BRICS summit sent positive signals to the outside world

Dalforce 1941 SG

BRICS summit sent positive signals to the outside world: Chinese media

BEIJING: The 4th BRICS summit sent positive signals to the outside world that global stability, security and prosperity could be achieved if everyone pulled together, the Chinese media reported Friday.

The China Daily in an editorial, " Solidarity of BRICS", stated: "Given that the BRICS countries have become an increasingly important force on the world stage and the drivers of the global economy, their pledge to make due contributions to the world development and prosperity should be interpreted as good news for all."

In the joint declaration issued by the leaders of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), they vowed to enhance cooperation among themselves and contribute to world development and prosperity.

The nations also voiced their united support for a Syrian peace process promoted by international envoy Kofi Annan and warned of the "disastrous consequences" of allowing the Iran nuclear issue to escalate into conflict.

The editorial appreciated that the group showed solidarity on issues of global significance. "By speaking with one voice, they can better defend their own interests and those of the developing world at large and promote fairer global governance," the Chinese daily said.

The summit came at a crucial moment, as the global economic recovery is still dragging its feet, entangled by fragile financial systems, high public and private debt, high unemployment and the rising price of oil. Pressing issues, such as climate change, food security and energy security also pose grave challenges, it said.

This summit has clearly not been a wasted opportunity and has been successful in advancing cooperation, consultation and coordination among the member countries. It has made it clear that they have come together for the benefit of their people and the international community as a whole, the editorial said.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/china/BRICS-summit-sent-positive-signals-to-the-outside-world-Chinese-media/articleshow/12468193.cms

By Dr.Sawraj Singh

The fourth BRICS summit just started in New Delhi. From the first summit in Moscow, ten years ago, the world has come a long way. The western-dominated unipolar world is facing a severe crisis, and the dual trends of the West’s decline and the East’s rise are becoming very clear. While the West is facing decline in its share of the world’s GDP, trade, global foreign reserves, and contribution to the economic growth, the East is rising.

BRICS is becoming the central axis of the emerging Eastern alliance. While Brazil is geographically not a part of the East, yet the core of BRICS is formed by Russia, China, and India. Therefore, in essence this alliance can be called the Eastern alliance. Moreover, the word East here can also be used metaphorically to emphasize that this emerging alliance wants to challenge the western domination.

The joining of South Africa, the largest African economy, really gives it a global character with representation from Asia, Europe, Africa, and Latin America. The traditional third world (Asia, Africa, and Latin America) has joined the most powerful European country to challenge the American hegemony.

BRICS is becoming a formidable force. It has more than 40% of the world’s population, about 20% of the world’s GDP, more than 15% of the world’s trade, about 75% of the world’s foreign reserves and more than 50% of the world’s economic growth. Not only are these statistics very impressive, but they will continue to change in its favor and the West’s share is going to continue to decline.

The present, western-dominated unipolar world order under American hegemony is based upon inequality, hypocrisy, and double standards. The western countries do not respect sovereignty and independence of the other countries.

Under the pretext of human rights, the western countries are blatantly interfering in the internal affairs of other countries. They are neither sincere nor dedicated to the cause of human rights; their only motivation is greed, such as securing their oil supply or looting the natural resources of the third world countries.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, India has practically deserted its policy of non-alignment and joined the western alliance, particularly the most reactionary forces in the West: the U.S. and Israel.

Whereas India should be working for changing the present, western-dominated world institutions such as the UN, IMF, and the World Bank, it is actually helping to maintain the status quo. The two recent Indian votes in the UN showed that India has not taken principled stands.

First, the vote on Syria, where the western countries are inciting violence and terrorism to push the country to a civil war, which can eventually lead to a change in regime and installation of a pro-western puppet government.

Second, the vote on Sri Lanka; again India voted on the side of the western countries and against not only the third world countries, but against all of its neighbors. The vote on Sri Lanka can have the impact of further decreasing India’s influence in South Asia, with China continuing to increase and consolidate its influence in South Asia.

India has to seriously reconsider its policy of tilting toward the West and alienating its natural allies. Such a policy cannot be in the fundamental interests of the Indian people. We sincerely hope that the fourth summit of BRICS will act as an eye-opener for India to see the obvious, that the West is declining and the East is rising. India’s alliance with the US and Israel is not only wrong from the point of view of principles, but is also wrong from a practical point of view.

History has proved repeatedly that nations and countries have suffered tremendously by joining the wrong alliances. India is the founding member of BRICS, and the future belongs to BRICS. India should give up the declining forces and join the rising forces such as BRICS.

Dr. Sawraj Singh, MD F.I.C.S. is the Chairman of the Washington State Network for Human Rights and Chairman of the Central Washington Coalition for Social Justice. He can be reached at[email protected].

http://thelinkpaper.ca/?p=15522

winsomeea SG

Thought China govt down their gdp growth this year. How could it be positive then>>>???

Dalforce 1941 SG

2012-04-11 18:56

The second Nuclear Security Summit and the Fourth BRICs Summit took place almost back to back in late March although their venues were not identical. The NSS was participated in by 53 countries, including all great powers, and the BRICs Summit by five great powers (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). The purposes and agenda of the two summits are different: The former for the security and reduction of nuclear materials and the latter for the reform of the international economic and financial order.

If we scrutinize their backgrounds and ultimate purposes, we can find that they reflect the slowly moving tectonic change of the world order.

Both forums were created when the danger of nuclear proliferation and illicit trafficking of nuclear materials was becoming increasingly serious and the existing international financial order was failing to deal with the 2007 international financial crisis. The NSS is initiated and led by the U.S., which mainly sets its agenda, while the BRICs Summit is suggested by Russia but its agenda is jointly set and it has no leader.

It should be noted, however, that the NSS is not dictated by the U.S. as its decisions are made by consensus and agenda items are fully discussed at the NSS and amended if necessary. However, it is also true that great powers have a stronger voice than lesser powers. Most important of all, decisions are not legally binding. In the case of the BRICs Summit the decision-making process is more democratic in the sense that all participants are equal.

It seems that the Obama administration is experimenting with multilateralism through the NSS. During his campaign for the U.S. presidency, he pledged that he would seek multilateral diplomacy, criticizing the Bush administration’s unilateral diplomacy. He rejected dogmatism and supported pragmatism, while advocating diplomacy through soft power, not hard power. However, he seems to limit multilateral diplomacy to global issues.

In the Asia-Pacific, in contrast, he still sticks to the traditional unilateral security strategy and hard power diplomacy. He is trying to build the trans-Pacific partnership and link it with trans-Atlantic partnership by transforming APEC into a U.S.-dominant free trade organization and strengthen the existing hub-spoke military partnership by consolidating the existing alliances and creating new ones so that the U.S. can contain any great power(s) challenging its hegemony in the Asia-Pacific.

This dualistic approach reveals that U.S. hegemony is weakening but the U.S. refuses to accept the reality. The world is changing but nobody can accurately foresee what kind of world order will emerge. The former global superpower, the United Kingdom, had been unable to get out of the illusion that it was the global hegemon until its joint military campaign with France against Egypt in 1956 failed.

The BRICs Summit representing the emerging great powers calls for “a more democratic and just multipolar world order.” In this vein, it demands that on the basis of international law, equality and multilateral decision-making, the international financial and monetary system should be more representative, the G20 be the primary forum for international economic cooperation and the U.N. be strengthened and reformed so that it can play a central role in dealing with global challenges and threats. In order to increase the group’s power in the U.N. China and Russia support the other three countries’ membership of the Security Council.

What the BRICs nations demand is almost identical with what Third World countries have demanded throughout the post-World War II era.

They have been advocating, through the Non-aligned Movement and the Group of 77, a new international economic order and democracy in the U.N.

The Third World shares the same view with the BRICs on the inviolability of the principle of non-intervention in domestic affairs. Both believe that state sovereignty precedes humanitarian intervention. On the basis of this view, both oppose humanitarian intervention by the U.N. in Syria.

These demands of BRICs are an obvious challenge to the unipolar world order and U.S. hegemony.

Scholars generally agree that when emerging great powers challenge, a general war is likely to happen, but they are divided over whether the emerging great powers will act in unison or whether they will seek confrontation or cooperation even when they unite. One thing is clear: The world is being divided into the West and the non-West. The non-West includes all Third World nations, and BRICs leads them.

The Third World now has a strong leadership. But one problem with the non-West is that its unity is not strong as the old Third World. Some are developing fast and becoming more pro-Western, while others still remain rogue states. In terms of civilization and ethnic identity, it is extremely diverse. More important is Russia’s position: it has been oscillating between the West and non-West mainly because of its geopolitically ambiguous position. Now, it identifies itself with the non-West, but there is no guarantee that it will not switch to the West or try to form its own group.

The world is slowly in transition to a new world order. Obama’s dualistic approach and the BRICs’ are symptomatic of this.

By Park Sang-seek

Park Sang-seek is a professor at the Graduate Institute of Peace Studies, Kyung Hee University. ― Ed.

http://www.koreaherald.com/national/Detail.jsp?newsMLId=20120411000390

True, nothing of an earth-shaking nature has emerged from the New Delhi summit. Yet, there are new stirrings that herald the potential for a BRICS surge. And that causes disquiet to the developed world.

Simply put, as the Delhi Declaration by the BRICS countries reminds is, it is a “platform for dialogue and cooperation amongst countries that represent 43% of the world’s population” in a multi-polar world. That is saying a lot.

There is nothing like BRICS in the developed world today. The G-7 has become a relic of history. The view across the Atlantic is dismal, with Europe and the United States struggling with their respective economic crisis, discarding pretensions that they are world champions.

The Delhi Declaration makes an undisguised bid for strengthened representation of emerging and developing countries in the institutions of global governance”. This is no vacuous claim. Because, BRICS also has a special experience to share – having “recovered quickly from the global crisis.” The West has not heard this sort of idiom before. This is not the global South asking plaintively for “more”. This is an open demand for “power sharing”.

The West has never been spoken to like this before in all these centuries since the Industrial Revolution. The tides of history are, clearly, turning. The Delhi Declaration suggests: “We believe that it is critical for advanced economies to adopt responsible macroeconomic and financial policies, avoid creating excessive global liquidity and undertake structural reforms to lift growth that create jobs. We draw attention to the risks of large and volatile cross-border capital flows being faced by the emerging economies. We call for further international financial regulatory oversight and reform, strengthening policy coordination and financial regulation and supervision cooperation, and promoting the sound development of global financial markets and banking systems.”

The developing world has never before admonished the developed world in such fashion. The BRICS has asserted its credentials to make this demand since it represents economies that are having broad-based economic growth and are “significant contributors to global recovery.”

The Delhi Declaration goes on to criticize the slow pace of quota and governance reforms in the International Monetary Fund and in the functioning of the World Bank and questions the West’s prerogative to head these institutions. Significantly, BRICS is raising its voice even as Russia is preparing to assume the Presidency of the G20 in 2013.

One concrete outcome of the Delhi summit is the agreement to consider the possibility of setting up a new Development Bank for mobilizing resources for infrastructure and sustainable development projects in BRICS and other developing countries to “supplement” the role of the World Bank and other regional financial institutions.

The idea is to shake off the continued dominance of the developed countries over these financial institutions. Ideally, what the World Bank and the whole network of existing regional development banks would prefer is to continue to use the BRICS money and keep the existing pattern of western hegemony. Whereas, a BRICS bank will threaten the entrenched western practice to use the international financial institutions to prescribe and impose economic policies to the developing countries thereby promote the commercial interests of the developed countries and even establish political hegemony.

The implications are far-reaching for the geopolitics of Africa, in particular. The Delhi summit has sought a report on the setting up of a development bank by the next annual BRICS summit in South Africa. Interestingly, South Africa is representing the voice of the African continent within BRICS.

Claudiashaw53 SG

Dalforce 1941 SG

Western efforts to break BRICS will only harm global economy

By Liu Zongyi

There are many controversial voices over the development of the BRICS group. Some hold a pessimistic attitude toward its future, forecasting it will either break down or be replaced by other groups. And some even call for other countries to try to break BRICS unity.

When Goldman Sachs economist Jim O'Neill put forward the idea of "BRIC" in 2001 for the first time, he never thought the concept would have become a major international economic and political group in 10 years, or added South Africa to become "BRICS." O'Neill was far-sighted, but the emergence of the group is also a result of mutual efforts and cooperation among the BRICS countries.

The BRICS countries evolving from a concept into a group is in essence a protest by the developing countries against the Western-dominated international order. But even under the backdrop of a severe economic crisis in the West, the BRICS countries don't make use of the time to demand overthrow of the current international order. Instead, they cooperate with the West to seek a gradual improvement of the existing order's deficiencies. However, they still cannot avoid hostility from the Western countries.

The Western countries have tried to disunite and suppress the BRIC countries since the BRIC group first took shape. The West makes use of the inherent contradictions and conflicts related to interest allocation in the international order reform, to foment dissent and stir up confrontation among the BRICS countries.

The BRICS countries have many differences over political and economic systems, culture and values. Some even have historical disputes. The West tries to magnify these conflicts and differences and weaken the cooperation and solidarity of the BRICS countries.

For example, the West is attempting to create competition by hyping the conflicts between China and India. They blame China for blocking India and Brazil from becoming permanent members of the UN Security Council.

The Western countries also adopt financial and trade methods to suppress the emerging economies especially the BRICS countries. Since the outbreak of the financial crisis, the Western countries, led by the US, transfer their own problems to other countries through expansionary monetary policies, which creates economic difficulties for developing countries, the emerging markets in particular.

They try to make China a scapegoat, blaming China for manipulating the exchange rate and stimulating conflicts between China and other emerging economies. Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff criticized the US and other Western countries for initiating a "currency war." Developed countries also set trade barriers to restrain the exports of emerging markets such as China.

Using ideological tools to discredit the economic model of BRICS countries is also a preferable way. Since the beginning of this year, mainstream Western media like the Economist have begun to label the economies of China and Russia as state capitalism.

They reproach these countries for using state-owned enterprises or private enterprises supported by the government to merge and acquire foreign enterprises and compete for resources. They claim this poses a severe threat to Western free capitalism and is one of the important reasons for the current international economic crisis.

The West claims state capitalism will lead to countries' corruption and failure and thus threaten the free market economy and the democratic system. But the blind criticism is just an excuse to defend the crisis of neo-liberalism, suppress the new emerging competitors and create new rules that benefit themselves.

Through the tactics the Western countries use to suppress the BRICS countries, we could see that the West is attaching more and more importance to the growing cooperation among BRICS countries. They are adopting escalating methods to block the BRICS countries, even rising to new ideological heights. However, cooperation among BRICS countries is becoming mature in the process.

On this year's BRICS Summit in New Delhi in March, the BRICS countries passed a proposal to establish a South-South development bank. In the future, they should promote the setup of this bank. The BRICS nations should also promote complementary cooperation in the field of energy to solve the need for resources and capital.

Some Westerners feel uncomfortable when seeing a quickly growing BRICS group and the gradual shift of the world's economic and political focus. But the BRICS countries have become the main engine for global economic growth and driver of a global economic governance reform. They contribute over 50 percent of world global growth.

As the global economy is now closely interdependent, if the Western countries go too far in attempting to break the BRICS, there will be a big question mark over when they will escape the financial crisis.

The author is an assistant researcher at the Institute for World Economy Studies & Center for South Asia Studies, Shanghai Institutes for International Studies. [email protected]

http://www.globaltimes.cn/NEWS/tabid/99/ID/712407/Western-efforts-to-break-BRICS-will-only-harm-global-economy.aspx

Dalforce 1941 SG

Johannesburg, June 11 (Xinhua-ANI): The South African government is pushing for the establishment of the BRICS bank amid the increased concern over the European debt crisis, the newspaper New Age reported on Monday.

As South Africa hosts the BRICS member states meeting next year, the South African government would like to see the BRICS-led banking institution created, the New Age quoted Trade and Industry Minister Rob Davies as saying.

The BRICS consists of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, which are members among the world's emerging economic entities.

Wrapping up the BRICS summit on March 29, the five-nation bloc proposed the formation of a shared development bank, funding development projects and infrastructure in developing countries.

The minister Davies said such a bank is crucial for the financing of infrastructure construction and facilitation of the trade within the BRICS bloc.

"If this bank could be established here in South Africa, it will also unlock many opportunities, including promoting the development of our infrastructure," said the minister.

The official stressed South Africa needs a lot of support from the banking industry.

On May 29, Statistics South Africa announced the South Africa's GDP increased by 2.7 percent in the first quarter of 2012, compared to the growth of 3.2 percent for the fourth quarter in 2011.

I is believed that the creation of the BRICS bank could also be used in the longer term by the memberships as a platform of resources for lending in coping with global financial crises such as the one in Europe.

BRICS nations have nearly half the world's population and account for more than a quarter of world trade.

South Africa is the only African membership in the BRICS, belonging to the largest economic entity on the African continent. (Xinhua-ANI)

http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/2012/06/11/180-South-Africa-expects-to-launch-BRICS-bank-next-year-report-.html

Dalforce 1941 SG

Global order poised between promise and chaos

Global Times | 2012-6-17 19:25:02
By Pang Zhongying

The next five years are a key moment of the evolution of the world order, and for China's own governance as well.

Due to suffering from the crisis and a lack of effective plans to solve the problems, the positions Western nations hold in the international pattern have slipped. Western nations generally believe in the "power transition" theory. They worry the current world order will either be replaced by a pluralistic, diversified, multipolar world, or a more disordered, chaotic one.

Though the G20 is organized and led by the West, it could be the beginning point of a new multipolar world order. In regard of the monetary system, the US dollar, euro, yen, yuan and the pound sterling can co-exist. In addition, besides the World Bank, the development banks and regional monetary finance plans, organized by the new big powers, have also burgeoned. After the decline of regionalism in Europe, other regional cooperation organizations, such as ASEAN and similar South American groups may be further enhanced.

In 2012, several large powers will have presidential elections or witness changes of leadership. The diplomatic policies of their new administrations will be key factors to evolve a world order for the future. If the EU cannot turn around its decline in five years, its influence and position in the world order will be gravely weakened.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has just returned to his former office. The national strength of Russia is expected to rise along with its international status.

For the 2012 US presidency, whoever wins the presidential campaign, the US will make all efforts possible to remain its leadership and hegemony. Unavoidably influenced by the crisis of the West, the BRICS will be less influential on the world order, which will result in a lack of strength for them to promote a new order.

Whatever kind of world China asks for, ordered or disordered, a new or the old order, a diversified world or a Western-dominated one, the next five years are still of key importance. It could be the turning point of a new world order. It could also be a key moment for the West to regain the dominant position with all its might. Or perhaps, it will be a transition into a more chaotic world.

Whether China can become a more influential country largely depends on to what extent we can take advantage of the crisis of the West. The West's crisis can be taken as an opportunity. Whether or not we can take advantage of the crisis can decide the role China will play in the future world order.

Meanwhile, the evolution of China's domestic situation, including the economic transformation, social progression, political reform, military reform and the diplomatic changes can be the basis for China to fight for the building of a new world order and seek a better position in it.

To deal with the changes of the international and domestic circumstances, some principles in China's diplomatic policies, such as "never become the leader," "non-alignment," and "non-interference" need to be revised. Rethinking and adjusting the principles and priorities of our diplomatic policies do not necessarily mean giving up the current ones, but making them more flexible and applicable.

In the next five years, China should emphasize strengthening cooperation with new powers, of various sizes, and deal with their possible conflicts properly. At the same time, only when we can properly handle China's relationship with the European countries and the US, and promote a shift from a Western-dominated world to a world shared by all nations, which means a world governed by global rules and including Chinese participation, can the relations between China and the West fundamentally shift.

To make this happen, China needs to introduce more appealing and inspiring proposals and targets for a new world order, as well as possible solutions that can address global issues.

The author is a professor at the School of International Studies, Renmin University of China.[email protected]

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/715443.shtml

Dalforce 1941 SG

The post-Cold War era is over

BY MICHAEL LIND

From the economic problems of the eurozone to the deepening military rivalry between the U.S. and China, a number of smaller crises are part of one, inter-related crisis: the crumbling of the post-Cold War order. The utopia of free market globalization under benign U.S. leadership that animated Democrats and Republicans alike after the fall of the Berlin Wall has vanished, like a mirage. As that fantasy future fades, the question is: What genuine future will replace it?

The official version of history shared by most of the bipartisan American establishment is that the Cold War ended with the establishment of the U.S. as the “sole superpower” and the embrace by most or all people in the world of American values with respect to democracy, human rights and economics. In the neoconservative version, the end of the Cold War allowed the U.S. to create a semi-imperial global hegemony that could last for generations. In the centrist internationalist version, China, India and other emerging nations would see the benefits of the rules of world order that America favored, even as they moved internally toward free elections and free markets. The result would be a global utopia — a rule-governed world market, policed by a benevolent United States with the consent of a grateful humanity.

To realists, it was clear that this was a fantasy. For one thing, the rule-governed global marketplace never existed from 1989 onward. Not only did Japan, South Korea and Taiwan continue to reject free market capitalism for state-directed mercantilism, but post-Maoist China chose to adopt the statist, mercantilist East Asian economic model, not the liberal Anglo-American model. Meanwhile, in the 1990s the Europeans rejected the offer of a transatlantic common market and deepened their economic integration, to the short-term benefit of Germany, whose capitalism combines liberal elements with a version of East Asia’s export-oriented mercantilism.

To simplify a complex history, before 2008 China, Japan, Germany and other countries were able to run permanent surpluses in manufactured exports only because other countries like the U.S., U.K. and Greece agreed to run permanent trade deficits, financed in part by borrowing from abroad. This unstable Ponzi scheme had nothing to do with free market globalism, which was never really tried after the Cold War. Instead of moving toward free market capitalism, as many Americans hoped, China has reemphasized the role of its state-controlled industries in recent years.

It was also clear to critical observers that the American establishment’s plan for permanent U.S. military hegemony was doomed because the American people would never be willing to shoulder the costs. And sure enough, by 2006, the American people were fed up with the limited costs of two relatively small, unsuccessful wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. President George W. Bush himself replaced his neoconservative Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld with a realist, Robert Gates. Since then U.S. defense strategy has effectively replaced neocon dreams of global hegemony with a more modest realist strategy in which the U.S. will act as “offshore balancer” of China and other potential Eurasian great power rivals.

The two dreams of the American establishment in the post-Cold War Era — global free trade and indefinite American military hegemony — were dead even before the global economy crashed in 2008. Whatever the world looks like a decade or two hence, it will not resemble the world that Thomas Friedman, the apostle of free market globalization, or neocons like Robert Kagan and Bill Kristol expected back in the 1990s.

The retrenchment of the United States in response to its prolonged internal crisis of slow and unequally shared growth is being accompanied by the decay of its old alliances. Nowhere is this more evident than in Europe, where the German Question has been opened once again.

The German Question was the central question of world politics from the unification of Germany under Bismarck in 1871 until the late 1940s. Twice the U.S. joined Germany’s great power neighbors Britain, France and Russia to prevent Germany from using force to dominate a German-led European bloc that could rival the U.S. and aspire to world domination.

During the Cold War, the German Question was solved in three ways. The first was the partition of Germany into two states, West Germany and Soviet-controlled East Germany. The second was the subordination of the West German military to the U.S. military inside of the NATO alliance. The third was the partial control of the West German economy by the European Community, later the European Union.

The end of the Cold War doomed these restraints on Germany. The two Germanies merged to form a much bigger united Germany. The collapse of the Soviet bloc replaced the smaller European community, centered on France and West Germany, with a much larger Europe with united Germany at its center. The refusal of Germany, along with France, to take part in America’s misguided invasion of Iraq in 2003 marked the effective end of NATO as an alliance under American leadership, although the alliance persists as “coalitions of the willing.”

The eurozone crisis will end with the further erosion of constraints on Germany. Ironically, the creation of the euro as a common currency was supported by France and other neighbors of Germany as a way of ensuring Germany’s subordination to European regional institutions. But the real beneficiary has been Germany, because their sacrifice of their own currencies deprives Germany’s neighbors of one method — currency devaluation — for preventing their industries from being wiped out by German exports.

However the crisis ends, the position of Germany is likely to be strengthened. If Europe moves toward deeper, federal integration, German dominance is likely to be formally entrenched. If the weaker economies leave the eurozone, then Germany will be even more dominant in the bloc that is left. And in the unlikely event that the EU were to crumble, Germany would still be the strongest power between the Atlantic and Russia. And unlike their parents and grandparents, tomorrow’s Germans, while remaining liberal and democratic, are not likely to forgo the pursuit of national self-interest because of fear of Russia or guilt over the Third Reich.

At the other end of Eurasia, China has rejected America’s informal post-Cold War offer to accept permanent subordination to the United States, in return for U.S. military protection and access to American markets. China is too big and potentially powerful to be an American sidekick like post-1945 Japan. Though none dare call it a cold war, that is what the Sino-American military rivalry, complete with Chinese cyber-attacks on the U.S. and America’s search for bases in India and Indochina, increasingly looks like. While direct conflicts among great powers are unlikely, the same cannot be said of new cold wars.

What does this have to do with the world economy? Today the conversation about the global economy goes on in a different room of the hotel than the conversation about national security. The folding wall between the two rooms will soon be opened and the two conversations will merge into one.

For most of the last several hundred years, trade has been subordinated to military considerations, as great powers struggled in a multipolar world order. During the Cold War, however, the demilitarization of the former Axis powers, West Germany and Japan, created two kinds of powers: military superpowers, the U.S and the Soviet Union, and civilian trading states, West Germany and Japan. The U.S. concentrated on military crusades, rejecting industrial policy, while the Germans and Japanese forswore military aggression and focused on industrial policy, assured that their military interests would be protected by the Americans.

As the Cold War and the post-Cold War era fade into the history books, this temporary distinction between military states and commercial states will vanish, to be replaced by some version of the historic norm — a first rank of great powers that combine realpolitik in military policy with realekonomik in trade and investment policy. In a multipolar world there will be no single military hegemon playing the role played by the U.S. until recently. And there will be no rule-governed global free market, because great powers in a multipolar world cannot allow their industrial base — the basis of their military strength — to be determined by the decisions of multinational companies, private investors and foreign governments.

All of this should be evident to our political leaders and opinion leaders. But it is hard to see what is coming in a decade or two when the horizons of your consciousness are only a few years into the past and future.

http://www.salon.com/writer/michael_lind/

Dalforce 1941 SG

Updated: 2012-08-14 08:11

The Summer Olympics, the world's largest sports event held every four years, has at times been affected by politics. The Olympic Games held during the Cold War years sometimes reflected the ideological and strategic division during those years. If the United States led several countries in boycotting the 1980 Moscow Olympics, the erstwhile Soviet Union-led Eastern Bloc (except Romania) boycotted the 1984 Los Angeles Games.

The situation improved after the end of the Cold War. The 2012 London Olympics, however, has again reflected the prevailing tensions in world politics, albeit in a different way.

A remarkable feature of the London Games has been the performance of China. The Chinese won the highest number of medals at the 2008 Beijing Olympics. But then many experts doubted whether China would be able to repeat the performance. China's success was attributed to its home advantage, which refers to the better knowledge and adaptability of local teams to conditions at home compared to foreign teams.

Many felt that China had capitalized on its home advantage to win the maximum number of medals in Beijing, which it would not be able to do if the Games were held elsewhere.

All these doubts have been put to rest by China's impressive show in London. While China was expected to do well, it was probably not expected to win as many gold medals as it did. The final medal tally is now known to one and all. The sporting gap between the US and China has clearly reduced. In several events including swimming, which has been traditionally dominated by the US, the Chinese have performed as well as the Americans.

China's demonstration of its sports power has, expectedly, not gone down well with the US and the Western media. Many media reports have accused Chinese athletes of adopting unfair means for enhancing speed, stamina and strength. These allegations, made mostly by former athletes and coaches, reflect the frustration of the US and Europe in not being able to match China in what they consider their "pet" events. It is not only China whose success in the Olympics has damaged Western pride. The noteworthy performance of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea has also raised eyebrows.

The London Olympics mirrors an important reality of the modern world: the gradual emergence of a bipolar global order. The unipolar world order of more than two decades, dominated by the US, is getting increasingly rebalanced by the rise of China. The strategic distance between the US and China has decreased in many respects. China still lags behind the US and most of the high-income developed countries of the world in several social and human development indicators. But it is gradually catching up in other areas. And sports is one of them.

Internationally, sports is dominated by the major global powers. Excellence in sports is one of the several characteristics of a world power. During the Cold War years, sports was dominated by the US and the Soviet Union, the two superpowers.

Thereafter, it was the US all the way, followed by members of the G7 group of rich countries: France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy and Canada. China, in this sense, is the first non-G7 country to challenge the supremacy of the G7 in sports. It is also the first Asian country to take on the Western dominance in sports on such a large scale. Though Japan has been a good performer in several sports, its achievements have never been big enough to put it in the top league of world sports.

China's performance at the London Olympics, therefore, has several significant implications. These include an Asian alternative in a field traditionally dominated by the West. They also include the unprecedented rise and presence of a developing country in the topmost league of world sports. China's repetition of its performance in Beijing four years later in a foreign country reflects the closing gap between the developed world and a part of the developing world in the sports arena.

And finally, what the Olympics most convincingly shows is the emergence of a new global bipolarity. This, as expected, has elicited adverse responses. Stronger growth of the bipolarity will only draw more adverse responses to China's rise and the "Asia-centric" reordering of the world.

The author is head of Partnership & Programme and visiting senior research fellow at the Institute of South Asian Studies in the National University of Singapore.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2012-08/14/content_15673647.htm

Dalforce 1941 SG

Vice Chairman in charge of Secretariat of the 16th NAM Summit of Leaders Mohammad Sheikhan said that NAM members are important parties to international community shouldering heavy responsibility at this stage.

NAM members can adopt a very suitable and strong stand to defend their legitimate rights vis-a-vis the bullying powers who trample upon rights of nations in disguise of democracy, he said.

""Under the current global developments that global arrogance led by the US seek to dominate the world, the role of NAM in this challenge is remarkable.""

Two-third of the world countries make up for NAM member states, he said adding that NAM can have positive impacts on restoring peace, tranquility and justice in the world. Role of media in this struggle is very prominent, he said.

He said that after collapse of communism, the global arrogance sought to impose unipolar system on the world making responsibility of NAM members much heavier, he said.

The 16th NAM summit of Leaders in Tehran would be a golden opportunity for its members to harmonize international campaign to resolve global crisis, he said.

http://irna.ir/News/Politic/NAM-opposes-unipolar-world,-official/80271478