Confrontation Between China, US, India Continues in East Asia

Since the conclusion of the Cold War, Asia has provided a platform for the "soft confrontation" between China, the United States, and India, especially between China and the United States. These three nations have extensive common interests and tremendous potential for cooperation in the aspects of politics, economy and trade, regional security, and global governance. If they could agree to disagree and handle their bilateral and trilateral relations from a strategic perspective, there is a possibility for them to form positive and interactive strategic relations to achieve a win-win and mutually benefiting situation. This will, in turn, play a critically important role in the stability and development in Asia.
The United States has made corresponding strategic arrangement and policy adjustment in three aspects to prevent itself from being excluded from the process of regional integration, particularly to stop any potential newly emerged country from becoming a strategic competitor of the United States and the dominant player in the process of regional integration. This is to protect the political, economic, and security interests of the United States in East Asia.
In the aspect of security, the United States strengthens and develops the existing "axis and auxiliary security structure" centered round the United States by stepping up and adjusting its relations with its allies like Japan and North Korea. Economically, the United States takes the initiative to encourage negotiation on bilateral trade. It earnestly participates in and attempts to spearhead the process of economic integration in East Asia by signing free trade agreements with East Asian countries. Ideologically, it advocates its democratic value diplomacy. It tries to establish an "alliance of value" that corresponds to the US value system by using ideology as the criterion, so that it could influence the value system of the integration of East Asian region.
The three aforementioned aspects constitute the US strategic framework in East Asia after the Cold War. The main objective of this strategy is to support its allies with its hegemonic power to further boost the US dominant power in East Asia.
The East Asian region includes Northeast Asia and Southeast Asia. This article will focus on analyzing and elaborating the strategic maneuvers of China, the United States, and India in Southeast Asia and its influence.
Both US, India Aim at Countering Against China
China, the United States, and India have taken persistent efforts to strengthen their relations with Southeast Asian countries to garner more strategic interests. The United States has officially started to intervene into the affairs in South China Sea. Meanwhile, India is also working hard to strengthen its cooperation with Southeast Asian countries and making this region as a breakthrough point for it to emerge as a strong power in this region on a par with China and the United States. India intends to become a new power in between the United States and China, so that it could elevate its international status to realize its strategic goal of becoming a regional power.
The United States has refocused its attention on its ties with Southeast Asian countries. One can observe from this adjustment the US strategic agenda to counterbalance, contain and diminish China's rising influence in this region.
Meanwhile, India introduced its timely "eastward" policy, aiming at expanding its influence and activities to South China Sea and part of Pacific region. India sees Southeast Asia countries as its important partners and hopes to step out of South Asia with the help of Southeast Asian region as India has "extensive strategic interests" from the Gulf to South China Sea. India's concern over the safety of the environment and potential security issues covers the area "the west, south and east of India from the Persian Gulf to Malacca Strait, middle Asia in its Northwest, China in its Northeast to Southeast Asia."
Southeast Asia is the focus of India's foreign policy, in terms of geographical strategy, economic, and political interests. India strives to strengthen its bilateral ties with Thailand, Burma [Myanmar], Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos through bilateral economic and trade cooperation with these countries to expand its influence to Southeast Asian region. Through the "eastward" policy, India expanded its influence and activity scope to South China Sea and part of Pacific region. Through the implementation of its "eastward" policy, India "improved its cooperation with Southeast Asian countries and even East Asian countries and bolstered its influence in Asia." By doing so, it has established an image of "big power" in Southeast Asia in time and at the same time; it counterbalances and diminishes China's influence in this region to a certain degree.
US Not Happy With India's Expansion of Maritime Influence
Yet, in its consideration of its global strategic interests, the United States would not allow India to become the world police in this waters and it will not allow India to be the dominant power in the Indian Ocean. Although the two countries have fostered increasingly closer cooperation in security, if India "goes overboard" to the extent that affects the US strategic interests in the Indian Ocean, the United States would definitely take action to contain India.
Nevertheless, in view of China's continuous emergence in politics and economy, the United States is thinking of developing closer bilateral ties with India and making India as its most important strategic ally in Asia to counterbalance China's rising influence in Southeast Asia. At the same time, following the expansion of China's political, economic and military powers in Southeast Asia, the United States is "back to Asia" to contain China. The strategic consideration behind the strengthening of economic cooperation between the United States and Southeast Asian countries is to counter China's expansion of influence in this region.
China should take more initiative to strengthen its ties with Southeast Asian countries and develop multilateral and bilateral ties with these countries to establish an image of a "big power" in this region. It should build up new security ties and bilateral cooperation in all aspects with Southeast Asian countries based on the principles of equality and mutual benefit. At the same time, China should handle its bilateral relations with the United States and India properly, including dealing with the border issue with India in an appropriate manner. It should seek common ground with other countries and put aside differences between each other to create a stable and peaceful environment for the modernization process in China. The policy of developing relations with Southeast Asian countries conforms to China's national strategic interests.
Southeast Asian Countries on Guard Against China
The relations between China and Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) have further improved thanks to the efforts in building up political trust, economic cooperation, and common security. Yet, because of their differences, ASEAN countries are still concerned and worried about China's economic growth and the boost in its military power, particularly when China's military actions in Southeast Asian region are deemed by certain countries as actions meant to expand its military power. The unfavorable influence of nontraditional security factors keeps arising and this has directly or indirectly undermined the efforts to develop more closer ties between China and ASEAN member states.
Although far Southeast Asian countries have not explicitly voiced out that China poses a threat to that region, the intensifying arms race in Southeast Asia, in fact, reflects Southeast Asian countries' strategic intention to stay on guard against China. Essentially, the cooperation in economic sector has not diminished Southeast Asian countries' "hostility" against China. Therefore, China should reinforce its mutual understanding and exchange with Southeast Asian countries to do away with this sentiment.
China's Strategies in Southeast Asia
As opposed to China's strategies in Southeast Asia, apparently the United States has failed to maintain consistent and coherent strategies in Southeast Asia. During the times of President Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush, the United States did not pay adequate attention to the region of Southeast Asia. Despite its endeavor to advocate democracy in Southeast Asia, the United States has not implemented free trade consistently and persistently in that region.
China should make use of the good opportunity to develop China-US ties remain strategically strong. It should place more emphasis on East Asian region in devising its foreign policy and give more priority to the status and role of relevant East Asian countries and regional power in its diplomatic agenda. China should utilize various forms of media to publicize its policies to prepare the US mentally and attitudinally for the latter to accept a stronger China. As such, China, the United States, and India will be able to achieve a virtuous cycle in their interaction in Southeast Asia and this region could become a peaceful region that enjoys rapid economic development.

Global Arms Trade

Since the past few decades, all economic activities of the world are being concentrated through different multinational organizations. Multinational companies and the racket or alliance of the international wheeler -- dealer businessmen use the 'black hole' or black market to increase their profit.
A big chunk of this treacherous capital is invested in different prefixed centers of black hole or black market. Among these are: narcotics trade, pornographic movie industry, flesh trade, expansion of sex tourism in some fixed regions, and money market.
Terrorism, which is an inevitable part of globalization, strengthens further the link of these gradually centralized lawful economy and black economy. One of the major characteristics or features of Europe or the United States is to build a military structure along with the general economic system in the state structure, which would ultimately be helpful for selling arms in the former colonies. Military economies of these states are expanded along with the general economies through development of suitable engineering and undercover researches. In the same mechanism, the money from the sale of arms in the former colonies fortifies or revs up the national economies. This military economy is still prevailing. Side by side with the Western countries, China, North Korea, and Russia are expert in this respect. However, intelligence agencies are created to protect the interest of those who have their own military economy, black economy, technological development and research system, and dualistic approach. In this way, the military authority and the companies that are created by that country are expanded through the help of diplomatic efforts. Such as
1. In the United States, a secret organization has been created or developed in combination with the CIA, Pentagon, and secret service, which has created another powerful state within the state, which Michael Parenty has identified as Alpha 84 in his book entitled the Against Emperor.
2. In 1990s, a Sinhalese officer noticed while taking command training in Israel that a group of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam embers are taking training manipulating their name which was not unknown to the Israeli intelligence agency Mosad. These intelligence agencies give training both to the pro-government and anti-government elements of the former colonies and in the Third World countries at the same time. And this is their dualistic approach. And there is a beckoning of profit of huge black money behind this. Military economy is expanded through the sale of arms after the creation of wars. Developed intelligence agencies strengthen this economy after giving birth to terrorism. Terrorism has now become a profitable business in the world. The leaders of terrorism are made heroes. Such as Usama Bin Ladin. This Usama Bin Ladin has been created by the United States. Terrorists are given publicity to increase their market price in black economy. For, it is profitable for all in the globalization. The more the terrorism would flourish within a state and against a state, the more the capital of the capitalists would grow and there would be surplus of the capital. The incident of 11 September in the United States and the war in Afghanistan -- all has emerged from the desire of expansion of capitalism. The more there would be such types of war and terrorism, the more the globalization would benefit. After the attack of 11 September, George W. Bush had stated the 'war on terror.' According to the US Administration, a huge quantity of arms is sold in 90 percent of the terror-infested countries. The US Administration announces that the US has the right to wage war against any country; the United States can silence anyone who would stand in the way of their building of 'American Century.' The United States has the capability of accumulating the huge amount of money needed for this war; the US Administration meets the costs or expenditure of war from the tax of the people. At present, the defense budget of the US is about $500 billion.
The joint defense budget of the states that are 'Satan states' is very meager compared to the US budget -- only $15 billion. The military budgets of all the states in the Middle East, nations under NATO as well as Russia and China are accumulated, it will come nowhere near the defense budget of the United States. The part of the US in the military expenditure of the world is gradually increasing or on the rise. The military expenditure of the world from 1895 to 1898 dropped to $809 billion from $1.2 trillion. But the US military expenditure is going up gradually. In 1985, the part of military expenditure was 31 percent of the total military expenditure of the world which rose to 36 percent in 1998. At present, the part or portion of military expenditure further went up as the US defense budget had increased by 70 percent in 2003 in comparison to 1998. According to statistics of a World Bank economist, Joseph Stigliz, the US expenditure in the second war in Iraq until 2006 stood at $3 billion.
The United States is spending money in war several times more than other superpowers. Today's US-centric economy is surviving or sustaining as the savings of the whole world is providing money for its random expenditure after being transformed into dollar. And this is the reason behind America's war preparation or readiness. All will spend in dollar as the number one superpower US is behind it. And to make it understand, the United States takes an attacking stand very often. The United States invests a huge amount of money for manufacturing arms whose market is created on politics. The expenditure of Iraq war was $3 trillion. A big chunk of this huge budget is invested or spent in creating demand for arms. Before the Iraq war, the profit rate or margin of all the arms and fighter plane manufacturing organizations was declining or dropping. Just with the start of the Iraq war, the profit rate of these organizations quickly shot up. The share prices of the crisis-ridden oil companies had gone up. The more the destruction in Iraq goes up or escalates, the more the manufacturing organizations make profit or trade. Canadian writer researcher Naomi Clane said about US policy, 'First destroy; if you do not destroy then how you would build?' The US Government spent $11 trillion for its military force from 1948 to 1994. This amount is more than the price of all the wealth created by the people in the United States. According to the Centre for Defense Information data, in 1990 the military expenditure of the United States was $2.9 trillion. After the United States, on the list were Japan -- $40 billion, France -- $36 billion, the United States -- $35 billion, Germany -- $31 billion, Russia -- $29 billion, and China -- $22 billion. The military expenditure of the United States of any year is more than the military expenditure of the next 15 countries. Several million poor children could be provided food for ten years with the cost of manufacturing a plane-carrying war ship. Several times more money has been spent for manufacturing a salvage vessel for sunken or submerged submarines of the navy than the cost of protection to save people from accidents at workplaces, maintaining mass libraries or public libraries and daycare centers for the children of the service-holder parents. The price of the spare parts of the military force and the arms and ammunition of the arsenal of Pentagon is several times more than the accumulated expenditure for checking environmental degradation or pollution, and protecting the environment, social development, housing and mass transport by the US Government. General Motors, General Dynamics, Genial Electric and for other generals to help keep the world safe and the money spent for arms is totally provided by the government. And the US Government is provided with the money by the US citizens.
Arms Sales Agreements of World's Top Small Arms Selling Countries [2002-09]
Country amount of sales in US dollar [billion] Percentage of total sales:
The United States: 166.276 40 percent
Russia: 73.965 18 percent
France: 35.175 8 percent
The United Kingdom: 29.379 7 percent
China: 13.652 3 percent
Germany: 9.742 5 percent
Italy: 12.531 3 percent
European countries: 43.752 10 percent
Other countries: 22.559 5 percent
Source: Conventional Arms Transfer to Developing Nations 2002-09
Top Arms Exporting Countries of 2010 [statistics in percentage of total global export]
1. The United States: 30 percent
2. Russia: 19.7 percent
3. Germany: 10.9 percent
4. France: 8.2 percent
5. The United Kingdom: 4.5 percent
Source: SIPRI, Year Book 2010
Top Arms Manufacturing and Selling Companies of 2008
1. BAE System, UK: $32,420 million
2. Lockheed American, US: $29,880 million
3. Boeing, US: $29200 million
4. Northrop Grueman, US: $24,600 million
5. General Dynamics, US: $22,780 million
6. Rethion, US: $21,900 million
7. UADS, the Netherlands: $17,900 million
8. Finmekkanika, Italy: $13,020 million
9. L and Communication, US: $12,160 million
10. Thales Group, France: $10,760 million
Top 10 Arms Importing Countries of 2009
1. India: $2,116 million
2. Singapore: $1,729 million
3. Malaysia: $1,494 million
4. Greece: $1269 million
5. South Korea: $1,172 million
6. Pakistan: $1,146 million
7. Algeria: $942 million
8. The United States: $831 million
9. Australia: $757 million
10. Turkey: $675 million
Top Five Arms Exporting Countries of 2009:
1. The United States: $6795 million
2. Russia: $4469 million
3. Germany: $2,473 million
4. France: $1,851 million
5. The United Kingdom: $1,024 million
From 2006 to 2009, Turkey, Georgia, Armenia, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Oman, Cyprus, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and North African countries bought mentionable arms from the top arms producing countries of the world. It may be mentioned that arms are sold most in this region. The details of mentionable arms purchase.
The United States
Three hundred thirty-one The Tank and self-propelled guns
Five hundred fifty-six APC and armed cars
Six mine surface combatants
Sixty-two supersonic combat aircraft
Three hundred sixty-three surface to air missiles
Russia
Two hundred seventy tank and self-propelled guns
One hundred sixty APC and armed cars
Fifty supersonic combat aircraft
Five thousand four hundred thirty surface to air missiles
Ten surface to surface missiles
Twenty anti-ship missiles
China
One hundred and fifty APC and armed cars
Thirty anti-ship missiles
Europe
Thirty-two mine surface combatants
One thousand three hundred sixty APC and armed cars
Thirty tank and self-propelled guns
Nine hundred twenty surface to air missiles
One hundred ten anti-ship missiles
Fifty supersonic combat aircraft
Source: Conventional Arms Transfer to Developing Nations 2002 to 2009
No country in the Third World would be found which is not equipped from head to toe or completely by the arms and ammunition of the US defense contractors. These arms traders work closely with Pentagon to keep their several thousand dollars trade in different countries undisturbed or intact. The US arms makers are selling arms manufacturing technology side by side with selling arms. Turkey, South Korea, Taiwan, Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Singapore are manufacturing various types of modern arms for the help of US arms manufacturers. Many of these countries have themselves become arms exporting countries.
According to a document of 'Next Step in Strategic Partnership,' India would be able to buy US war materials or equipment freely or without any hassle or hindrance and in exchange for that India would follow such a military or war strategies with the neighboring countries so that the strategies at the end keep or protect the interest of the United States. After the announcement in 2005, India and the United States have conducted 15 joint military .
The military expenditure is one of the major internal or domestic capital accumulations. It is such a necessary expenditure which is loved or endeared by the commercial interests or establishments. When the government spends money for postal system, state-run railway, low-cost housing and government hospitals not for profit, then the people can create commodities, services, and employment and can flourish the sources of taxes. Such sorts of public expenditure compete with the private market.
However, missiles and manufacturing warplane carrying ships are such an expenditure which does not compete with the private market. Military contractorship is more profitable than any trade contractorship. The taxpayers bear all the risks of productions. A refrigerator maker has to think to sell his commodities but an arms maker does not have to think to sell his arms. An arms maker has a concrete and genuine document or agreement with assurance of selling his arms including their extra production cost. Moreover, in the case of arms manufacturing, the government spends research expenditure and most of the development field expenditure. The expenditure in the defense sector creates a field of unlimited demand. The propensity of arms industry is to declare its own commodities obsolete and outdated at intervals. Because of technological development many arms of millions of dollars have become of old model. And then there develops a need for development of those arms or new arms instead of those arms or old arms. In addition, without inviting any competitive tenders, most of the military contracts are given. As a result, the arms makers more or less get the price they demand. And that is why an allurement is created for manufacturing costly and expensive arms for getting more benefits. The manufactured arms always do not become effective and suitable. In many cases their effectiveness does become negative. There is a profitable side in effectiveness of these arms, because for this extra allocation could be obtained so that these arms could be desirably made effectively.
It could be said in a nut shell that manufacturing arms is many times profitable than producing public commodities. That is why owners of the big corporations get busy to increase defense budget. The military sector is the sector with fewer risks for the corporations for making millions of dollars of profit. The expenditure for arms provides strength for capitalistic system, and at the same time it makes the government or nationalized sector pauper or destitute, which is meant not for profit. There are two fundamental reasons for the United States keeping itself as a superb arms power, although the United States does not have to face any superpowers. First, to keep the global capital accumulation safe and secure, there is a need for military installations. Second, the colossal military force itself is a direct source of earning or garnering huge capital.
Nuclear Arms
Many complexities had been created centering nuclear bombs in the field of international politics after the Second World War. The matter of restrictions on nuclear bombs is especially linked with the problems of world security and disarmament. On 5 August 1963, restrictions on nuclear arms were imposed and an international agreement was signed at the initiatives of the nuclear power countries. Then in June of 1968, an agreement against the proliferation of nuclear arms got approval in the United Nations, which is known as NPT.
In 1980s, two superpowers -- the United States and then Soviet Union -- had developed an understanding for limiting nuclear arms and contracting missiles. On 10 December 1987, the INF agreement was signed between the United States and the Soviet Union at a top summit for reduction and abolition of deadly atomic arms. The rivalry and competition between the two superpowers was reduced following the abolition or breakaway of the erstwhile Soviet Union. Later on 11 September in 1996 in the changed situation, the agreement regarding overall restrictions on testing of nuclear arms, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty [CTBT] was adopted in the General Assembly of the United Nations. The meaning of this treaty is that none could explode nuclear arms in air or water or land or underground. In fact, the nuclear power states got legal recognition in favor of their nuclear arms arsenal or amour after getting the CTBT passed in the UN General Assembly. Our neighboring country India did not sign this treaty. The major flaw in the treaty is that it prohibited only traditional nuclear explosion. That is why India termed the treaty Partial Test Ban Treaty. Director of Institute for Defense Studies and Analysis Baljit Singh thinks that the treaty in reality or in fact is Explosive Test Ban Treaty or ETBT, not more than this because the treaty took no initiative to stop non- explosive testing. As a result, the nuclear power or capable states could continue conducting test on nuclear arms in future in an alternative system through more modern technology. In talks in Geneva, the nuclear capable countries had totally rejected the demand for stopping any test by extending the area or purview or jurisdiction of the CTBT. The main proponents of the CTBT would be able take initiatives freely for development of nuclear weapons due to might in their developed technology. For conducting such tests, America, Russia, China and Britain have appropriate technology in their control. In addition, the United States has taken a decision to spend 94 million dollars for manufacturing new nuclear arms and super computers for test of those arms. The CTBT also did not reject the possibility of transfer of nuclear technology. In the past, China had transferred missile technology to Pakistan by totally flouting or violating the NPT.
In the field of nuclear arms, the United States is the first country that manufactured atomic bombs and it is also the first nation to use the bombs. The US force in 1945 dropped these bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki of Japan. In 1954 in Dienbienfu of Vietnam, the US Administration of President Eisenhower proposed France, on the eve or in the wake of defeat, to use atomic bomb. But Paris rejected the proposal. The US policymakers in the sixties and seventies in Vietnam and in Cuba in 1962 during missile crisis hinted to use nuclear arms in then Soviet Union. The United States from 1945 to 1990 exploded at least 950 nuclear bombs. This number is more than the total number explosion of nuclear bombs all over the world. The US military force has the biggest fleet of nuclear bomb carrying long distance warplanes including B-52, FB-111 and B-1. As they are a nuclear power, they are keeping Iran and North Korea under constant threat. As Cuba announced plan for building a nuclear power project, Washington made uproar centering probable nuclear capability of Cuba. The US activities of halting proliferation of nuclear arms have continued against some countries in a special political manner. Among these countries are Iraq, Iran, Cuba, North Korea, and Libya. Among them, the United States has kept Iraq under direct occupation by killing thousands of Iraqi people. In the recent past, the Western force under the US leadership has launched attacks on Libya in a special political situation. The US Administration has wanted to create instability in these countries. The United States was never seen worried and fickle over the arsenals of Great Britain, France, and Pakistan, and South Africa in the period before 1994, as the global US imperialism has no conflicts with the policies of these countries. When North Korea was shown as a nuclear threat, the matter of Japan's accumulation of plutonium by violating international treaty or agreement was overlooked or ignored by the Clinton administration. When Israel and North Africa were manufacturing hydrogen bombs, America was helping them by supplying different ingredients. Warren Christopher told before the international Relations Committee of the US Congress, 'The US is not now fully ready for total nuclear disarmament.' In fact, 'nuclear deterrence' was an inevitable element of the United States during the Cold War too. Had the US leaders been really willing to destroy nuclear arms from the world they could have reduced their own arms store or arsenal massively and would have followed disarmament policy strongly for all countries.
Although our neighboring country India had not signed the CTBT, it, in the field of non-military or private and transfer of technology, struck treaty with 45 countries to be in the nuclear supply group in September 2008. On the matter, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh gave a statement with then US President George W. Bush [July 2005]. In the joint statement, Bush said: 'The United States will work with friends and allies to adjust international regimes to enable full civil nuclear energy cooperation and trade with India. 'Because of this treaty, India had been given permission to buy uranium from the nuclear supply group although India did not sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. According to analysts, India would become a big market of selling of the US nuclear reactor and technology.
Selling Arms to Developing Countries
In 2009, agreements for selling of arms worth $57.5 billion in the world were signed. The agreements in 2009 were 8.5 percent less than those in 2009. Since 2005, the arms of the least amount were sold in 2009.
In 2009, the United States was on the top of the list of arms sale agreements. They made agreements worth $22.6 billion that year. Russia was in the second position with $10.4 billion and France with $7.4 billion was in the third position. In 2006-09, globally, arms worth $244.5 billion were sold which was 29.5 percent higher than the sales of $172.4 billion in 2002-05. In 2009, the price of international arms supply was $35.1 billion and in 2008 it was $35.9 billion. The reason behind fall in arms sales in 2009 was global economic meltdown; the arms purchasing countries had been compelled to cut their budget spending for arms.
The arms producing countries made arms sales agreements of $45.1 billion with the developing countries in 2009, whereas it was $48. 8 billion in 2008. In 2009, the price of supplied arms to developing countries was $17 billion, whereas it was $20.5 billion in 2008. The United States and Russian are at the top of selling arms to developing countries while the United Kingdom is in the third position. Russia currently is trying to expand its arms market to Latin America. During the Cold War, Russia used to sell arms to Cuba. Venezuela is his new buyer in this region.
In 2002-09, France and the United Kingdom also sold arms to developing countries. Germany sold naval war materials to developing countries. The amount of arms sales in 2002 and 2003 was close or almost equal. But the arms sales started to increase from 2004 to 2008 to these countries. In 2008, the arms sales agreements were the highest 48.8 billion dollars. These days China has started selling arms to developing countries.
In 2009, the United States struck arms sales agreements of $17.4 billion with developing countries.
Among the US arms sales agreements with developing countries in 2009 was $1.7 billion agreement with Egypt of supplying 24 F-16 airplanes and 50 t0 52 fighter aircraft. The agreements included a deal with Taiwan for supplying Patriot air missile defense system of $3.2 billion, a deal with Kuwait of $1.1 billion for Ke-130 J aircraft, an agreement or pact with the United Arab Emirates of $745 million for UH-60M Black Hawk Chopper, and an agreement with Saudi Arabia of $540 million for supplying AH-64D Apache Helicopter and another deal of $400 million for armed vehicles.
Russia
In 2009, Russia made agreements of $10.4 billion with developing countries. Mentionable among these are an agreement of $1.8 billion with Vietnam for diesel submarines and a deal of $500 million for eight Su-MKL war airplanes, an agreement of 570 million dollars with Myanmar for 20 MiG-29 fighter airplanes and a deal with China of 500 million dollars for J-10 war airplanes. In addition, Russia gave Venezuela a loan of $2.2 billion by which Venezuela would buy from Russia 92 T-72 main battle tanks, 300 BMP-3 armed cars and different kinds of missiles.
China
During 2006-09, China made arms sales agreements on an average of $1.9 billion with the Third World in 2009. China struck a deal with Pakistan of $1.4 billion for selling 30 J-10 fighter airplanes. China's arms are still not of Western standard in terms of technology. That is why China is selling small arms to South Africa and developing Asian countries. The four main arm s selling countries are France, Germany, United Kingdom, and Italy. The United States and allies countries sell arms to the countries in NATO where US arms are not sold. These four countries together controlled 23.5 percent arms sales agreements with developing countries in 2009. These four countries had established them as major arms sellers for the developing world during the period 2002-09. In 2009, France made arms agreements of $7.1 billion with these countries. The United States has global arms sales competition with these European countries.
At present, some Asian countries have become arms sellers. For a decade from 1990, Russia was the main arms supplier to China. At present, India is purchasing a huge quantity of arms from Russia. Malaysia, Myanmar, Vietnam, and Indonesia have become new buyers from Russian arms sales market. In the yardstick of developing countries, Asia has become the second largest arms market in the world. During the period 2006-09, Russia was the highest sellers of arms of $17.7 billion to Asia followed by America with the sales of $16.8 billion.
Arms Buyers in Developing World
Saudi Arabia was the largest arms buyers among the developing countries during 2002-09. During the period they bought arms of $39.9 billion, which was 15.2 per cent of the total arms sales agreements in the developing world. In 2009, Brazil was the largest arms purchasing country with an agreement of $7.2 billion, whereas Venezuela was the second with a deal of $6.4 billion followed by Saudi Arabia with $4.3 billion. Among the top arms buying countries were five previous countries, three Asian and two Latin American countries.
Arms Smuggling and Terrorist Organizations
In 2002, arms smugglers gathered 5,000 AK-47 rifles from the Army stock of Yugoslavia and smuggled those to Liberia from Siberia in the guise of exchange with Nigeria. An aircraft brought from Ukraine was used in this work which was refueled in Libya on the way to its destination. In the same year, arms smugglers of West Africa in the guise of arms traders bought three thousand assault rifles and 2.5 million round bullets from the Nicaraguan government. The smugglers befooled the Nicaraguan government by saying that they are buying the arms for the Panamanian national police force. The smugglers sold the arms to the South America's black market instead of supplying those to the Panamanian police and the arms ultimately went to the hands of different terrorist organizations.
Such types of thousand incidents or events give birth to a billion dollar trade of small arms smugglers. And the huge profit from trade of theirs is putting the security of the world people at risk. In the present world, five million people lose lives every year to the use of $ 639 million small arms. Small arms are the first choice of all the armed forces -- from the government army to rebel force to terrorist outfit. The reason behind this choice is the easy availability of small arms worldwide, their dangerous power or strength and easy transportation.
The black market arms supply fuel to different regional conflicts in the world. In many cases, although the conflicts fade or end, the arms remain intact and those arms spread to the nearby countries. These arms go to the hands of terrorists if conflicts do not resurface or reemerge. The efforts to control small arms have not been that much successful. According to analysts, the network of small arms smugglers is spread across the world and is being nurtured under the shadow of globalization. Arms smuggling has now become a part of the global economy.
Most of the black market arms are first supplied legally, which later enter the black market. One of the main features of this system is supplying legal arms to different poor countries. The United Nations authority has ensured violation of ban on supplying arms to Angola and Liberia. The dishonest or wheeler-dealer government officials of arms producing and exporting countries are involved in this incident. The government officials of these countries gave license for importing these arms in exchange for a huge amount of money. After import, these arms go to the black market. Dishonest members of security forces of poor countries sometimes sell government arms to terrorist organizations.
Arms are looted sometimes during instable situation inside the country and go to the hands of or possession of the black market. In 1997, 500,000 arms were stolen from the national arsenal in Albania. These arms go to different terrorist organizations in the Balkan region. Many government arms go to other places by accident while being supplied from the United States to the Philippines. In this way, one million small arms are either stolen or gone missing every year. After buying many arms in one name from the countries where rules are slack in keeping arms individually, the arms runners sell those to other countries. These sorts of incidents happen among the United States, Mexico, and Canada.
Going beyond black market, arms these days have become a commodity of global shadow economy. The major commodities of this economy are narcotics, wood, diamond, rare animals and human beings. Such as; the illegal diamond trade has linked or engaged the Liberian and Togolese governments with arms smugglers or runners of Bulgaria, Ukraine, and Russia and the dealers of precious stones of Tel Aviv. Many terrorist organizations are linked with this trade network. They used to buy arms from the profit of other commodities.
People of different professions in various countries are engaged in the arms smugglers network. Such as; pilots of Belgium, Ukraine, and South Africa transport or ship illegal arms of East Europe to Africa and Afghanistan.
During the Cold War, different governments used individuals and arms traders in secret buying and selling of arms. Even after the end of the Cold War, this network remained intact, and the pipeline of the current smugglers is the outcome of that network.
At present, the Middle Eastern and African countries are the main market of illegal arms. The arms traders sell these arms by using forged documents or papers in the guise of legal trade. Civil wars and conflicts in different African countries are a big opportunity or advantage for arms smugglers. They supply arms to armed groups of different African countries, including Somalia, Sudan, Sierra Leone, and Congo. Many terrorist organizations of the world sometimes get arms directly from different countries. As there are allegations that Sudan, Syria and Iran provide arms help to different organizations, including Al-Qa'ida, Taliban, Hizballah, and HAMAS.
Worldwide Spread of Arms in Last Century
Basically the spread of military power is the inevitable result of social and economic progress in the global arena. In the last decade of the twentieth century, many non-Western countries collected or gathered modern and sophisticated arms and ammunition from the West. China and Israel themselves manufactured modern arms by their own ability. The United States in some areas or fields can show its military supremacy unilaterally in any place of the world with the help of Britain and France. In the post-Cold War period, the unparallel position of the United States in the field of military power in the world expedited the quest for attaining of nuclear power of the enemy or rival countries. In the post-Cold War world, Russia bought missiles and bombs after realizing the importance of nuclear arms in its defense system. The nuclear arms of Russia and China are capable of launching attacks on North America. North Korea, Pakistan and India are making their missiles modern to more modern and in some cases or areas; those missiles have already attained the capability of hitting targets. Terrorist activities are historically limited or confined with the week arms. But in the post-Second World war period, the use of sophisticated arms had started in terrorist activities. In the post-Cold War world, massive mass destructive arms had started to be amassed or gathered in the Islamic and Confucian states. China has been continuing transferring conventional and nonconventional arms to Muslim countries. In a secret place of Algerian desert, a powerful nuclear reactor has been established. Selling chemical arms to Libya, transferring or handing over high-powered missiles to Saudi Arabia through CSS-2, giving nuclear technology and materials to Iraq, Libya, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea as well as giving a huge quantity of conventional arms to Iraq. Keeping compatibility with the activities of China, North Korea is also supplying arms directly and indirectly to Middle Eastern countries.
From 1980 to 2011, Iran, Pakistan, and Iraq were the main buyers of Chinese manufactured arms. In 1989, a 10-yaer term agreement of mutual understanding between China and Pakistan was signed. In the agreement there were conditions for buying arms, production of arms, and joint research for development of arms, joint production of arms, transfer of technology and for selling arms to other countries on the basis of mutual consent of the two countries. In 1993, another arms agreement was signed between Pakistan and China. Within 1990, the horizon of military relations between Iran and China was broadened. In the eighties during the Iran-Iraq war, Iran got about 22 percent of its total arms supply from China and in 1989 China became Iran's largest arm supplying country.
In the 1980s, China supplied silkworm missiles to Iraq through North Korea. In 1993, North Korea supplied the Nordong missiles that could cross 600 miles to Iran. In 1992, China and Pakistan together started work of a nuclear related project. In 1991 after the fall of the then Soviet Union, the longest phase of the US economic progress had started. Clinton maintained an inflated US military budget. If it is converted to dollar it would be equivalent to the budget of the Cold War period which is one-third of the total military expenditure of the world. At present, the United States is the source of approximately half of the arms sales of the world. Russia and China had advanced toward the political and military path burying the conflicts during the Cold War. A number of agreements signed in 2001 gave a hint to that advancement of the two countries. From 1990s, China started to become the main arms buyer of Russia. At present, China gets some such sophisticated materials related to arms that were prohibited to be acquired for three decades.
Present Economics of Arms Sales
After the breakdown of then Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, most of the countries tried to bring about radical changes to the defense departments. Although the flourish of the defense departments increased or geared up in the later part of the eighties, it was on a declining curve till the beginning of 1991. The trend of revving up militarization started in 1991 during the 'Operation Desert Storm' in Iraq. Then, the military expenditure of the United States declined in 1998. The same situation remained in the United Kingdom too. Except a slight increase in 1991, the military expenditure of the United Kingdom dropped to 23. 2 billion pounds from 30.8 billion pounds. Then the arms sales started to rise at the state level as well as individual level which is still prevailing. Almost the same situation exists in Russia and China too. These days, the military expenditure is increasing massively every year. If no changes happen to this current situation, the United States will spend $650 billion in the defense sector which would be 45 per cent of the total global military expenditure. After the United States, China is the next to spend in military sector followed by France, the United Kingdom, and Russia.
According to the statistics of Stockholm International Peace Research organization, prior to 2009, the military expenditure of the world was below $1.5 trillion, which was 2.4 per cent of the global average Gross Domestic Product. It means the military expenditure had gone up 45 per cent in the past 10 years. The military expenditure of the world had reached a stable situation after the end of the Cold War. Then, it again started to rise and currently the total military expenditure of the world is again going towards the Cold War period expenditure.
There are some commercial organizations in the United States that get directly benefited because of this increase in military expenditure. Simultaneously, 44 US arms manufacturers control more than 60 per cent arms sales of the world's top arms selling organizations. Among the arms and military materials or appliances, the demand for ambush protected arms equipped vehicles was the highest for use in Iraq and Afghanistan. After the Second World War, the US budget in the military sector has reached the highest level.

China's Globalization: Changing International World Order

Everyone is amazed to witness the growth of China, which has become a new model for development in the world. The Chinese model is different from the process of modernization that Western countries underwent through the stages of colonialism and imperialism in the last century. In the context of regionalization, free trade and 60 years of bilateral China-Indonesia relations, China is suddenly like the elephant in the room.

Not only that, but China is seen as a threat to just about everyone, including the US, which is suffering from the worst financial and economic crisis in the 21st century. It is certain that China will transform the world in a fundamental way with a greater force than any other world power in the past two hundred years.

Recent signals from China are that its leaders in Beijing want to see China rise in this century of information technology. They stress that their determination to do so will not result in a drastic change in the global system that up to now has been dominated by the West. However, slowly but surely, China's rise is beginning to shift the position that the West has always occupied.

Growth and Development
The developed countries seem not to admit to the existence of China as the elephant in the room. The West feels that the growth and development of globalization, which is currently being driven by China, must follow universal norms, including norms of ethics, humanitarianism, democracy, human rights, liberty and other liberal norms. The West considers it impossible that a platform of socialism-communism can be capable of changing the world system that has been built over the last two centuries.

But, without realizing it, there is now an extraordinary shift in the balance of global power that is happening "sotto voce," and, in fact, is invisible. The phenomenon indicates a significant difference between the rise of China and the rise of Germany or Japan during the two world wars. The rise of China is also different from the rise of the Soviet Union during the Cold War era.

Factory Floor
Since the beginning of the opening up and reform of China's economic and trade systems in 1978, it has struggled long and hard to be accepted by the international community and to accrue all the privileges and positions that go along with being a superpower. As a newly emerging power, China is being forced to change and to accept international norms.

However, many observers and politicians around the world are gradually beginning to see China as a hidden threat and are saying that the world is approaching what they call "the coming China wars," as in the title of a book by Peter Navarro published in 2008. Navarro sees China as slowly dominating one by one the strong countries, and emerging in the midst of globalization as the world's "factory floor." Its rise is happening through misleading international trade with the use of the slogan "made-in-China price", by pricing goods as relatively cheaper than those of any other country's.

The rapid growth of China's economy over the last two decades has been triggered by its exports. The question is whether by continuing to spur exports China can sustain and achieve continuous growth in the midst of a global recession that has dampened consumer demand.

The extremely rapid growth of China's economy has never been experienced by any other country on earth. China's performance is considered unjust by some who accuse it of practicing mercantilism, including subsidizing its exports, pirating intellectual property and various other practices that are considered the props of the cheap "made-in-China price."

The interesting thing is that in the midst of dampening consumer demand, China continues to actively look for opportunities to maintain its economic growth and to widen its market networks, including looking for new centers of cooperation to prop up its own internal demand, and especially finding new energy sources.

Dominant Power
It is understandable that fears of China have been cropping up everywhere, including Southeast Asia with the coming into force of the ASEAN-China Free Trade Agreement. Many feel that it will be very difficult to compete and survive in trade and economic cooperation with China, which will tend to profit the most in that trade.

We need to understand that China will continue to have its own problems in the future, such as income inequality, sustainable development, environmental pollution, corruption and others that won't just go away. At the same time, there will be other critical points that threaten sources of fresh water or of imported oil that will force the leaders in China to come up with new ways of thinking to solve them.

China's regionalization in the Asia-Pacific region should provide interesting choices, including among them the idea put forward by Beijing of a new global currency that would de facto replace the US dollar as the international standard. China itself is actively seeking ways to gradually provide a role for the renminbi in the international arena.

Current Global Recession
It can not be avoided that China is a dominant power in the Southeast Asia region. This is the stage to make China a global power on the level of the United States. China has shown its ambitions to become the locomotive for regional growth. This is an approach to make China a market for countries in the region as well as a source of investment and technology.

Coincidentally, in the mid of the current global recession, the rise of China and the fall of the US as world powers are happening at the same time. This is causing a significant change in the balance of world economic power as well as a change in the relations between those two nations. We hope that a "changing of the guard" will not lead to a terrible shock that will endanger economic growth and trade everywhere.

Resolving US-North Korea Nuclear Issue

A new treaty on Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms was signed recently between Russia and the United States in Prague, the Czech Republic. The treaty signed by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and US President Barack Obama stipulates that Russia and the United States should pare back the nuclear weapons deployed for action by approximately one-third. It is said that even if the treaty is implemented properly, as it should, Russia and the United States will still have about 1,550 strategic nuclear warheads each after seven years.

Nuclear Arms Reduction
In light of the fact that a long time has passed since the end of the Cold War and in light of the fact that the new environment in which the danger of a global nuclear war has greatly diminished, it can be said that the nuclear arms reduction has little practical significance.

Given that nuclear-armed countries, other than the two signatories to the recent treaty, have at best hundreds of nuclear warheads, Russia and the United States would still be able to retain overwhelming nuclear supremacy even if the treaty goes into effect.

It is quite natural that unlike the disarmament treaties signed during the Cold War period, the course of negotiations for signing the treaty that has just been signed and the news on the signing of it have triggered various reactions from all over the world.

The person in charge in the United States, who declared his promise to build a world free of nuclear weapons following his inauguration, has pursued the signing of a Russia-US Treaty on Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms as the first outcome of his commitment.

Pressure From Nonnuclear Countries
The United States kicked up the commotion of making the signing of the treaty a success with the intention of placating the pressure from nonnuclear countries that call for nuclear disarmament and raising its international popularity in the Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation of Treaty (NPT) scheduled to be held in Washington next month.

Regardless of the background, environment, and the objective sought behind it, the latest treaty, though not satisfactory, showed that to a certain degree nuclear disarmament is possible among countries if there is confidence instead of hostile relations between them.

Witnessing the signing of the Russia-US treaty on reduction and limitation of strategic offensive arms, the world is paying a great deal of attention to the issue of denuclearizing the Korean peninsula where the danger of a nuclear war is the greatest internationally.

What does the present status of the Six-Party Talks, which the wall of distrust -- called sanctions -- imposed on North Korea has kept it from being resumed, indicate? It indicates that issues cannot be resolved unless there is confidence between the parties concerned.

In order to put the process of denuclearizing the Korean peninsula, which has repeatedly experienced setbacks and failures, back on track, primary attention should be paid to building mutual confidence between North Korea and the United States, the parties primarily responsible for the nuclear issue. This is the conclusion we have arrived at.

Parties to Armistice Agreement
That is the purpose for proposing to the parties to the Armistice Agreement the holding of talks at an early date to replace the Armistice Agreement with a peace agreement this year, which marks the 50th anniversary of the Korean war.

In order to build confidence between North Korea and the United States, a peace agreement should be signed first and foremost to bring an end to the state of war, the root cause of the hostile relations. The formula aimed at advancing denuclearization before discussing the issue of establishing a peace mechanism on the Korean peninsula has ended up in failure.

To speed up denuclearization by breaking the vicious circle of distrust while building confidence between North Korea and the United States, the signing of a peace agreement is the only way and there is no alternative.

The signing of a peace agreement is the only reasonable and practical method for realizing the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. There has never been a case in history, in which parties in hostilities dropped their guns before building confidence.

Denuclearization of Korean Peninsula
In a state of war, where the parties concerned have their guns trained on each other, the distrust can never be removed, nor can talks be held smoothly, let alone denuclearization. Given its peculiar necessity and urgency, the peace agreement should have been signed a long time ago independent of the nuclear issue in the first place.

Had durable peace mechanism been built on the Korean peninsula early on, neither the nuclear issue nor the issue of denuclearization would have arisen. If and when a peace agreement is signed, it would expeditiously help remove the North Korea-US hostile relations and advance the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.

The holding of negotiations for concluding a peace agreement alone undoubtedly will provide an effective driving force behind the denuclearization process.

Need New Approach To Understand Terrorism in Southeast Asia

After Noordin M. Top was killed by the Special Anti-Terrorism Task Force 88 (Densus 88), the public assumed that the threat of terrorism in Indonesia had ended. The official government information indicating a link between recent arrests in Aceh and the attack that killed Dulmatin in Pamulang, (West Java), as reported at Kompas.com in March 2010, have shattered that assumption. Terrorist actions still represent a dangerous threat.

Security personnel have linked the development of the latest threat with Dulmatin and Umar Patek, infamous terrorists who were among the most sought after suspects in Southeast Asia for years. The message is clear: this group still represents a threat in our region. The object of the authorities' search seems to have been a break-off group from Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), or a related organization. The security forces in the region consider that the security risks have risen, as reported by Singapore intelligence on the threat of terrorism in the Straits of Malacca.

Weapons and Funding
The official reports state that JI is a network organization of terrorists based throughout Southeast Asia. Although JI doesn't control all parts of the region where it is based, it is believed to be active in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand. The JI is also considered to complement Al-Qa'ida in this region, such that the United Nations has classified it as an international terrorist organization.

Since George W. Bush launched a "global war on terror" under the hegemony of the US after the attacks of 9/11, JI has been classified as the main enemy in Southeast Asia. This region is considered the second front of the war on terrorism, although a number of experts question the relevance of this characterization, since the historical, social and political context of the region are quite different from the Middle East, for instance. The governments in the region, especially Indonesia's, with support from the US in the form of training, weapons and funding, are continuing to work hard to fight terrorist activities.

Weaknesses in Approach
There are two matters linked to terrorism in Indonesia that need to be noted. First, our understanding of terrorist activities is extremely limited. Studies on terrorism in Indonesia and Southeast Asia are dominated by studies with a traditional approach that is based on orthodox security studies and counter-insurgency studies. These kinds of studies tend to limit assumptions on the character, causes and solution to terrorism based on the notion of the nation-state. The problem is that the knowledge so far produced needs to be debated, since it is often not supported by strong empirical data (Jackson 2007) and is superficial.

The weakness of academic works on terrorism, especially on JI, has already been pointed out by Hamilton-Hart (2005). He reminds us of the quality of information and the simplification of terrorist activities as the actions of pathological actors. Many studies by terrorism experts are full of footnotes from police reports, prosecutors' charges, court defense statements, judges' decisions and intelligence reports, without fuller investigation of the historical context.

This is made worse by mainstream media reports that repeatedly publish and broadcast news based on these reports or on interviews with security officials who are considered to be authoritative. The main issue, according to Lafree and Dugan (2007), is that government data is full of political judgments about terrorism. Such studies can be confounded by what Herman and O'Sullivan (1989) characterize as the "terrorism industry." With a variety of actors, like government officials and agencies, research institutes, private security companies, this "industry" is actually working to serve the interests of the market.

Second, the resultant weakness of a knowledge base like this is the settling of terrorist actions by governments that rely on "war" approaches alone. It turns out that shooting suspects, jail, surveillance and using a rehabilitative approach on former terrorists does not to put an end to the terrorist threat. There is a need for comprehensive studies that avoid the assumption that violence is something endemic in religious teachings and that gets caught up in trying to unravel rings of terrorist actors.

Application of Neo-Liberalism
However, we need to focus attention on the political and economic environment in a particular period of time in which terrorist activities are taking place. The fact that many of the JI leaders were involved in the mujahidin struggle in Afghanistan in the 1980s signals that radicalism accompanied by violence that surfaces afterwards is strongly rooted in the Cold War. The mujahidin, including Osama Bin Laden, who took part in the counter-revolutionary war in Afghanistan, were praised by Ronald Reagan as heroes. The changes after the Cold War, the economic and political context of global terrorism, all need to be investigated.

The application of neo-liberalism, particularly through the instrument of the US imperialist war in Iraq, has only nurtured global sentiment through interrelated terrorist attacks. In Indonesia, anti-US rhetoric has found a fertile ground, and some of it has been channeled through terrorist actions and dissatisfaction with imperialism expressed through a religiously garbed struggle. This global tendency has mixed with a process of political and economic exclusion that has taken place during the last 10 years.

Sharpening of Class Differences
The sharpening of class differences, in which wealth is accumulated not only into the pockets of a few people, but is channeled to those in rich countries, has resulted in widespread social dissatisfaction. Poverty, unemployment, political and social exclusion are triggers for the rise of the illusion of violence as something sanctioned by religion.

The government needs to change its approach to the combating of terrorism from a "war" approach only to a new basic economic and political policy. It is urgent that the government be able to take issue with the US in relation to the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan and see them as the roots of terrorist actions. Barack Obama's visit should be used to convey a new political tone in this regard, not to be stuck in flat diplomacy, reporting the "successes" in combating terrorism, particularly if only done for political imagemaking.

ASEAN 10 Plus 4 Framework

Ever since China began to open up to the outside world and carried out its reform, China has followed the path of an open-end regionalism. Such open-end regionalism can allow China to take the lead to establish the ideological basis of regional platforms. What open-end regionalism stresses is the inclusive of regional organizations. Such regionalism can be reflected on China's relationship with ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) countries.

After the end of the Cold War, the relationship between China and ASEAN is a most successful case in all regional organizations. The relationship between China and ASEAN has also led to two other countries in Northeast Asia, namely Japan and South Korea to establish closer relationship with the ASEAN countries.

Open Process Evolution
How can G2 expand the basis of its own system? It will be an open process evolution. During this evolution, G2 may come out with different organizational structure. However, for effectiveness and convenience, G2 may also wish to use the ASEAN platform to develop the G2 structure. In other words, ASEAN can indeed expand its open-end regionalism to China-US relationship.

There are many reasons why ASEAN can become an interactive platform for G2. First of all, ASEAN has already formed its ASEAN "10 +1" mechanism. Built on this base, ASEAN now has the ASEAN "10+3" (ASEAN plus China, Japan, South Korea) framework. Now, the United States has openly said that it wants to "come back" (return to Southeast Asia). This means that ASEAN can come out with another "10+1" mechanism (ASEAN plus US) framework to include the United States.

Developing Enough Momentum
It is not difficult for the ASEAN "10+3 mechanism to extend and become an ASEAN "10+4" framework. During the initial stage, the United States may be reluctant to buy this concept. However, with East Asia gradually becoming the center of the world economy, the United States will also gradually develop enough momentum to enter this ASEAN "10+4" mechanism. The ASEAN-China Free Trade Area has already entered into force.

After a period of trial run, the ties between ASEAN and China will further be strengthened. This will give the United States great competitive challenge in the East Asian region. If the United States does not want to be marginalized in this region, the United States must make effort to institutionalize its presence in the Southeast Asian region.

Both ASEAN and Northeast Asian countries are facing a reality that the United States was here in the past; the United States is here now and the United States will also be here in the future. The importance of the United States to Southeast Asia (regardless if it is from economic or strategic perspective) is obvious. It is with good and great reason that the ASEAN countries would want to earnestly "invite" the United States to come back to Southeast Asia. In Northeastern Asia, Japan has proposed to establish a more equal relationship with the United States. If ASEAN does not consider the US factor, then the concept of an East Asian Community will be difficult to achieve.

US Shift Toward East Asia
East Asian regionalism is inclusive, which means it can include the United States. In the same token, if East Asian countries have recognized the existence of the United States, or to use the words of realism, there is no ability for the region to exclude the United States, they would have to consider how to "digest" the United States. It is like the US engagement policy on China with the purpose to "digest" China.

In fact, as the US focus begins to shift toward East Asia, the United States has more and more like an East Asian country. In such a case, the United States must be integrated into the Asian economic and security mechanism. The more the United States is excluded from this region, the more insecurity East Asian countries can become. The reason is very simple. This is because the more the region wants to exclude the United States, the more the United States will have the psychological fear of not becoming part of the same. The United States might find whatever means they can use to get involved in this region then.

Providing Economic Platform
First and foremost the proposed ASEAN "10+4" mechanism is an economic platform. In this regard, interaction on economic issues within such a platform is easier to carry out. Compared with other aspects of interaction, economic interaction is often not a zero-sum game. Economic interaction platform can even result in having positive effect on political interaction. At this moment, between China and the United States, these two countries face many trade disputes.

On the surface, although the China-US bilateral trade disputes are trade matters between the two countries, to a great degree, such trade disputes involve the whole East Asia's trade relationship with the United States. This is especially manifested in the aspects of the US trade deficit with China. It is difficult for regional countries to explain China's trade relation with the United States if we do not consider China's trade relation with other East Asian countries. If the US economic mechanisms can be integrated into the East Asian region, when the United States considers its economic interest, its economic concern will not so easily be politicized as what has happened now.

Possible Positive Impact
Economic integration will also bring positive impact to the ultimate security issue. The security issue between China and the United States is not just the problem between the two countries; it is also the security issue of the entire Asia. If China and the United States can, based on the proposed ASEAN "10+4" mechanism, to also nurture military confidence and build up a security cooperation mechanism, such security cooperation mechanism will allow peace in Asia to prevail and be protected, it will also provide solid foundation for global security.

The proposed ASEAN "10+4" mechanism itself can be an open end mechanism. Based on such principle, this mechanism can be expanded to include more relevant countries. It will be the ASEAN "10+4" formula.

Restoration of Old Warmth Between India, Russia

Looking at the success of Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's two-day India visit, it seems that India and Russia are bringing back the old warmth in their relations, which had been lost with the end of Cold War.

India and the former Soviet Union were very close friends, then and India would stand alongside the Soviet Union at international forums to face the might of the United States. After the fall of the Soviet Union and its disintegration, global conditions changed and distance between India and the United States narrowed, and their relationship touched its peak with the nuclear deal between India and the United States. Relations between India and Russia never became sour, but a kind of laxity had crept in, which had created an atmosphere of diplomatic lethargy.

Strategic and Trade Agreements
It has become clear from the strategic and trade agreements signed during Prime Minister Putin's visit that both countries understand each other's significance. It seemed in the last decade that the world was becoming unipolar under US supremacy, but the growing strength and pace of China and India's development have created a new Asian pole.

Countries like India and China along with Russia conceptualized the Shanghai cooperation. Russia emerged as an economic superpower breaking its own economic shackles, but its trade dependence is on Europe. Russia is looking for new markets to change that dependence, and India is a friend as well as an emerging center of trade.

The New Avenues
To balance the power of China and the United States, mutual cooperation between India and Russia would open up new avenues. It is being hoped that bilateral trade, which is currently worth $8 billion annually, would reach $20 billion in the next five years. There has been a big deal with Russia for military weapons and Russia is also prepared to supply necessary uranium fuel and reactors to India, which is in the new nuclear club. India needs energy and there is huge reserve of petroleum products in Russia.

The United States is India's new friend, but there is always a shadow of doubt over this friendship because of double-faced policies of Washington regarding Pakistan. At the same time, the manner in which China is tightening its strategic and economic grip around India, cooperation between India and Russia becomes inevitable for peace and power balance.

India Tightens Security Following US Warning on Terror Attack

The US advisory to its citizens visiting India to remain alert against terrorist attacks shows how serious it is about danger of terror threat. The US Foreign Department says it has been continuously receiving information for some time about a likely terrorist attack on India.

Intensifying Threat
It has also been said that terrorists could attack a place where US citizens and other foreigners could be targeted. India has also expressed apprehension about a terrorist attack from across the border, and has warned Indians against it. Despite the war against terror, there is no doubt that the threat is intensifying instead of reducing.
However, terrorism is not a new weapon. During the Cold War, superpowers used it to destabilize their enemy countries. Today, the same terrorism has become a threat to the entire world. The United States and Western countries are terrorized to such an extent that they are forced to take every step cautiously. The security of their citizens going abroad has become a big cause for concern.

Conspiracies of Terrorist Attacks
Australia and New Zealand have expressed concern with regard to the security of their cricket players. India has reassured both countries. Though their concern is quite natural, as far as India is concerned, it is safer than any other country.
The security arrangements have been strengthened after the Mumbai terror attack. Our security forces have foiled several conspiracies of terrorist attacks, but the apprehension of threat cannot be denied. Terrorists' deadly intention can only be foiled by maintaining constant vigil and remaining alert to make the country totally safe for people.

Whither Obama Promises to Islamic World?

That night of 20 January was the night to dream with open eyes, when the son of a black Muslim was seen in the historical function to take oath as the 44th President of the United States. That moment for the black US people was the realization of their dreams. However, the black and Muslim people of the entire world started having a new dream from that day. That dream was about good United States.
Now a question mark is being observed on the performance of Barack Obama after eight months and it is not asking from a single individual, rather from the history as to "what happened to that dream?" That dream, which faded out as soon as it was dreamt. Now ash of that dream is flying hither and thither in the shape of speeches on the global stage and its script writer is the US establishment.

Freedom of Palestine
Intellectuals of the world agreed on it that Obama would do nothing. However, there was a hope that the United States would correct its mistakes in the shape of Obama and would let the world win peace and freedom without which the word "civilization" is meaningless. However, the violence gripped this world after the break up of the Soviet Union and disintegration of the socialist block.
The nations of the world, which sacrificed three or four generations for freedom, their goal of freedom seemed a mirage to them. What is the answer the United States of Obama to this question as "what has happened to the freedom of Palestine?" Now Palestinians are not launching suicide attacks on the Jews and they are no more hijacking aircrafts. Why are they still under barbaric besiege of Israel?

Occupation of Iraq and Withdrawal from Afghanistan
The United States had a great opportunity in the shape of Obama to seek apology for the occupation of Iraq and to withdraw from Afghanistan. If it had sought guarantees from Islamic countries to do this, it would have obtained. However, it wasted the opportunity. Now the withdrawal of the United States from Afghanistan would be nothing more than a retreat. The reason is that it has been decided that the United States cannot stay in Afghanistan for long. It has to leave it. It would have been a lot better, if it had left it with honor.
As far as the prosperity of the world is concerned, people are leading life worse than before. All books of the capitalist world have turned into a heap of garbage, which described that the world once out of the threat of communism would become a paradise. Now communism is no more a threat. However, the world has become worse than before. Promises the United States pledged to the international community and the countries standing by it against the Soviet Union have not been honored. Pakistan is a sorrowful example of those broken promises. India supported the Soviet Union during the Cold War era. It did not support NATO countries. India did not support the United States or its allies from Afghanistan to Africa.

Bonhomie with India
However, the United States started bonhomie with India after the elimination of the Soviet Union and pushed Pakistan aside. India conducted nuclear tests and Pakistan paid it back in the same coin. However, both were subjected to sanctions. Then this shameful discrimination was exercised that the United States signed nuclear pact with India and announced that Pakistan should not expect such pacts. The United States used to request Pakistan for help during the Cold War era.
However, it started issuing aggressive threats in order to use Pakistan for its interests after the Cold War was over. Pakistan was subjected to discriminatory treatment regarding nuclear cooperation when Pakistan was either killing its friends of cold war era or it was handing them over to the United States, although they did not pose any threat to Pakistan. However, those best friends of Pakistan turned into the worst enemies because of the United States. Pakistan now stands alone in the war on terror, in which it was forcibly pushed into by the United States.
The United States is violating the sanctity of the Pakistani frontiers with its drone spy planes and the Indian intelligence agency, Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) has set up a large network in Afghanistan because of the United States. It has launched every kind of activities against Pakistan under the cover of aid to Afghanistan. The United States knows all this. Now its allies are also acknowledging this fact that India is using Afghan soil against Pakistan. However, the United States is calmly looking at this drama and doing nothing in this regard. If it is doing something, it is adding insult to Pakistan's injuries and that too with the US brand name. How is the United States playing its role in this regard?
The United States should realize this that the history of world does not stop. However, it happens that its pace is decreased through force, but its total stoppage is impossible. The anger against the United States is mounting and if the countries of the world do not form a front against the United States, people of the world could gather on a platform against the United States. The history is changed through the public role. If the countries of world do not devise policies to reflect the aspirations of the concerned public, the common people would come forward to play its role and the world would enter into a good and new era. The establishment of the world makes people subjugate the common people through technology. It exploits them.
However, the common people use the same technology to benefit them and the world establishment is rather flabbergasted over it. Now the anger in the entire world is emerging against the United States in a new way. The public realized the United States would change with the arrival of Obama. However, the common people are feeling sorry over its simplicity and innocence, which is transforming into revenge. The people of the world are feeling humiliated. A fire of revenge is burning in their hearts against the United States. The United States should fear this fire. It is the fire of the public, which has the courage and ability to change the history.
It is being proved from the recent statements of President Obama that white Bush is speaking in the guise of black president. He is still presenting Pakistan as Al-Qa'ida sanctuary. The United States is increasing the number of its troops in Afghanistan along with the number of drones that strikes missiles on the Pakistani borders. This drama is being staged during the government about which the US stand is that "We are strengthening democracy in the world."

Drone Attacks in Pakistan
Will drone attacks strengthen democracy in Pakistan? The difference between the United States of Obama and the United States of Bush, which emerged in the minds of people of the world ends when the dictator of the same (Pakistan) country visits the United States like a royal guest and holds political talks with George W. Bush.
The people of world would soon be disappointed from the change, which they attached to that US realization declaring Obama continuance of Bush. The important question in this regard is: Will the United States be able to bear the reaction of the disappointment of the people of the world?