction, it is to Donald Trump that US-China relations owe the extremely important ‘Phase 1 Agreement’ in the field of trade. The parties are implementing the main provisions of this document without interruption, despite understandable restrictions due to the coronavirus pandemic and the aggravation of the political sphere of bilateral relations. Moreover, the latter is more likely a product of the “creativity” on the part of the US political establishment (represented in the current administration by M. Pompeo), over which Trump never managed to establish control.
It is precisely because of the extremely poor state of the political relations with the United States that the Chinese Global Times looks to the future with more than a small amount of skepticism. Believing, however, that there are resources for their improvement, which both sides should not waste.
The NEO has repeatedly noted that the highest ranking of these resources are trade and economic ties between the United States and the PRC (People’s Republic of China). In bilateral trade, the volume of which exceeds 600 billion dollars, there are serious problems, with the solution being aimed at the Agreement of the “1st Phase”. The main supporter of the further development of relations with the PRC remains American business.
China drew attention to the fact that at the third international exhibition the China International Import Expo (CIIE) (Shanghai, November 5 – 10) 197 American companies (5 more than the previous one, CIIE-2019) occupied the most extensive exhibition area. According to the Global Times, foreign exhibitors welcomed the message about J. Biden claim to victory in the recent elections.
But even if an intention to improve bilateral relations appears on the part of the new Washington administration, the “Taiwan problem” has become extremely aggravated in recent years.
In this regard, Taiwan’s reaction to the results of the American elections was remarkable. At first, it was almost mourning in nature, because just during the presidency of Donald Trump, the trend (to one degree or another always present in American politics) to provide comprehensive support to the Taiwanese leadership to acquire a full-fledged statehood for the island increased sharply. In recent months, special importance had been attached to the defense sphere of bilateral cooperation.
However, Taipei’s initial sadness was quickly replaced by official joy expressed in congratulations sent to Joe Biden by President Tsai Ing-wen of Taiwan. A similar metamorphosis in the camp of “Taiwanese separatists” provoked caustic comments from the same Global Times.
In the assessments of Indian experts on the results of the elections held in the United States and against the background of all sorts of speculations about the half-Indian K. Harris as vice president of the United States (which states, however, that she is a “proud American”), there is obviously a factor of a possible improvement in US-China relations.
The fact is that it was during the presidency of Donald Trump that the Indian leadership took a number of important steps towards the United States. Especially in the last six months a sharp aggravation of relations with China due to the conflict in Ladakh. In the wake of the (hypothetical) improvement in US-China relations, Delhi will be faced with a difficult question: how to proceed with Beijing?
Japan, in an absolutely obvious way, is sincerely (unlike many others) happy with Joe Biden, more for the expected departure of Trump as leader of a key ally. Which, as they say, “really got” Tokyo.
First, by regularly spoiling the mood with reminders of the US trade deficit with Japan of $ 70 billion annually. This is a good fact for Tokyo, but it is better to keep it as least noticeable as possible. In addition, the matter was not limited to talk, and the persistent D. Trump set a deadline (at the end of this year) for taking specific measures to correct the “obvious disgrace”.
Washington’s deliberate aggravation of US-China relations (and even against the background of the coronavirus pandemic) reduces the global economic situation, which negatively affects the foreign business of Japanese companies in general and in China in particular.
According to the Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper, Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga is going to discuss all these and other issues with Joe Biden during his visit to the United States, which is due to take place immediately after the inauguration of the US president, scheduled for January 20, 2021.
Finally, it is not superfluous to comment (with a short excursion into recent history) on the ostentatious joy that the allies and closest partners of the United States are expressing with unprecedented speed to the (potential) new American president. Let us recall that when at one time the overseas “knight without fear and reproach” courageously fought against windmills (that is, “with communism” and all kinds of “totalitarian regimes”), his allies made a not so small profitable deal.
Four years ago, they suddenly felt like an abandoned wife, who, in anger and tears, exclaimed: “Come back, I will forgive everything”.
And now, when a ray of hope has dawned, the “abandoned” says, smiling and wiping away her tears: “Dear, let’s forget the old and start all over again?”
It will not work. In any case, on the same scale. For Donald Trump is not a one-time aberration in the political life of the United States. Expressed in a style popular at the time, four years ago America “breathed in the long-awaited air of freedom” and is unlikely to allow itself to once again throw on the yoke of obligations to cunning allies and all sorts of “independent” rogues.
Because it is not clear with whom and in the name of what to fight today. More precisely, it is already clear that there is no one with whom and for what. Moreover, the problems inside the country are “through the roof”.
However, one should not underestimate the factor of the possible return to the American administration of one of those “three witches” who at one time whispered and prophesied to the then American “Macbeth”, that is, President Barack Obama, the prospect of a “humanitarian catastrophe” in Libya.
After that, the United States was drawn into the military adventure of its European allies, the real catastrophic consequences of which the people of Libya are still unraveling.
Since the world game is shifting to Asia, a sharp strengthening of the “humanitarian” component of American foreign policy can be expected here. Moreover, the aforementioned second face of the new US administration was also marked with a “humanitarian” diagnosis. The formation of another trio of American political “witches” may complete the candidacy for the post of Secretary of Defense.
However, in connection with the situations in XUAR, Tibet, Hong Kong, the mentioned diagnosis of American policy in the Asian direction manifested itself quite clearly and “under the devil-Pompeo”. That is, with the coming to power in the United States of the new administration, one should hardly expect immediate and radical shifts in the regional political puzzle. As for the non-“immediate” and not “radical” ones, it is too early to say anything definite about them today.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Vladimir Terekhov is an expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook“.
Credits to the owner of the featured image


asiapacificresearch--2020-11-19--Malaysia Will Never Entertain Any Claim on Sabah

Malaysia has once again reiterated its stance to never entertain or recognise any claim by any quarters on Sabah .
Deputy Foreign Minister Datuk Kamarudin Jaffar said the claim on Sabah , particularly by the Philippines , was not only baseless but also irrelevant .
He explained that Sabah is a state in the Federation of Malaysia based on the decision of the Cobbold Commission in 1962 , with the people of Sabah having exercised their right to self-determination for the status of their state to be in Malaysia .
The deputy minister said the Cobbold Commission report was submitted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Aug 1 , 1962 , and confirmed that more than two-thirds of Sabahans voted to join Malaysia in 1963 .
“ On Sept 14,1963 , the UN Secretary-General reported to the UN General Assembly that the people of Sabah had chosen to join Malaysia .
On Sept 16 , 1963 , Sabah officially joined the Federation of Malaysia , ” he said in reply to Datuk Azizah Mohd Dun ( Bersatu-Beaufort ) on the status of the Philippines ’ claim on Sabah at the Dewan Rakyat sitting today .
Note to readers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or below .
Forward this article to your email lists .
Crosspost on your blog site , internet forums .
etc .

Malaysia has once again reiterated its stance to never entertain or recognise any claim by any quarters on Sabah.
Deputy Foreign Minister Datuk Kamarudin Jaffar said the claim on Sabah, particularly by the Philippines, was not only baseless but also irrelevant.
He explained that Sabah is a state in the Federation of Malaysia based on the decision of the Cobbold Commission in 1962, with the people of Sabah having exercised their right to self-determination for the status of their state to be in Malaysia.
The deputy minister said the Cobbold Commission report was submitted to the United Nations (UN) on Aug 1, 1962, and confirmed that more than two-thirds of Sabahans voted to join Malaysia in 1963.
“On Sept 14,1963, the UN Secretary-General reported to the UN General Assembly that the people of Sabah had chosen to join Malaysia. On Sept 16, 1963, Sabah officially joined the Federation of Malaysia,” he said in reply to Datuk Azizah Mohd Dun (Bersatu-Beaufort) on the status of the Philippines’ claim on Sabah at the Dewan Rakyat sitting today.
Read full article here.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image is CC BY-SA 3.0