Asia Pivot, Autarky, Balance of power, bandwagoning, capitalism, centralised economy, china, diayou, East China sea, Economics, FDI, Foreign Direct Investment, Foreign Policy, Game of Thrones, Globalization, India, International relations, Japan, Poverty, Protectionism, Realism, senkaku, socialism, south china sea, stolper samuelson theorm, Sumantra Maitra, Trade Liberalization, United States of America
Hey guys, hope everything’s alright? I’m okay here, new semester starts, new students come…it is a great feeling to see so many fresh mind, eager and enthusiastic to learn and share new ideas, and not fixed like some older fools surrounding us.
My paper recently got published in United States – India Political Action Committee, on Trade Liberalization, protectionism, Foreign Direct investment, and poverty. I show with data correlation how trade liberalization helped in decreasing poverty in the third world, and how liberalization helped countries like China and India to grow and become market rulers, using their comparative advantages. I also try to answer why simultaneously other countries are not so successful in reaping the benefits of globalization.
There are often arguments we hear from activists, politicians, media and general public about how Globalization and trade liberalization is either good or bad. Both the arguments are wrong, misguided, misunderstood, shallow, naïve and ultimately extremely irresponsible. To claim a single formula to be good or bad for every country in the planet, regardless of their geographical position, resources, economic fundamentals, taxation and revenues, health, weather and temperature and other factors, shows a lack of understanding of the problem, oversimplification and ultimately lack of academic rigueur. Here in this paper, I briefly try to touch up on these points to explain why ultimately trade liberalization is a good thing, and why Protectionism can never be a sound policy.
Also, two of my essays on Realism and Indian Foreign Policy, and Chinese Security Dilemma got published, where I try to make sense of the growing Geo-political scenario playing out between the two Asian giants.
Will keep you updated with more papers about to be published!
First of all…I wrote an Op-Ed, real journalism after a V-E-R-Y long time. It got published in Otago Daily Times here. The name of the piece is “Just a Natural Progression“, and it is on India, China and nuclear missiles, and stuff related to that. Do read, share and let me know what you think!
Secondly, I would like all of you to read this fascinating piece, on US Foreign Policy, which takes a look on what would have happened, if Realists were in charge, in place of Neo-Cons, or Liberal Interventionists, for the last two decades. It is an absolute MUST-READ.
That’s all thus far! Cheers!
Occasionally there are times, when you read something that is so utterly devoid of depth, lacking unbiased analysis, filled with pretentiousness and holier-than-thou hubris, that you almost pity the imbecile who wrote it in a fleeting moment of emotional rush. Then you find out that the person who wrote that is not some first year student of diplomacy, or an activist in some obscure NGO, but a quite respected middle aged gentleman who is member of a number of policy think-tanks. And your outrage gives way to hopelessness, you lose your sense of humour, and patient disposition. You instantly understand the cause why the World is heading from one woollyheaded disaster to another.
I generally don’t cross post my published articles in my blog, but this is different. In the backdrop the warning of the Russian Ambassador to NATO on the Libya intervention, I had a candid, serious conversation with Lisa Karpova, columnist and correspondent for Pravda, on Russia’s foreign policy, the ongoing Libya crisis, BRICS, Kuril island disputes, and I tho’t I must share that here. This piece is also published in The-Latest, and Pravda itself.
2008 was a watershed year in Russia’s history. After nearly two decades of almost non-recognition, lost media propaganda battle and foreign policy neglect, the World suddenly saw a newly assertive Russia during the South Ossetia – Georgia Crisis. Opinions started pouring in, with some congratulations from traditional allies, and mostly skepticism from the World press. So what has really changed?
I was delighted to chat with Lisa Karpova, Correspondent and Columnist of Pravda, who gives us her views on the situation, and clears the notions about Russia’s foreign policy and goals.
1. We see a lot of change in the recent days. The recent allocation of funds for the massive rearmament programs including state of art missile technologies, the assertive foreign policy and posturing, the reconsolidation procedure with the traditional sphere of influence, and the aggressive rhetoric. What has really changed in the last few years that influenced this makeover of image?
I am not sure why you think there is aggressive rhetoric coming from Russia. I would say quite the contrary, Russia has endeavoured to maintain friendly cooperation with all, utilising dialogue, debate and disscussion, focusing on international law and a multilateralist approach. The modernization of Russia’s armed forces has been an ongoing project and naturally recent events have demonstrated that one cannot be caught without adequate defences.
Also using the UNSC as the proper forum for the above mentioned debate.
Russia is sure of itself and knows where she is going after a decade of instability due to political and economic crises.
2. Is it or will it hamper the “reset” with USA? Or is there at all a possibility of the “Reset”?
Russia has always been willing for resets and has excellent relations with her partners in the international community. It is not Russia that goes around attacking people outside of the auspices of the UN, nor does Russia engage in bullying, blackmail and coercion on UN members.
Russia will certainly keep the door open for dialogue expecting that the US will adopt a multilateralist approach…something Washington seems to have already realised. It should be obvious that Russia has kept on track with on the reset path.
3. What are the major policy goals for Russia regarding its foreign policy and European Union, in the near future?
Continuation of Russia’s policy of debate, dialogue and discussion, as well as “resets” as mentioned before. Also WTO membership on terms which are not disfavourable to Russia.
Russia’s accession has taken a long time — roughly 17 years. Russia’s major concerns have been copyright and intellectual property rights protection.
Regarding the European Union, strengthening of commercial ties and good neighbourly relations. Russia seeks to constantly mend, repair and reshape relations which are strained. For example, with Poland, things were more tense in the past than they are now.
Certain issues remain with the Baltic States, but the tensions come from outside Russia, not within. Moscow always sought good relations with its neighbours and partners.
4. We saw a lot of Russian opposition with Iraq, and recently with Libya. But we never saw that much expected VETO. Is this incoherence or policy of pragmatic engagement with some reasoning behind this? Is this difference of posture and act creating problem of credibility? Do we see more engagement with the Middle East in the future?
Yes, well President Medvedev didn’t want the impression given that the country was not doing something to save civilian lives, that was the reasoning behind the failure to veto the Resolution.
Russia is part of the Middle East Quartet and maintains very active relations. Talks were held Thursday between Netanyahu and Medvedev.
5. We see Russian dispute with Japan. But the World is not much aware of Russian policies with other East Asian states like North Korea, and Vietnam-Cambodia-Thailan. What are Russian plans for re-engagement with the East Asian countries? Also is there any plan for re-engagement with India and China?
Yes, there is a dispute regarding the Kuril Islands. It is necessary that Japan recognise political realities. Strange for you to say re-engagement when there was never a disengagement. Russia is part of BRIC which means there are ongoing relations and China is also part of SCO with Russia.
6. Obviously the question that comes, global terrorism. What is Russia’s position on Afghanistan-Pakistan, and Chechnya?
There is a people supported government in Chechnya, 85 percent of Chechens voted to remain part of Russia. There is a terrorism/insurgent problem in the Caucasus that crops up due to outside interference and certain groups wanting to establish an Islamic caliphate over the entire region. Such activities are being dealt with in the most effective manner possible.
Russia has been a partner in the war against terrorism, gave information and advice about dealing with Afghanistan and Pakistan. Russia believes that force and violence are not the answer, but dialogue and discussion.
7. The recent spat between the Prime Minister and President was well played over in the media. Is there really ego clash between Vladimir Putin, and Dmitry Medvedev?
It was not a spat and the following day President Medvedev was quick to stress the fact that the tandem is working better than ever. It was a difference of opinion over the handling of the UNSC vote on Libya.