Thread: Eurasia Topics

Selective aren't we. Why not include all the world's nuclear power plant explosions, to add some depth to your argument.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Russia.

Nuclear power stations.

You're not very bright, are you?

Ohh ahh. Russia had an accident. As has the US. The point ?

https://www.economist.com/graphic-de...eactor-exports

You better tell Finland, Hungary and the UAE, who are all buying Russian power stations , that you know better than them harry
Russia leads the world at nuclear-reactor exports

Originally Posted by OhOh

Selective aren't we. Why not include all the world's nuclear power plant explosions, to add some depth to your argument.

Sorry, I forgot the other accidental nuclear explosion. Damn, now where was that again?

Originally Posted by Backspin

Ohh ahh. Russia had an accident. As has the US. The point ?

explosion

/ɪkˈspləʊʒ(ə)n,ɛkˈspləʊʒ(ə)n/
Learn to pronounce



noun

1. 1.
   a violent shattering or blowing apart of something, as is caused by a bomb.
   "three explosions damaged buildings at the barracks"
   
   
   
   
   
   

You're being weird again.

Chinky fuckers at it again.

Cisco Systems has secured an injunction that requires marketplaces like Amazon and Alibaba to stop selling certain knockoffs of key networking equipment. Cisco argues that counterfeit items could threaten US national security and health systems because the items were more prone to failure and issues.

(Not to mention spying - Harry)

The suit, which was filed in a New York federal court, claims that four Chinese companies made counterfeit versions of transceivers, a piece of equipment necessary for the transfer of digital information. The judgment follows a recent surge in preventative measures pushed by US government and tech companies against Chinese companies that steal intellectual property and produce counterfeits.

https://www.oodaloop.com/briefs/2019/12/16/cisco-wins-legal-challenge-in-battle-against-chinese-counterfeits/

You do know when, you go off on this silly waffling shit, no-one has a fucking clue what you're on about, right?

All that counts, is that I, am, amused.

What you "others" make of it is ........

Originally Posted by OhOh

All that counts, is that I, am, amused.

What you "others" make of it is ........

I think it's more a case of self abuse than self amuse.

Originally Posted by OhOh

All that counts, is that I, am, amused.

Admittedly, that is a good reply

Now, I am trying to remember which poster continuously kept (mis)using far too many commas . . . argh (like me with my three dots)

US-India: Why 2+2 may not always be 4

"To what extent External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar’s cancellation at the last minute of the scheduled meeting on Thursday with a Congressional panel in Washington, DC, was with an eye on Nagpur one doesn’t know. He is an ambitious media savvy politician with an IQ by far higher than of anyone else in Prime Minister Modi’s cabinet.

What can be deduced at this point is that the Jayapal distraction drew attention away from the outcome of the 2+2 foreign and defence ministers meeting in Washington on December 18. The US-Indian military-to-military ties are deepening and the two countries are tiptoeing toward a veritable alliance in the Indo-Pacific region.
The US side is plainly delighted that with Jaishankar’s return to the foreign policy-making echelons as EAM in May, the unclogging of the arteries of US-Indian partnership began in right earnest. Jaishankar is also uniquely placed to influence the decisions of the Indian defence ministry, although Raksha Mantri Rajnath Singh is a towering presence with a booming voice and notionally one of the senior most politicians in the BJP. Plainly put, Jaishankar calls the shots since he knows how to work the system — and it is no secret that he enjoys Modi’s trust and RSS’ patronage.

The 2+2 in Washington conveys the impression that the US-Indian strategic partnership is preparing for an exciting journey ahead. The silence on the part of the US officials with regard to Citizenship Amendment Act or the lockdown in Jammu & Kashmir needs to be understood in this light. (More of that later.)
In geopolitical terms, the 2+2 has been principally about the Trump administration’s Indo-Pacific strategy. The climate of tensions between the US and China provided its backdrop. This is a historic juncture when the US is in great need of an alliance with India to strengthen its hands in the fierce struggle with China in the Asian theatre.
There is consensus in the Beltway that China is America’s number one rival, and most analysts in the US and abroad estimate that a high-stakes struggle between the two great powers lies ahead for the foreseeable future.

It means that India can rest assured that the current trend of hostile American moves against China across a broad spectrum ranging from trade and technology to currency and Hong Kong and Xinjiang will only accelerate for at least a decade to come. The lack of consistency in American policies toward China prompted India in the past to hedge and pause.

Taken together, therefore, the Indian establishment estimates that the time has come to signal to the US its readiness to shed strategic ambivalence and to stand up and be counted as a close, trusted partner in Washington’s Indo-Pacific strategy to tackle China’s rise. The outcome of the 2+2 suggests that India has pressed the ‘play’ button.
The joint statement issued after the 2+2 talks shows a remarkable congruence in the two countries’ approach to the rise of China. The India-US-Japan trilateral format and the Quadrilateral (‘Quad’) format are being groomed for creating a quasi-alliance system to step up practical cooperation in areas ranging from infrastructure development, cyber security, counterterrorism, and regional connectivity to ‘capacity-building of peacekeepers’ and maritime security.

The US and India are envisaging a “comprehensive, enduring, and mutually-beneficial” partnership within which they have resolved to “expand all aspects of their security and defence cooperation.” Some of the major templates are:

• upgrade of the ‘tri-service’ military exercises to sophisticated level (which will now also include Special Forces) with accent on ‘interoperability’;
• enhanced cooperation between the Indian armed forces and the US’s Pacific Command, Indo-Pacific Command and Africa Command;
• assignment of an Indian officer to liaise with the US Central Command Hqs. in Doha;
• strengthening of joint and service-to-service interaction and cooperation between Special Operations Forces;
• “capacity-building efforts” in the Indo-Pacific;
• signing of the Industrial Security Annex last week, which will facilitate exchange of classified military information between the two countries’ defence industries;
  
• defence innovation cooperation and linking of India to the US-led global defence supply chain;
• finalisation of a Statement of Intent to co-develop “several projects”;
• collaboration on testing and certification in defence and aerospace sectors and establishment of Maintenance Repair and Overhaul facilities in India;
• convergence on cyber security cooperation, particularly in regard of 5G networks; and,
• potential defence cooperation in the domain of space.

State secretary Mike Pompeo said at a joint press conference with the visiting Indian ministers that with the signing of the Industrial Security Annex, “we have almost finished all of the enabling agreements that will allow us to have the maximum level of collaboration and cooperation with India, both in sales as well as coproduction.”

But he also added a caveat: “And so at a certain point in time, there is a strategic choice that needs to be made about platforms and systems, and our – certainly, we are encouraging India to look at our platforms and our systems as the most efficacious as it’s facing challenges in the Indo-Pacific region.”
Plainly put, US expects India to turn to American vendors as the principal source of weaponry. Pompeo hinted unmistakably that everything hangs on India paring down its defence relationship with Russia. Pompeo was frank: “India is very well aware of the concerns we have both over – our concerns related to Russia and… our concerns over our ability to achieve the interoperability that we seek with India.”
The 2+2 in Washington is an important milestone in US-Indian strategic partnership and there’s going to be far-reaching consequences. China will watch the development with alarm. What form or directions the Chinese reaction will take lies in the realm of the ‘known unknown’.
Again, India has appeased the Russians so far by awarding lucrative arms deals, but bazaar instincts work only up to a point in the new Cold War conditions. The US-Russian relations are deteriorating. It’s a matter of time before Washington insists on India to make its choice — ‘You’re with us, or against us’.

The US sanctions against Turkey, a key NATO ally, on account of its S-400 missile deal with Russia, or, against German companies involved in the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project with Russia are signposts.
On Friday, Trump signed the defence spending bill for 2010 that includes several measures aimed at punishing Turkey. The legislation shuts out Turkey from NATO’s F-35 fighter jet program and punishes Turkey further by lifting a US arms embargo on its Eastern Mediterranean adversary Cyprus, and slapping sanctions on shipping companies involved in the construction of the Turkstream gas pipeline project with Russia.
On December 18, the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee overwhelmingly voted to approve a “comprehensive, bipartisan bill (which) significantly increases the political, diplomatic, and economic pressure on the Russian Federation in response to its malign activities around the world.” One of the sponsors of the proposed legislation, Senator Lindsey Graham (Republican-South Carolina) calls the legislation “sanctions bill from hell”.

In the very same week, US Congress passed yet another legislation, The Eastern Mediterranean Security and Energy Partnership Act, whose main thrust is to diversify Europe’s energy sources away from Kremlin-controlled companies.
In such a context, Moscow will be watching the 2+2 in Washington with growing disquiet. A commentary in the Kremlin-funded RT on December 19, titled New Delhi, beware of Americans bearing gifts and promises! warned India explicitly against entrapment in the US’ regional strategy. At any rate, can India afford to overlook the crucial Russian support in the UN Security Council in the time of troubles?
Indeed, can India overlook that the US stance on core issues — Pakistan, Kashmir — lacks bite only because it is muted? Turn up the volume a few decibels and it becomes clear that the US never explicitly supported India’s crackdown in J&K or condoned the CAA. In fact, the US federal commission on religious freedom has demanded sanctions against Home Minister Amit Shah.

The noted India hand, Prof. Paul Staniland at the University of Chicago wrote in a recent essay entitled India’s New Security Order, “I identify three characteristics of the new (Modi-Jaishankar) order: an emphasis on risk-taking and assertiveness, the fusing of domestic and international politics, and the use of unrelenting spin to hold critics at bay.”
“This approach carries potential benefits for the United States in bolstering its position in Asia. But it also brings a set of risks and challenges that demand clear-eyed analysis — and a willingness to debate how the United States engages with India moving forward.”
The US stance is highly ambivalent and everything devolves upon India’s utility for the US’ geo-strategies. At the 2+2 meeting last week, India shed its coyness and signalled a willingness for the first time to play at the high table of global politics. The shift is in consonance with Jaishankar’s facile notions such as that India’s past record shows that “a low-risk foreign policy is only likely to produce limited rewards.”
How does one define “low-risk foreign policy”? Pray, when Indira Gandhi split Pakistan by half, ignoring (and defying) world opinion, was it a “low-risk” affair? Besides, in the contemporary world situation, it isn’t in India’s hands alone to formulate that definition. Professor Staniland notes,

“What does this new dynamic mean for the United States? Washington has reasons to want a more assertive and powerful India as a counterweight to Chinese influence… An India that is serious about overcoming the negative trends in its military balance with China, establishes linkages to American allies and partners in Asia and beyond, pursues liberal democratic values, and continues high levels of economic growth would be a serious asset. This bundle of opportunities has driven Washington towards increasing Indian-American alignment since the early 2000s.”
Doesn’t the actual Indian capability play a part in all this? Jaishankar’s obsessive belief that India is a key player in an emerging multipolar order is born out of sheer naïveté. Realistically speaking, the danger today lies in getting locked into the US’ containment strategy against China. It is apparent that in the period since Jaishankar’s appointment as EAM, India’s relations with China have become unpredictable, as evident from the latest meeting of the special representatives of the two countries in Delhi on December 20, as is borne out by the Indian and Chinese readouts (here and here).

On the other hand, the US cannot be unaware of India’s actual military power relative to China — leave alone its comprehensive national power, which includes the economic performance. The trend lines are hopelessly negative for India and the capability gap vis-a-vis China can only worsen further in the period ahead.
The economy is, in the final analysis, the central driver of India’s strategic clout and fudging economic data can no longer hide the bitter truth that the economy has entered an alarming slump. Modi’s talk about a $5 trillion economy in a near future draws only derisive laughter from economists in India and abroad.
Added to all that are the faultiness that have surged thanks to the BJP’s domestic political project of relegating the Indian Muslims as second class citizens, which in turn creates international challenges.

Meanwhile, Modi’s open embrace of Trump at the Houston rally in September and the direct and vituperative attack on Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal and other leading Democratic Party figures are manifestations of a dangerous gambit to wade into the American political system.

Herein lies the paradox. The vista of high-profile security and military cooperation that the 2+2 envisages becomes unsustainable if it runs parallel with the severe erosion of the democratic values and shared values that constituted an important pillar of American support for India.
There is strident criticism in the mainstream US opinion that Modi is inexorably moving India in the direction of ‘illiberal democracy’. The Modi government is seen as part of a transnational wave of illiberalism. Delhi’s knee-jerk reaction is to resort to the hackneyed methods of lobbying and diaspora mobilisation. But times have changed.

What the Jayapal episode highlight is that the bipartisan political pillar of the US-Indian relationship in America has become wobbly and a patch-up via transactional realpolitik will not work. One of the fallouts of the great schism that developed in American politics following Trump’s election as president in 2016 has been that one half of America rejects everything that he stands for, which in turn has led to a new willingness to revisit the American strategy.

One main reason why Turkey and Saudi Arabia, two close allies of the US historically, are taking such flak today in the US Congress is because of the perception in the Beltway that Trump is warm towards them. This is where Jaishankar has made a mistake by insulting Jayapal. The Modi Bhakts have only made matters worse by charging like hyperactive Rottweilers at Senator Elizabeth Warren and other Democrats who came to Jayapal’s rescue."

https://indianpunchline.com/us-india...t-always-be-4/

Last 19 impoverished areas in Tibet rise out of poverty


Last 19 impoverished areas in Tibet rise out of poverty

By PALDEN NYIMA and DAQIONG in Lhasa | China Daily | Updated: 2019-12-24 02:52

Lhasa locals offer barley wine to new neighbors after they moved last year from Nagchu as part of the first ecological relocation project in the Tibet autonomous region.

CHOGO / XINHUA "Authorities in the Tibet autonomous region announced on Monday that they have removed the last 19 impoverished areas from the poverty list.

The regional poverty alleviation office said 18 counties in Ngari Prefecture, falling under the citi[at]es of Xigaze and Qamdo, and one county-level district of Nagchu have passed authorities' assessments. They now meet a series of delisting requirements, including lowering the comprehensive poverty head count ratio to below 3 percent.

The 19 areas, all in remote, high-altitude locations, were once among the poorest in the region, according to the office.
Tibet has been considered one of China's main battlefields against poverty for geographical and historical reasons ever since China launched its nationwide drive against poverty in 2016.

The regional government has undertaken targeted poverty relief measures. Before the latest 19 delistings, 55 counties and districts had declared themselves out of poverty between 2016 and 2018. That was the result of efforts by the government and by people themselves, who made an effort to improve their livelihoods. In all, 470,000 benefited.

To date, all 74 poverty-stricken counties and districts in the region have been lifted out of poverty.

Tenzin Trinley, a resident of Shai[at]tongmon county, one of the final 18, described himself as one of thousands of beneficiaries in the region.

Shaitongmon lies along the northern basin of the Yarlung Zangpo River and about 500 kilometers from Lhasa, the region's capital.

Trinley, 61, lives in a remote herding village in a harsh environment. The average altitude exceeds 4,000 meters above sea level.

Before 2016, his family of 11 people had to share a single big room as a common bedroom in an aging structure. Under the government's poverty alleviation program, the family was given a new house in 2018. All family members now have a bedroom of their own.

"It was not convenient for families to share a single room in the past," he said. "Now we all have our own bedrooms, and share a living room, dining room and storage."

Apart from housing, the local government also assisted with job opportunities.

"My wife and I were given the task of ecological patrols, which brings an annual income of 7,000 yuan ($998). It's so great. Not only is the environment protected but poverty-stricken people like us also stand to benefit financially using our own hands," Trinley added.

In 2019, the per capita disposable income of his family increased to more than 9,000 yuan, from around 2,000 in 2016.

The extra money came from environmental patrols, subsidies from returning part of this grassland to the government's ecological preservation project, old-age pensions and selling yaks and sheep.

Before 2016, herding was the family's sole source of income, and they had only a few sheep and yaks.

Last 19 impoverished areas in Tibet rise out of poverty - Chinadaily.com.cn

Saudi placates Pakistan. What about India?



Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan received Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan in Islamabad on Dec.26, 2019.

"The one-day visit to Islamabad on December 26 by Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan bin Abdullah aimed at a reset of the Saudi-Pakistani relationship. What emerges is that Saudis are going the extra league to placate Pakistan. The Modi government must take note.

To recap, things came to a pass in September when, following the Modi government’s historic move to ‘integrate’ J&K, Pakistan mooted the idea of an Islamic conference with Turkey and Malaysia to highlight the Kashmir issue in the face of Saudi Arabia’s lukewarm attitude.

That initiative by Prime Minister Imran Khan eventually took the form of the KL Summit 2020 in the Malaysian capital on December 19-21 with a broader agenda to choreograph a new pathway for the Muslim world in the contemporary world situation.

Unsurprisingly, Saudi Arabia assessed that the Malaysian initiative would pose a challenge to its leadership of the ‘ummah’. The Saudi King Salman took exception in a phone call to the Malaysian PM Mahathir Mohammed on the eve of the KL summit to complain that the OIC ought to have been the right forum to deal with Islamic issues.

Furthermore, Saudis prevailed upon Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan to stand down from the KL summit. (See my blog Saudi Arabia reads the riot act to Imran Khan,) This was how Turkish President Recep Erdoğan later recapitulated the high drama:
“Unfortunately, we see that Saudi Arabia pressures Pakistan. Now, there are promises that the country has given to Pakistan regarding the central bank. However, more than that, there are 4 million Pakistanis working in Saudi Arabia. They (threaten by saying that they) would send (Pakistanis) back and re-employ Bangladeshi people instead.”

According to Erdoğan, due to its economic difficulties, Pakistan had to submit to such threats. Pakistan of course has denied any such Saudi pressure.

Indeed, Saudis are well aware that their lukewarm attitude on the Kashmir issue has left scars on the Saudi-Pak relationship. In fact, there has since been a discernible upswing in Pakistan’s relations with Iran.

The point is, at the present juncture of regional politics, the Saudis simply cannot afford their leadership of the ummah to be challenged when there is a concerted Turkey-Iran-Qatar axis at work in the Muslim Middle East undermining the prestige of the Saudi regime, and the Saudi confidence in the US as provider of security is badly shaken.

It is in this backdrop that Prince Faisal brought with him to Islamabad on Thursday a most generous gift to assuage the Pakistani sentiments — King Salman’s decision to convene a special meeting of the OIC foreign ministers to discuss Kashmir. In an extraordinary gesture, this event will also be held in Islamabad in April.

Wouldn’t Saudi leadership be knowing that King Salman’s decision will upset India? Nonetheless, Saudis estimate that Pakistan’s importance by far outweighs the dalliance with India.
Without doubt, this development comes as a big setback to Indian diplomacy and Modi government’s Persian Gulf strategies. A question mark must be put now on the expected investment plans by Saudi Aramco in the $70 billion mega petrochemical plant (originally planned to be set up in Ratnagiri).

Clearly, in the context of the present-day upheaval in India following the CAA, which has a pronounced anti-Muslim thrust, the Saudis will go slow on ties with India. Over and above, it emerges that any shift in the Saudi stance on Kashmir in India’s favour is simply out of the question.

Meanwhile, Modi government also made a serious mistake by taking sides in the Saudi-Iranian rivalries. Acting under the foolish notion that a warming up of ties with Saudi Arabia (and UAE) necessitated a cooling down of relations with Iran, the Modi government put on the back burner the strategic partnership with Iran.
The Saudi u-turn, therefore, also means that India must rush to Tehran in sackcloth and ashes. What a mess-up! (See my blog Tehran loses patience with Modi government’s hide and seek.)

This level of incompetence and intellectual bankruptcy at the leadership level in Delhi in policymaking in regard of what India calls its ‘extended neighbourhood’ has no parallel in the recent times.

How is it that countries such as Russia, China, Japan, South Korea or Malaysia manage to have friendly relations with both Saudi Arabia and Iran? Neither Saudi Arabia nor Iran demands an exclusive relationship with any country.
Saudi Arabia is in historic transition. The KL summit has come as a reality check to the Saudi regime. The message out of the KL summit is that Saudi Arabia not only failed to lead the Islamic world but lacks leadership quality at a time when the Muslim world has come under severe pressure and faces many challenges and Islam needs rejuvenation.

This is where Pakistan, a major Muslim country, becomes a crucial ally. The Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman has a warm personal friendship with Imran Khan and intends to preserve it. The very fact that Imran Khan stayed out of the KL summit in deference to Saudi concerns underscores that despite Riyadh’s perceived ‘tilt’ in favour of India on the Kashmir issue, Pakistan still remains eager to nurture the fraternal ties with Saudi Arabia.

Faisal’s mission to Islamabad aimed at reassuring the Pakistani leadership of Saudi support on Kashmir issue. The upheaval over the Citizenship Amendment Act and the National Register of Citizens will only further complicate India’s relations with the Muslim world.

Indian diplomacy faces a difficult period ahead. With Modi’s international image seriously damaged — perhaps, irrecoverably — and the Indian foreign policy finding itself in drift due to the aberrations of the Hindu nationalist government in power, we move on to the New Year in a depressing scenario"

https://indianpunchline.com/saudi-pl...t-about-india/

The Closer to the New Year, the Greater the Commotion

"As 2019 draws to a close, tensions start to rise on the Korean Peninsula, and it is expected that the period of de-escalation in the region won’t continue into 2020. During the whole month of November, North Korean representatives were urging the United States to change its approach, warning that “the window narrows.” The United States made some concessions, but evident half-measures did not suit Pyongyang.

December unfolds amid some very interesting events. Among these events is the next round of the war of words that hints at the return of the “presidential rap battles.” First, Trump called Kim Jong-un a “Rocket Man” and said that, with all due respect to the leadership of North Korea, the United States is ready for military retaliation if it proves necessary. In response, the head of the DPRK General Staff Department said that, in the event of a military conflict, the US would have to face much more than it bargained for. Just a day later, First Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs Choe Son-hui hinted, not so subtly, that if Trump had misspoken, it was one thing, but if his statement was outright trolling, North Korean officials have all the right to call him a “senile dotard.” Choe noted that the Supreme Leader continues to remain silent about Trump and still has hopes for his prudence. And so the war of words goes on (without Kim Jong-un’s participation so far). There’s no need to cite every quote, but it does seem worth noting that the suggestion for the US to change tactics before the year end has been repeatedly expressed with different intonations NINETEEN TIMES, as Pyongyang grows increasingly impatient.

American attempts to reach out so far remain unanswered. Stephen Biegun, recently promoted to Deputy Secretary of State, announced during a visit to Seoul that the North can contact him, but what is permitted to the president (and has led to the meeting in Panmunjom) is forbidden to his assistants. Moreover, all this happened against the background of the scheduled annual UN Security Council Resolution, where the DPRK was branded as a human rights violator for the fifteenth time. At the same time, another one of Russia and China’s attempt to submit a proposal for easing sanctions to the Security Council proved unsuccessful (for now?). The DPRK is often called unpredictable. However, it was way back in April at a session of the Supreme People’s Assembly when Kim Jong-un announced that, by the beginning of 2020, the situation could change quite drastically. Nevertheless, the statement about the US “deciding for themselves what kind of gift it will receive from us for Christmas” caused a stir among experts, especially in connection with satellite images of the Tonghanni area, where two “important tests” were conducted. The nature of these tests was described by the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) in a very evasive manner.

The most popular version is that it was a new engine for ICBMs, most likely running on solid fuel. Pessimists think that the North Korean leader may initiate a new launch of an ICBM or even test nuclear weapons in the atmosphere, if only because the Punggye-ri test site is not functioning. Optimists believe that it won’t be an ICMB that is launched, but rather a civilian satellite (on a modernized missile). Since every country has the right to peaceful space exploration, the situation will be ambiguous, and the reaction to the launch will determine the future course. Realists, on the other hand, draw attention to the fact that the moratorium on launching ICBMs and nuclear tests has not been solidified by a legally binding document. Consequently, Kim Jong-un can take back his words at any time, and this won’t be a violation of any signed agreements.

The upcoming December Plenum of the Central Committee of the WPK seems to be more interesting and of greater importance, as the country’s foreign policy objectives for the near future will be on the agenda. No less significant is the recent meeting of the military leadership, during which Kim Jong-un spoke on “important organizational issues.” It is notable that this time, Kim Jong-un actually brings issues for general discussion instead of making decisions on his own, only announcing them during his New Year’s speech. In any case, since the meeting in Hanoi it’s been rumored that the traditionalist mood in the DPRK leadership remains strong, and Kim Jong-un received petitions not to make concessions to the US. It seems that Kim Jong-un is destroying the relationship between himself and Trump. But because this is happening in the midst of another attempt to impeach the latter, Pyongyang can expect Trump to lose the upcoming 2020 elections. This means that the next president, whoever he or she may be, is unlikely to go on “making irresponsible concessions to the tyrannical regime.” Therefore, even if Kim Jong-un and Trump reach some agreements next year, they will most likely be canceled despite the fact that they will demand irreversible actions from the DPRK. Consequently, while everything that the United States can offer in return is viewed as reversible.

And now Trump’s hands are tied; what had been done so far wasn’t perceived by the DPRK as concessions, and because of the impeachment process, Trump can’t even risk weakening sanctions. Thus, silence is the answer when American or South Korean experts are faced with the following question: “If the DPRK is obliged to fulfill everything that it promised in Hanoi, but only in exchange for counter steps, what shape can these steps even take?” Nevertheless, for now Pyongyang continues to be elusive, sometimes emphasizing that Plan B does not imply a return to the situation of 2017. Indeed, the Christmas present will be chosen not by Pyongyang, but by Washington, which theoretically still has time to, if not change, then at least adjust its approach.

Of course, it will be difficult, because unlike Kim Jong-un, Trump must keep track of the state of US domestic politics. He can try to increase his rating by reaching some kind of agreement with the DPRK, but the problem is that both sides must move towards consensus. And of course, Moscow and Beijing play an important role in this process as well. The status quo is beneficial for them, so on the one hand, they seek to loosen sanctions, and on the other, they try to persuade Kim Jong-un not to “aggravate” the situation. Therefore, it is quite possible that the extension of the moratorium will be the good version of Pyongyang’s present. This won’t prevent Kim Jong-un from further developing the RMD and MLRS, which North Korea did not promise to discontinue. It seems that both sides are preparing for the worst.

It’s worth mentioning here that in December 2019, several important production facilities and infrastructure projects were built in North Korea in order to strengthen the national economy in anticipation of tightened sanctions after the disruption of dialogue. In case of sanctions turning into a full-fledged economic blockade, the constructed power plants, nurseries, greenhouse complexes, potato flour and fertilizer factories, a pilot project to develop infrastructure in remote regions – all this will be aimed at improving the quality of life of North Korean citizens not only in Pyongyang, but in the provinces as well.

With Christmas right around the corner, no matter how events unfold, analysts will be intrigued. Like the DPRK, we hope for the best but are prepared for the more disappointing outcome."

https://journal-neo.org/2019/12/28/t...the-commotion/

Originally Posted by OhOh

Last 19 impoverished areas in Tibet rise out of poverty - Chinadaily.com.cn

Chinky bollocks to distract from them committing cultural genocide.

U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Yang raises $16.5 million in fourth quarter for bid

"Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Andrew Yang raised $16.5 million in the fourth quarter, his campaign said on Thursday, well ahead of the nearly $10 million he collected in the third quarter. The total is expected to land him among the top fundraisers in the Democratic field, which has 15 contenders seeking to take on U.S. President Donald Trump in the November 2020 election.

Yang’s collection falls well short of that from Bernie Sanders, who raised more than $34.5 million in the last quarter of 2019, and Pete Buttigieg who raised $24.7 million in the same period.

Fundraising numbers are closely watched to assess whether campaigns are collecting the cash needed to be competitive.
Asian-American Yang was the only ethnic minority candidate to qualify for the last Democratic debate in December.

His candidacy for U.S. president - and his campaign promise to guarantee every American a basic, government-funded income - was initially dismissed by many but then he saw a rise in public opinion polls. His $10 million fundraising haul in the third quarter was the sixth-highest among Democrats.

The Ivy League-educated son of Taiwanese immigrants, who would be the country’s first Asian-American president, has centered his message on the theme that automation is destroying U.S. jobs and that his “Freedom Dividend” is the best way to mitigate the damage.

The message has particularly resonated with young, male Democrats, independents and some Republicans, according to Reuters/Ipsos polls. "

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-fundraising/u-s-democratic-presidential-candidate-yang-raises-16-5-million-in-fourth-quarter-for-bid-idUSKBN1Z10NT?il=0

Looks Chines, has a Chinese name but from a province of China called Taiwan, so all's good.

I see Yang wants to legalise shrooms.

That's gonna get him some votes.

China to become first to realize UN goal of 'no poverty'


"China is poised to realize a dream that a few decades ago most experts would have dismissed as wishful thinking. For centuries, China dreamed of building a "moderately prosperous society" in all respects. And this year, under the leadership of the Communist Party of China, China will realize that dream despite having a population of more than 1.3 billion.

Late leader Deng Xiaoping resurrected this ancient but never-realized goal when reform and opening-up were launched. Chinese leaders who followed adopted it, adding additional details.

President Xi Jinping included it in his seminal "four-pronged comprehensive strategy" in 2014. Xi explained the notion in great detail at the 19th National Congress of the CPC in October 2017 in a speech titled, "Secure a Decisive Victory in Building a Moderately Prosperous Society in All Respects", mentioning the concept 18 times.

He said that building a moderately prosperous society in all respects meant promoting social fairness and justice, as well as ensuring steady access to childcare, education, employment, medical service, elderly care, housing and social assistance. He pledged to "intensify poverty alleviation, see that all our people have a greater sense of fulfillment as they contribute to and gain from development, and continue to promote well-rounded human development and common prosperity for everyone."

Now, a little more than two years later, the results are in, and China is about to eradicate absolute poverty.
In 1979, China's per capita GDP was $200. It is now estimated to be $10,000, a 50-fold increase－with GDP growth averaging just shy of 10 percent a year.

Over the past four decades, China has lifted about 800 million people out of poverty, which is 70 percent of the global total. Little wonder China is set to become the first developing country to achieve the first of the UN's 17 Sustainable Development Goals: No poverty.
China's rural population living under the currently defined poverty line of $1.90 per person per day fell from 770 million in 1978 to 16.6 million in 2018, and the rural poverty level declined from 97.5 percent to 1.7 percent, a decrease of 95.8 percent.

In 2019 alone, about 340 impoverished counties and 10 million people were lifted out of poverty. And Xi has pledged that after the eradication of absolutely poverty in 2020, China will launch a campaign to eliminate relative poverty.
Other statistics are equally impressive. For example, over the four decades of reform and opening-up, life expectancy has increased from 65 to 77, and the infant mortality rate dropped from 48 deaths per 1,000 live births to 6.1 deaths per 1,000.

Sidney Gamble, an American sociologist, amateur photographer and grandson of the founder of Proctor& Gamble, now called P&G, made three study trips to North China in the early 20th century. The abject poverty of the people in Beijing captured in his photographs are in stark contrast to the photos taken last year in some of the exact same spots by his grandson that showed the Chinese capital's state-of-the-art modernity.

But much needs to be done to realize the second centennial goal by 2050 (2049 being the 100th anniversary of the founding of New China), that is, to "develop China into a great modern socialist country that is prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced, harmonious, and beautiful".

Although China is set to eliminate absolute poverty this year, its per capita income is still very low compared with those of advanced economies. Plus, income inequality is relatively high, and China still lags behind advanced economies in terms of labor productivity and human capital.
When I first visited China in 1988, it was a totally different place. I'm in awe of the changes China has brought about in a little over three decades. And I'm privileged to live here and see the historic transformation with my own eyes."

China to become first to realize UN goal of 'no poverty' - Opinion - Chinadaily.com.cn

Premature, propaganda or facts.

The TD poster can decide.

At UN, China's top envoy calls for calm amid US-Iran strife


"Zhang Jun says US 'unilateral adventurist acts' have violated international norms

China's top envoy to the United Nations said the country is committed to playing a constructive role in maintaining peace and stability in the Middle East and the Gulf region.

Concerning the escalation of tensions between the United States and Iran and the situation in the Middle East and the Gulf region, Ambassador Zhang Jun, China's permanent representative to the United Nations, said at UN headquarters in New York on Monday that "China follows the situation very closely, and the pressing task at the moment is to prevent the situation from further escalating and running out of control."

Zhang said that as a permanent member of the Security Council, China is carrying out active diplomatic efforts.
"State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi has had telephone conversations with the Russian, French and Iranian foreign ministers in firm commitment to regional peace and stability," he said.

The UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called on world leaders to de-escalate geopolitical tensions, which he described as being "at their highest level this century" as the new decade dawns, according to the UN News website.
"The New Year has begun with our world in turmoil. We are living in dangerous times", said the UN chief at the noon "press stakeout", noting that turbulence is only escalating.

On Sunday, the Iraqi parliament passed a non-binding resolution calling for US troops to leave the country, in a clear response to the killing of the Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani on their soil.
In response, US President Donald Trump has threatened Iraq with sanctions if the US is forced to withdraw its forces. He also mentioned on Twitter that sites of "cultural" significance in Iran were potential targets if there were reprisal attacks against Americans.

Guterres stated that a "cauldron of tensions is leading more and more countries to take unpredicted decisions with unpredictable consequences and a profound risk of miscalculation".
Zhang stated that China opposes the arbitrary use of force in international relations.

"The US unilateral adventurist acts have violated basic norms governing international relations and led to aggravation of tensions," he said.

"We urge the US side not to abuse force and call on relevant parties to exercise restraint and seek solution through dialogue," he said, adding that the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Iraq should be respected at the same time.

As the Security Council shoulders the primary responsibility of maintaining international peace and security, Zhang called for the international community, including the Security Council, to make efforts to de-escalate tensions.

According to Zhang, China has noticed that the permanent representative of Iran has presented a letter to the president of the Security Council, asking the council to pay close attention to US actions and to uphold council responsibilities.

"China is ready to keep close communication with relevant parties, uphold just and objective positions, stand for international law, fairness and justice, and maintain peace and stability in the Gulf region and the Middle East," Zhang said.

Earlier on Monday, the United States accused China and Russia of blocking a UN Security Council statement "underscoring the inviolability of diplomatic and consular premises" after a Dec 31 attack on the US embassy in Baghdad, according to Reuters.

Such statements by the 15-member Security Council have to be agreed to by consensus.
Zhang responded that "China does not accept the US accusation.

"China firmly supports protection of the safety of foreign missions in accordance with international law," Zhang said.
"The US unilateral military action has led to drastic changes in the regional situation. Action taken by the Security Council should reflect the latest developments of the situation and help prevent escalation of tensions," Zhang added.

According to UN News, the UN chief had a clear four-point message for what needs to happen now, in capitals across the world: "Stop escalation. Exercise maximum restraint. Restart dialogue. Renew international cooperation."

"Let us not forget the terrible human suffering caused by war," he concluded. "As always, ordinary people pay the highest price. It is our common duty to avoid it."

At UN, China's top envoy calls for calm amid US-Iran strife - World - Chinadaily.com.cn

Paradise Islands and Britain’s Human Rights Hypocrisy

"As the Middle East lurches to deeper chaos, thanks to Washington’s drone-strike assassination in Iraq of Iranian and Iraqi citizens, and the world braces for reprisals, the light has shifted from the countless millions of other people deserving attention and compassion. Human rights continue to be abused in many regions in spite of efforts by the UN and private organisations to persuade various governments that their conduct is shameful.

Which brings us to the government of Britain.


Mustique is described as “a small private island that is one of the Grenadines, a chain of islands in the West Indies.” It is privately owned and the inhabitants reside in luxury, as do visitors to this Caribbean paradise, among whom in December-January were Britain’s prime minister, Boris Johnson, and a female friend who lives with him in the prime minister’s residence in London. His undivorced wife and their children, who he rarely sees, were not in the tropics, and Johnson and his friend holidayed in spectacular opulence and total privacy, away from photographers and prying eyes, and, of course, all the ordinary people whom he professes to admire. (He was still in Mustique when Trump ordered the drone-strike killings in Iraq on 3 January and wasn’t consulted about or even informed of the operation that took place in the country where the UK has 400 troops. Being a US ally has disadvantages.)


On the other side of the globe there is another group of tropical islands, the Chagos, in the middle of the Indian Ocean. Like the Grenadines are now, they used to be a paradise for their inhabitants, but as noted by the BBC, “Between 1968 and 1974, Britain forcibly removed thousands of Chagossians from their homelands and sent them more than 1,000 miles away to Mauritius and the Seychelles, where they faced extreme poverty and discrimination.” There are some 3,000 reluctantly resident in Britain and many of the younger ones, born in exile, have been denied British citizenship and live in fear of being expelled. As one elderly deportee said in a BBC interview, “The young deserve to have British nationality. The Chagos Islands were colonised by the British so it’s their responsibility.” Given the attitude of Britain to foreigners in general, there is very little chance of that happening.


The Chagos Archipelago of some sixty islets was “depopulated” in the 1960s and 70s because Britain had agreed with its ally, America, that there should be a US military airfield on the main island, Diego Garcia. As revealed in 2004, the bureaucrats of Britain’s Colonial Office had written that “The object of the exercise is to get some rocks which will remain ours; there will be no indigenous population except seagulls who have not yet got a committee.

Unfortunately along with the Birds go some few Tarzans or Men Fridays whose origins are obscure, and who are being hopefully wished on to Mauritius etc.”

The sneering condescension of that racist bigotry is repulsive, but the attitude remains, and the Chagos Islanders will continue to be victims of the colonial mentality. It should not be forgotten that Prime Minister Johnson once wrote that “It is said that the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies” and some years ago in his weekly column in Britain’s ultra-right wing Daily Telegraph he noted that the then prime minister Tony Blair was “shortly off to the Congo. No doubt the AK47s will fall silent, and the pangas will stop their hacking of human flesh, and the tribal warriors will all break out in watermelon smiles to see the big white chief touch down in his big white British taxpayer-funded bird.” With that sort of attitude to coloured peoples it’s unlikely he will be sympathetic to the plight of the Chagos exiles.


It is not surprising that the Johnson government wants to destroy the BBC, which is one of the few unbiased providers of information in the UK, because on December 27 it reported the Prime Minister of Mauritius (to which country the Chagos Archipelago rightly belongs) as saying “Britain has been professing, for years, respect for the rule of law, respect for international law… but it is a pity the UK does not act fairly and reasonably and in accordance with international law on the issue of the Chagos archipelago.” In the interests of presenting all points of view, the BBC asked the foreign office to comment, and received the reply that “The defence facilities on the British Indian Ocean Territory [in other words the US military base on Diego Garcia, used by bombers striking the Middle East and who knows where else] help protect people in Britain and around the world from terrorist threats and piracy.” To its credit the BBC did not comment that this was one of the most pathetic government statements of recent times, but it had still better stand by for its sale to the pirate Rupert Murdoch.


When Johnson was foreign secretary in 2018, he was asked “Will the Foreign Office review its current position on the plight of the Chagos islanders, who should be granted immediately the right to repatriation in their home in the Indian ocean Territories?” He replied: “we are currently in dispute with Mauritius about the Chagossian islanders and Diego Garcia. I have personally met the representative of the Chagossian community here in this country, and we are doing our absolute best to deal with its justified complaints and to ensure that we are as humane as we can possibly be.” In other words Johnson was doing nothing.


In May 2019 the United Kingdom announced at the UN General Assembly that its new Ambassador “will be central to our work in defending human rights across the globe” and it was deeply ironical that two days later the Assembly overwhelmingly condemned the UK for its appalling treatment of the Chagos Islanders. UN members based their Resolution on the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice in February, when the Court concluded that “the process of decolonization of Mauritius was not lawfully completed when that country acceded to independence” and “the United Kingdom is under an obligation to bring to an end its administration of the Chagos Archipelago as rapidly as possible”.


The Assembly demanded that the United Kingdom “unconditionally withdraw its colonial administration from the area within six months” which meant that it should comply by the end of November, at which time it was preparing for a general election in December. While Johnson and his clan of Brexiteers were intent on quitting the European Union with the slogan “Vote Leave, Take Control” the Chagos Islanders have been allowed neither votes nor control over their destinies.


On 18 October the British foreign office published a statement by its Representative at the UN in which she declared that “Human rights, and the idea that the relationship between people and states is not one of subservient obedience, but one where the State has obligations to the individual, are core to everything the United Nations stands for. At the UK’s core is a strong moral anchor. Make no mistake; we will robustly defend human rights here at the UN and beyond.”


But “beyond” doesn’t extend as far as the Indian Ocean, where an entire island chain has no human rights because its citizens were forcibly removed from their homes by Britain and replaced by some 2,500 US military and civilian personnel on one island, Diego Garcia, where they stay in luxury. Just like Boris Johnson on Mustique. What a hypocrite."

https://www.strategic-culture.org/ne...hts-hypocrisy/

where they stay in luxury

Oh dear, someone knows fuck all about serving.

Lavrov Describes US Concept of 'Free and Open Indo-Pacific Region' as Destructive


"MOSCOW (Sputnik) - The concept of a "free and open Indo-Pacific region" promoted by the United States is destructive, as its goal is to divide the regional countries into "interest groups," Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said ahead of his visit to Sri Lanka.
With the visit to Sri Lanka on Tuesday, the top Russian diplomat starts his Asia tour, which also includes India and Uzbekistan.

"The concept of a 'free and open Indo-Pacific region' promoted by the United States has not a unifying but a destructive potential. Its true objective is to divide the regional states into 'interest groups,' weakening the newly-established regional system of inter-state relations to assert dominance," Lavrov said in an interview with Sri Lankan newspaper Daily News.

"The Indian Ocean should not be a cockpit of rivalry but an area of cooperation between costal and island nations jointly creating the conditions for sustainable social and economic development within regional entities, such as, for instance, the IORA, SAARC or BIMSTEC," Lavrov stressed.

Russia and Sri Lanka's Cooperation

Lavrov noted that he was planning to discuss Russia and Sri Lanka's cooperation on energy, technology and agriculture during his upcoming visit to the country.

"Russia is willing to offer Sri Lanka the products of its domestic industries, particularly the air-craft industry. Collaboration in the energy sector, as well as cooperation in agriculture and in the introduction of advanced information and communication technologies look quite promising. Tourism remains another important area of joint action, since Sri Lanka has become a popular tourist destination among Russians. I expect these and other issues related to practical interaction to be substantively discussed during my visit to your country," Lavrov said.

The minister remarked that the two countries' trade had been at $400 million in the last several years, but the countries' leaders had set $700 million as a target. According to Lavrov, the diversification of Sri Lankan export, which is currently "dominated by just two items, tea and textile, accounting for about 90 percent of the country's trade," could help achieve this result.

Russia welcomes the plans of Sri Lanka's new leadership to "transform the island into a major commercial and financial center of Asia with focus on developing transport infrastructure, modernizing the agricultural sector and attracting high-tech investments," Lavrov told the newspaper."

Lavrov Describes US Concept of 'Free and Open Indo-Pacific Region' as Destructive - Sputnik International