BSE Sensex, Mumbai

It is a general feeling in India that bad time has almost arrived for their expanding economy. The problem arrived on the Indian shores as the global economy is wobbling once again. Once the land of opportunity, Unites States is facing the problem of increasing rate of unemployment, The rising giant in the neighbourhood, China is facing hampering exports and a downturn in real estate industry. Other rising economies like Brazil and Russia are experiencing their economies enervated as well. Among all this Europe is considered to be experiencing  worst time. The continent is battling with a sovereign debt crisis which if not dealt correctly could damage the continent’s economic and political union.

Recently petrol prices were increased in India, making it to the league of few countries with one of the most expensive petrol prices. Massive price rise of commodities of daily use and food in past eight years has tightened the purchasing power of the Indians. Plunging stocks and weakening Rupee has added to the worry as well.

In this globalized world, it is normal to see the economies of various countries or regions getting affected due to problems in the other. India which had done relatively well in 2008 recession survived many external shocks and continued moving on its growth path. 

However, the situation this time is different in the country. The current downturn in Indian economy could have been avoided or could have been brought down to minor level, since it is not solely dependent on the European crisis but also on some wrong government policy changes as well as internal political turmoil. 

As many senior leaders of the ruling party are coming into picture for various scams and corruption charges, the current government has adopted a defensive stance. Everyday protests against the government policies and differences among the coalition government has made the government busy in making policies to save itself.

India is viewed as a rising global powerhouse and is considered as one of the countries which can assume a major role in driving the world's economy. Recently Indian officials were predicting growth rates of 9 percent or higher. It was a big opportunity for India to make itself more attractive for foreign investors who were hesitating in putting money into declining advanced industrial economies in the west. However, the government made mistakes and missed opportunities to better position India as the global economic landscape shifts, accepts Kaushik Basu, the government’s chief economic adviser.

Just for an instance, the finance minister Pranab Mukherjee, struggling with the pressures to raise revenues and to check the rising fiscal deficit, released a budget that proposed new taxes on foreign entities in India in March, including levies on past deals that the Indian Supreme Court had ruled were non-taxable in the country earlier. Foreign investors were stunned, and they began to pull out their money from Indian stocks, this mass outflow of capital is one reason why the rupee has slipped down by 13 percent since the end of February.

Not just this, the very next month of Pranab Mukherjee announced the changes in the budget, S&P lowered India's credit rating to negative (BBB-) from stable (BBB+). S&P credit analyst Takahira Ogawa said: “The outlook revision reflects our view of at least a one-in-three likelihood of a downgrade if the external position continues to deteriorate, growth prospects diminish, or progress on fiscal reforms remains slow in a weakened political setting.” the S&P also lowered the rating outlook of the country's 10 top banks which includes the State Bank of India (SBI), ICICI Bank and HDFC Bank.

“We are fed up and our investors are not keen to even talk about India,” said a senior executive at an American bank in Mumbai, asking not to be identified so he could speak bluntly. “They are sick and tired.” 

Another major problem lies in the age old bureaucracy in the Indian system, long procedures for official approval and acquiring licenses has enervated the enthusiasm of many foreign investors. Industries like pharmaceuticals, Information technology and consumer goods are prospering in India as it doesn't require much official approvals and licenses, however in case of manufacturing, mining, infrastructure development India is lagging behind. And manufacturing and mining are those sectors which will ensure the growth even in the tough times.

Long procedures for gaining approval and licenses are not the only barrier, if the investor has a small bad luck and falls in some legal dispute then it is very difficult to come out quickly as Indian courts take equally long time in processing. Thus, not only foreign investors, but also Indian corporations are eyeing projects outside to invest.

According to a report by NDTV Profit, foreign investment in Indian stocks and bonds was only $16 billion in 2011-12, compared with $30 billion in 2010-11. The trend is continuing even with a faster pace since March 2012, when the Finance Ministry, trying to stem a rising budget deficit, proposed a raft of new taxes on foreign institutions doing business in India.

Fake currency being pumped inside India from neighbouring countries sponsored by ISI is also one of the reason of depreciating Rupee. ISI aims to make Indian economy hollow by pumping fake currency in the system. Almost every month Army and Police ceases fake currency, but no one knows how much has already been pumped and how much is being pumped inside Indian economy. As counterfeited currency makers have advance technology and ink that can replicate Indian currency notes with 99% accuracy.

Although it is true that Indian economy is experiencing a low, it would be wrong to say that it is the end of Indian growth story. While some of the strongest European economies are falling, Indian economy growth rate has just slowed down from 9%-10% to 6%-7%. It is expected that Indian economy will be pulled back to its track latest by 2013.

Please share and join the discussion on facebook by clicking the "Like" below.

Daniele Ganser. © Collage: The Voice of Russia

 

Written by Boris Tumanov and Alexander Artamonov, Voice of Russia

Some time ago, Daniele Ganser wrote a book called “NATO’s Secret Armies”. In it, Mr. Ganser insists that in the mid 20th century, NATO formed secret divisions in Western Europe – a fact which many people don’t know or deny.

Recently, a Russian translation of this book appeared.

In an interview with the Voice of Russia, Professor Ganser spoke about the details of his investigation.

When NATO was formed in the middle of the 20th century, its initial aim was to defend the US and countries of Western Europe from possible attacks of the Soviet Union and other countries with Communist regimes. In response, the Soviet Union and its allies formed a similar military block of their own, called the Warsaw Treaty. Until the collapse of nearly all the world’s Communist regimes, which took place in the late 1980s and the early 1990s, NATO and the Warsaw Treaty were irreconcilable rivals.

However, Mr. Ganser, and some other experts as well, claim that NATO undertook not only official, but also secret steps against the Communist block. One of these steps was the formation of a secret army in the early 1950s. This army was called “Gladio”, which means “sword” in Latin, and is emblem was a salamander.

Here is what Professor Ganser said in an interview with the Voice of Russia.

“At first, many of my colleagues didn’t believe me that NATO has ever had a secret army. In fact, for some time, practically nobody in the whole world believed in that. However, in 1990, Italy’s Prime Minister Giulio Andreotticonfirmed that there had been NATO’s secret armies in all NATO’s member countries, and that in Italy, such an army was called “Gladio”. This revelation of Mr. Andreotti came as a shock for many people.”

“The aim of these secret armies was to resist possible attacks from Communist regimes. However, fortunately, these attacks never happened. There was only an ideological confrontation and a cooling of relations, known as The Cold War. Thus, some people think that these secret armies were left without work, but this is not true. NATO often used them to manipulate the behavior of European politicians, to make them adhere to more anti-Soviet policy.”

“Some of the countries where these armies secretly manipulated the government policy were France, Belgium, Switzerland, Sweden, Turkey, Italy, Greece, Austria, Spain, Portugal and Finland.”

“Sometimes, NATO’s secret armies didn’t even stop at committing terror acts,” Professor Ganser continues. “I believe that these armies were behind such terror acts as, say, the explosion it the waiting room of a railway station in Bologna on August 2, 1980, when 85 people were killed and 200 injured. Some time later the same year, another powerful explosion took place during a beer festival in Munich.”

“I believe that NATO was involved in these two terror acts and in several similar ones,” Daniele Ganser insists. “NATO integrated its agents into terrorist organizations, and they just had to take part in terror acts, afraid of being disclosed if they refused.”

“It seems to be impossible that terrorism in Europe was sometimes inspired by governments,” Professor Ganser says, “but, unfortunately, this is true. I will give another example. In 1985, France intended to hold nuclear tests at an atoll in the Pacific Ocean. Activists from Greenpeace decided to disturb these plans, and they sailed to the atoll in a boat owned by their organization. To get rid from the unwanted interrupters, French secret services committed a terror act against their boat. As a result, one of the activists, a journalist, was killed.”

“I won’t say that it is really US secret services, and not Bin Laden, who were behind the 9.11 terror act,” Daniele Ganser says. “This would have been a too daring supposition. I believe that the author of this terror act was really Bin Laden, but I also believe that the US secret services knew about his plans but did nothing to stop him. They decided that this terror act might be used as a good pretext for the US to interfere in many affairs in the Middle East, which would have given the US easier access to Middle Eastern oil and gas.”

Daniel Ganser’s book “NATO’s Secret Armies” was used as the basis of a documentary filmed by Daniel Amaro. This film has already been shown on TV in Belgium, Switzerland and France. However, if Mr. Amaro’s film was inspired by Professor Ganser’s book, the book itself, in its turn, was inspired by a film – although it was not a documentary, but a feature film. Namely, it was the movie “The Bourne Identity”, directed by Douglas Liman. In this film, a secret organization is depicted, which is called “Treadstone” and which kills high-ranking politicians. Daniel Ganser believes that although the story told in this film is fiction, the mysterious “Treadstone” organization has a real prototype – the secret armies of NATO.

Professor Daniele Ganser from the Basel University, Switzerland specializes in international relations after WWII.

Boris Tumanov and Alexander Artamonov are the author and presenter at the Voice of Russia, Russia's first internationally broadcasted Radio. On air since 1929.

Please share and join the discussion on facebook by clicking the "Like" below.

Dubai, photo by Jon Choo

Dubai is one of the seven emirates that make up the United Arab Emirates. It is more like an independent city-state and is the most modern and progressive emirate in the UAE, developing at an unbelievable pace in the tourist and trade sectors especially. Once you land in Dubai, you might not think it is an Arab country. You might think that you are in India or the Philippines. Indians are known as the fathers of development of Dubai. When Dubai was in poor state before the exploration of oil, Indians supplied technology to develop Dubai. Dubai, since the founding of the oil industry, has attracted thousands of migrants from all over the world notably from Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, and the Philippines in search of jobs. In this modern day, Indians and Filipinos have left their influence in the emirate: Indian restaurants and Pakistani bakeshops are everywhere while Filipino supermarkets are on the rise. Next to them the Europeans (mostly British and French) and Sri Lankans, form the next largest communities. Chinese and Indonesian migrants are on the rise.

Dubai is a desert city with state of the art infrastructure. It takes just 5 h from Europe, 8 h via flights to Dubai from London and 3 h from most parts of the Middle East, the Near East, and the subcontinent of India. 

The city of Dubai is situated on a coastal strip bordered by desert and it may get really hot. Hottest days are dry while cooler days in summer are humid. Cold weather is rather pleasant weather here, there is almost no winter with day temperatures of 20°C-25°C (68°F-77°F), however night could get cold usually from 10°C-16°C (50°F-60°F).

Dubai Fountains

Dubai Fountains, photo taken by Aih

I was a slightly sceptical upon hearing about the fountains, I had seen it on TV, but the experiencing it in the real life was really good. Once the sun had set and I searched for place in a restaurant with the best view, the music came on and the show began. It was a good experience and I could have stood there watching it for hours. I went back several times, but never got bored of it. The show is free and only lasts for two songs but is repeated every 30 minutes from 6 PM. 

Burj Khalifa

Burj Khalifa,  photo taken by Stefen Gara

I got the opportunity to go 'To the Top' of the Burj Khalifa. There is a ticket to go to the top and see the view of the city, it is advisable to book online in advance, also you have to be lucky to be there on a clear day, as by afternoon sand rises in the air blocking far visibility. I was lucky and got a pretty good day but couldn't see quite as far as we would have liked. The place is extremely busy on weekend and the best time to visit is evening time around 5:30 PM so that you can have a look of both day and night view of Dubai. However, just in my opinion, the experience was somehow disappointing, not because the tower lacked something. It is just that the tower is too high to feel anything, every thing looks really small even the tallest buildings down there. However, that is just my case as I had been first time to such heights.

Aquaventure Water Park

Aquaventure Water Park, photo taken by Carlos Mejía Greene

If you want to beat the heat, then this could be the place for you in Dubai. This water park is at the Atlantis resort. There is a train stop just outside the hotel which is convenient and makes the trip out there cheap. This elevated train route also offers some of the stunning views of Dubai. One of the major attractions of the water park is the aquarium tunnel and lazy river boat ride. There are various adventurous slides that add a bit of punch and excitement to otherwise very commercial operation.

However, ticket queue is long and slow that I had to wait for nearly one hour to get my ticket. The Lockers are located next to the main entrance, difficult to operate and they are very far from the slides and swimming that It is difficult to take any bags, sun screen, water or money with you as there is nowhere else to leave your items.

There is lot more to see in this city. Infact if you just come out on the street for walking you will be able to see some of the best things in the world. However, it is very difficult to see everything since you need lots of time as well as lots of money to be able to experience Dubai completely. I have listed here what I liked the most. But this is not the end of Dubai Tourism :)

Please share and join the discussion on facebook by clicking the "Like" below.

The European missile shield is up and running, says NATO Secretary-General Fogh Rasmussen, who announced its “interim capability” to shoot down incoming missiles. Earlier Russia voiced strong concern over the issue.

The "interim operational capability"declared by Rasmussen at the NATO summit in Chicago on Sunday is the first step to fulfilling the controversial scheme to defend the whole of Europe against ballistic missile attacks. The final stage, planned for 2022, is also set to provide coverage for the United States from Europe.

Moscow has repeatedly stating its concern, demanding legal guarantees from the alliance that the shield will NOT be targeting Russia’s nuclear capabilities.

Rasmussen stressed that NATO must be able to defend itself against missile threats, and said the move "cannot be blocked by Russia", it's a NATO decision.

However, NATO leaders have sought to appease Russia’s anger over the system by renewing an invitation to work with the alliance. “We have invited Russia to cooperate on missile defense and this invitation still stands",Rasmussen told a news conference.“We will continue our dialogue with Russia and I hope that at a certain stage Russia will realize that it is in our common interest to cooperate on missile defense."

NATO continues to insist that the shield is not aimed at Russia.

During the summit, Francois Hollande, France’s new president, laid out his country’s conditions for support of the antimissile initiative and said other countries, including Russia, should not feel threatened by it.Earlier, Moscow warned that it is prepared to use "destructive force preemptively” if the US goes ahead with the missile defense system based in Central Europe.

‘No rush for the exit’ from Afghanistan

NATO Secretary-General Fogh Rasmusen, chicagoreader.com

Afghanistan dominated the summit’s agenda, with leaders quarrelling over the pullout strategy. Most continued to support the 2014 troop withdrawal deadline, though the newly inaugurated French President, Francois Hollande, indicated that he was not going to backtrack on his campaign promise for an early pullout.

US President Barack Obama stressed that it was important to maintain unity as the mission draws to an end. “Just as we have sacrificed together for our common security, we will stand together united in our determination to complete this mission,” he said during the summit’s opening session, as quoted by Reuters

His words were echoed by German Chancellor Angela Merkel. “We went into Afghanistan together, we want to leave Afghanistan together", she told reporters.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen also stressed that it was important to “maintain solidarity,” and that “there will be no rush for the exits."

But Francois Hollande said he will stick to his decision to pull his country’s troops out of Afghanistan by this year’s end, arguing that it was “pragmatic”.

General John Allen, commander of the joint ISAF troops in Afghanistan, downplayed the impact of France’s decision. “We have the capacity, using our current force structure, to ensure there is no degradation in security,” he said.

Another contentious issue on the table is funding for the Afghan police and security forces. The US, not keen on being the only benefactor, is hoping its allies would chip in with US$1.3 billion. 

Also invited to the summit was Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardar, whom the US is also hoping to coax into reopening supply routes for NATO troops in Afghanistan which were closed after a US aircraft killed 24 Pakistani soldiers last November.

‘No intention’ to intervene in Syria

The issue of Syria was also touched on by the NATO Secretary-General. While Rasmussen voiced concern over violence in the country and urged the Syrian regime to comply with the UN ceasefire and peace plan, he indicated that NATO had “no intention” of taking military action against Syria.

“We strongly condemn the behavior of the Syrian security forces and their crackdowns on the Syrian population and we urge the Syrian leadership to accommodate the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people,” he said during a news conference. “But again NATO has no intention to intervene in Syria.”

Meanwhile, Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti was forced to leave the summit early following a deadly earthquake in the north of his country, and a fatal bombing in the south.

Republished following the legal disclaimer of Russia Today. Original Article appeared on Russia Today.

Please share and join the discussion on facebook by clicking the "Like" below.

Photo by examiner.com

In downtown Chicago close to 2 000 demonstrators have gathered in Daley Center, right outside the Cook County Courthouse in the heart of Chicago’s financial district. While the protesters here vary from union workers to occupy Wall Street activists, they all share one purpose – “exercising your First Amendment rights”.

Over the past few days Chicago law enforcement has been noticeably preparing the city to withstand what is expected to be the largest demonstration here in decades. Secret Service vehicles line practically each block of the city and the Chicago Police Department puts up steal barricades surrounding much McCormick place where 2012 NATO Summit is set to take place on Sunday and Monday.

The threat of massive protest has led some local businesses, such as the Best Western Grand Park Hotel to even board up their windows. The protesters who were multiplying rapidly as the NATO Summit approaches say the fear wasn’t brought on by the protesters but rather by the city’s Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

“It is consorted effort by the Chicago Police Department and the Mayor of Chicago and his Administration combined with the mainstream media to try to discourage people from exercising their First Amendment right to free speech and assembly. It is outrageous!”

“They want to make us look like we are the monsters who are to destroy the city, to destroy the police, we are militarized… But that’s the fear factor. They want to make us scary to turn against us. That what this all is set up for.”

To suggest how scary the protests here in the windy city are, is just a seven year old Dillon who came to Friday’s rally with his father and his brother.

- What do you think about this?

- It’s hard to say. I think it is good that they are protesting.

Perhaps the only scary things at Friday’s rally were some of the costumes that a few protesters were wearing. Several demonstrators dressed up as vampires and other fictional monsters symbolizing the 1% bloodsuckers. But even then Dillon wasn’t startled one bit.

- I think they are cool! I like them!

Dillon’s father Brian, a Chicago native, thought it was important for his children to see what protesting peacefully was all about.

- You should teach your children values to speak for what they believe in. They know my values, will form their own but this is a good place for them to learn.

But other protesters didn’t keep their cool as well as Brian. For many NATO’s presence in Chicago drew boiled blood by the going.

“I’m outraged by the fact that there was no democratic participation in the decision of bringing NATO to this city. It was made by the elite leaders of Chicago and Washington with absolutely no impact from citizens affected by these people. In Chicago today we are gaining a taste of what it means to be occupied by a military occupation. We are gaining a small taste of what the people of Bagdad and Kabul, and Jerusalem have to face every day – occupation by a foreign military.”

Currently Chicago is something of a ghost town, apart from the police presence and the thousands of protesters packed in Daley Center, traffic in the city is practically nonexistent and numerous businesses have closed for the weekend. Just how much money will be lost from the economical impact that the NATO Summit will impose is still unknown, as is the total cost of all the heightened security throughout the city. While protests have remained mostly peaceful, there have been at least a dozen arrests so far, and NATO hasn’t even arrived yet. And when they do the protesters will march.

Protesters plan to rally on Saturday through the city and on Sunday they have a permit to march through Chicago. And they will most likely march in the thousands but the police will be waiting.

Vasily Sushko is the author and presenter at the Voice of Russia, Russia's first internationally broadcasted Radio. On air since 1929.

Please share and join the discussion on facebook by clicking the "Like" below.

Sphinx, Photo taken by Vincent Brown

Egypt is a country in north-eastern Africa with a part of a small Sinai Peninsula extending into Asia. Bordered by Israel and the Gaza Strip to the north-east, by Sudan to the south and by Libya to the west. To the north lies Mediterranean sea and to the east lies Red Sea and is geographically dominated both by the Nile River and its fertile well-watered valley, and by the Eastern and Western deserts.

When we talk about Egypt first thing comes to the mind is Pyramids of Giza. Egypt is no doubt best known as the home of the ancient Egyptian civilization, with its temples, hieroglyphs, mummies, and - visible above all - its pyramids. 

However Egypt is not only famous for Pyramids but also for its beautiful resort towns of Sharm el Sheikh and Hurghada. Remote oasis of Siwa (Near Libyan border) and Golf Kebir.

Since Egypt is dependent on tourism for it large part of economy, thus authority ensure that you will make the most out of your Egypt holidays. It is very easy to get in Egypt as getting visa is very easy and relaxed considering the increasing number of tourists flowing in the country.

Great Pyramids of Cheops 

This is a must see! One of the wonders of the world, which should be for sure on everybody’s “bucket list”. Impressive huge limestone blocks construction of almost 144 m high, standing there for thousands of years without moving an inch. There are eight other pyramids are in the complex, together with the Sphinx. 

Pyramids of Cheops, photo taken by Ed Yourdon

I entered the Pyramid of Menkaure, which is the smallest of the three pyramids of Giza; there was a long passage which was stiflingly hot and not for those who may be even slightly-claustrophobic, I had got there early to take the option of a visit inside when there were only about 12 people inside because later would have had to stand in queue and as the day passes it gets very hot. Surroundings and paths are rocky and uneven one must take care and wear appropriate footwear if you plan to go inside. 

The way up in the King's chamber is awesome, however to go up and come down there is only one narrow passage with no divider and you may often find people going the opposite side come in your way. Don’t miss mortuary ship fully restored, separately exposed in the complex. You may want to hire a camel or horse ride; negotiate it hard, don’t give up. Likely you’ll get it for 30% of the asking price. Walking away will help a lot.

Stay away from locals guides and ignore everyone who approaches you for photo or guiding. It is better to go in an organized tour or with a group of people as there have been cases of gangs robbing tourists on highway by forcibly asking them to stop.

Pyramids of Dahshour

If you are in Cairo then you should give a go to the region of Dahshur. The area is wide and open desert and contains two of the most significant of all Egyptian pyramids, the Red Pyramid and the Bent Pyramid, both credited to Snofru and built around 2600 BC – meaning over 4600 years ago.

Red Pyramid, photo taken by Hannah Pethen

Both pyramids are a little over a hundred meters high and are as impressive and magnificent as the pyramids in Giza. These pyramids are not as popular as the Gizas and hence there is a possibility that you can be almost alone here as you wander around and look at the majestic monuments from all four sides. One can enter the Red Pyramid and the interior is impressive too. When I climbed down the steep steps through a narrow corridor, I was the only once inside the gigantic monument.

Bent Pyramid, photo taken by Arian Zwegers

Another pyramid, the Black Pyramid is also impressive, although rather crumbled and not accessible as it stands in a restricted area. But there is a good panoramic view from the Bent Pyramid. 

Great Sphinx

You can no longer go up to the Sphinx, but you can get close enough to it to take great pictures. Be a bit patient to find a time when you can take pictures without anyone crowding around you. You don't want anyone else in your pictures. 

Sphinx, Photo taken by Ernesto Graf

Watch for the volunteers trying to give you explanations. They may only want your tips! They will start saying they are ‘official free guides’ to end up asking for money for their services; and the explanations are very vague. On rare exceptions you’ll meet nice locals who will honestly try to be helpful.

Pyramids of Giza

You only need a morning to go here, try to go as early as you can as it becomes very hot as the sun climbs up. It's 60LE to enter the pyramid complex. However, if u wish to enter the burial chambers u ll need to pay 100 LE to enter the biggest pyramid and 30LE to enter the smaller one. Remember, cameras are not allowed inside.

Pyramids of Giza, Photo taken by Tim Kelley

Practically every tour guide will try and scam you regardless so be wary of that. Be wary of vendors and touts jumping on you - they do come by the dozen all at once.

Please share and join the discussion on facebook by clicking the "Like" below.

Written by Gabriela Ionita

The annual meeting of NATO members is scheduled to take place on 20-21st May 2012 in Chicago, USA. An anniversary meeting, we could say, as this year's NATO Summit edition will be reaching number 25 (only the traditional meetings are officially counted, but not the exceptional ones). According to the Secretary General of NATO, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, this year's meeting is probably the biggest in NATO's history,  as the Summit will be attended by state and government leaders from the 28 member states, but also other senior representatives from over 30 other countries worldwide. The only notable absence in this context seems to be the Russian President, Vladimir Putin.

This year's edition is of extreme importance also because it is the first time when it takes place outside the U.S. capital, moving to the hometown of President Obama - Chicago. Scheduled right after the G8 Summit at Camp David, the NATO Summit comes with a rather complicated agenda, especially due to economic instability in Europe and the many political changes in the last six months (most recent that of the presidential elections in France). 

At the NATO Summit, there will be reports on the steps taken to underpin the decisions from the Lisbon Summit in November 2010 (where, as we remember, the key reform policies and the reaffirming of the Alliance transatlantic cooperation were outlined).

This year, the NATO Summit will focus on three main themes:

1. The Afghanistan file and the clear commitment of NATO to assist the Afghan authorities for transitional period until 2014 and post-transition (after 2014).
2. Implementing the Smart Defense concept in an attempt to demonstrate that NATO is able to meet the challenges of the 21st century. "Another objective of the Summit in Chicago is to show 'how to cope with today's economic challenges so that we are prepared for future security challenges" said Rasmussen. After more than six decades of existence, NATO can look back with pride, but to justify its existence it must clearly see future challenges, how it can anticipate and manage them with precision and speed. 
3. The third objective of the meeting will be strengthening its network of strategic  worldwide  partnerships. Surely there is will be a public recognition of the efforts made by Macedonia in the mission in Afghanistan, even if the entry into NATO is still delayed, since the requirements agreed at the NATO Summit in Bucharest in 2008 are not yet met. 

Regarding Ukraine's participation in the Summit in Chicago, even when EU leaders canceled their participation at the Yalta Summit, U.S. Ambassador in NATO, Ivo Daadler, said at a press conference that: "Ukraine is a valued member of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. And all members who contribute with troops, and therefore are members of the ISAF operation, are invited to Chicago. Therefore, Mr. Yanukovich could be present at Chicago. It is not our job to rule on the current political issues that are ongoing in Ukraine ".

Moreover, Israel's lack of the guests at the summit was also justified on this basis - Israel did not participate in the ISAF troops - and not because it has been pressured by Turkey in this respect. Of course, the discussion will revolve over topics like the economic crisis and its impact on defense budgets, the missile shield in Europe, the essence of the Arab Spring, the civil war situation in Libya and Syria, but also the plan to reduce tensions and maintain security of key areas such as the Strait of Hormuz. 

Regarding the operations in Afghanistan, according to the U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO, Ambassador Ivo Daadler, through the bilateral agreement signed between U.S. and Afghanistan *, America agrees to give post-transition support even after 2014 and hopes to succeed in convincing the other 28 members of the Alliance to join in this common effort.

In the same registry we note the declaration of the Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, who, at the end of a meeting on Afghanistan with Defense Secretary, Leon Panetta, concluded: "First, we agreed on the next phase of transition and on the fulfillment of the undertaken objectives by 2014. Second, we are ready to define how we see the relationship between NATO and Afghanistan after 2014. And thirdly, we are prepared to work together with the Afghan people to ensure that the Afghan security strategy will take force and will be fully implemented. NATO is an alliance united behind all these objectives, so we expect a very productive summit in Chicago. "

However, more then few voices (even among NATO members) consider the conflict management in Afghanistan is raising a big question mark over NATO's ability (and hence its leader - U.S.) to harness the resources of its members in a common purpose. In turn, American observers often criticize the European NATO allies for not respecting their commitments in Afghanistan, although many of these commitments have been made in such a way that they themselves constraint involvement of the agreed arrangements. 

If NATO wants to survive as alliance, the efforts of its members must reflect the political and strategic consensus. The U.S., as de facto leader of the Alliance, should encourage rather than hinder this process. Lack of political will, lack of participation in allied operations justified by the lack of defense budgets - deserves criticism from American partner - yet they reflect a basic lack of common purpose and lack of unified objectives. American efforts to influence NATO's decision-making process has helped create the impression that the U.S. "take the decision, act and impose their own interests", and in making decisions the opinions of other members are purely advisory, which prompted questions related to the Alliance's purpose.

Andrew Dorman (Chatman House) rightly noted that in the meeting in Chicago "the 28 NATO members have many issues on which to come to an agreement on. First, NATO's involvement in wars, from Libya to Afghanistan or vice versa and in the potential war in Syria and Iran, led to different degrees of commitment from its members and differences of views on NATO's geopolitical strategies. Or formulating the question frankly: is this an alliance that focuses only on the European continent or one that focuses on broader security issues of its members and on potential global threats? How to define these threats? " Secondly, he said that "it remains in question how the NATO relationship with Russia will evolve in the context of the tensions caused by the location of the missile shield and the thorny issue associated with the expansion of NATO to include several former Soviet states ( Georgia, Ukraine) ".

The fervent critics of the atlantist trend deemed that the summit is going to the pillars of strength of the organization, after a visible failure in Iraq and Libya, an increasingly unstable situation of the disastrous failure of Syria, the inability of the international community to find a compromise solution for Iran's nuclear file, the general financial crisis, the U.S. election year (the fierce Republicans - Democrats dispute on foreign policy issues) and the military and economic strategy 'reorientation' of America from Europe to Asia-Pacific. Of course, we are already used to this, as in the last twenty years, at the threshold of any NATO Summit, a number of experts, journalists, opinion leaders not only discuss certain issues, but also predict NATO's funeral. Common also are the press briefings of the NATO officials in the summit and after, arguing that despite all adversities, the Alliance continues to survive (even if its promised reinvention is rather theoretical). The question is: how long? 

This mosaic could not miss the usual protests, already announced by the initiators of the movement 'Ocuppy Wall Street' and numerous other anti-globalization and human rights organizations. So the organizers decided a plan of exceptional security measures, from which Chicago will become a city besieged by their own police forces rather than the protesters. There was even a discussion over the establishment of a restricted flights area over the city during the event (rated by the Department of Homeland Security / DHS as one that requires exceptional security measures).

Moreover, in the fever of preparations, the Mayor of Chicago, former presidential adviser, Rahm Emanuel, has proposed and adopted several measures to avoid possible protests, measures that will be taken by the authorities even after the summit. I will only mention here the installation of surveillance cameras in many places of the city, restricting certain public activities, registration of any sign or banner that is designed to be worn by more than one person, restricting parades and public marches, the right to coordinate intervention forces (other than those belonging to the Chicago Police Department). These ordinances have already attracted a number of protests by Amnesty International and Ocuppy Chicago, whose representatives consider that the event is used to abusively reduce human rights and freedoms. 

* On May 1, 2012, President Barack Obama and President Karzai signed the Strategic Sustainable Partnership between the United States of America and Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. 

Please share and join the discussion on facebook by clicking the "Like" below.

Vladimir Putin

Written by Svetlana Kalmykova

On May 7th Vladimir Putin was sworn in as president of the Russian Federation in a spectacular Kremlin ceremony which was attended by more than 3,000 guests. Most of those gathered underscored that they expected the newly elected president to secure solutions to new problems facing Russia. In his speech, President Putin said that he would do whatever he can to measure up to the expectation of millions of people. 

The inauguration ceremony followed a clear-cut schedule. Given that Putin had been through it before, nothing could go wrong.

Over 3,000 guests, among them politicians, public leaders, actors and musicians who gathered at the Kremlin Palace’s St.Andrew’s Hall, held their breath as they brought in the Standard and other insignia of the presidential power in Russia. Putin’s appearance on the red carpet was hailed with long applause.

Putin’s inaugural address set the tone for his entire six-year term.

President Putin delivered a highly emotional, measured speech in which he demonstrated his sincere interest in addressing development challenges facing Russia, President of the National Strategy Institute Mikhail Remizov said.

"Our newly elected “old” president gave comprehensive assessments of the current situation in Russia. He called for unification, undoubtedly, in an attempt to portray himself as “the president of all the people”. For a president-elect, it’s important to emerge from the standoff of the election campaign as a consolidating figure. Nationwide consolidation will surely top Putin’s agenda as he starts his third term as president."

Sergei Markov, a member of the Public Chamber, is sure that Putin will pursue his new policies in the old manner, which means with energy and resoluteness.

"Putin’s agenda remains the same: Russia should become a strong nation, fill a particular slot on the international scene and guarantee prosperity for its citizens. It should follow a peaceful agenda and pursue an effective foreign policy. People’s living standards are central on Putin’s agenda. As prime minister, Putin succeeded in lessening the effects of the global crisis. As a result, Russia has reached the economic parameters of the years before the crisis of the 90s and is ready for further growth."

As for new challenges, Putin will have to secure the modernization of the Russian economy, which will be unthinkable without the support of the people. Olga Kryshtanovskaya of the Institute of Social Studies, comments.

"Despite fierce protests from the opposition, most Russian people support the policy of reforms initiated by Putin and Medvedev. Naturally, these reforms will take a lot of time and effort but Putin is determined to see them through."

President Putin has proposed Dmitry Medvedev for prime minister and submitted the corresponding proposal to the Duma. The lawmakers will consider it during an extraordinary session on May 8th . According to observers, Medvedev’s candidacy will easily sail through parliament.

Svetlana Kalmykova is the author and presenter at the Voice of Russia, Russia's first internationally broadcasted Radio. On air since 1929. 

Please share and join the discussion on facebook by clicking the "Like" below.

Francois Hollande

French interior minister, Claude Gean has declared Socialist Francois Hollande the new elected president of France. The declaration came when another big change in the East was taking place as the old icon Vladimir Putin returned to drive Russia for another term, Francois Hollande a socialist leader, will be country's first left-wing president since 1995, winning with 52% votes against the incumbent, Nicolas Sarkozy. After counting 99% of the ballots, Francois Hollande secured 51.7% of the votes, and Nicolas Sarkozy – 48,3%.

This change in France hasn't come as a surprise to many as Sarkozy was facing a decline in his well as he came near to the end of his tenure. Banning Veil in the country and taking a leading role in Libyan mission was some of his attempts to regain the popularity, which did not work as expected. Hollande campaign emphasised on being a "normal" President, as opposed to Sarkozy's sometimes controversial presidential style. The new president has come with some good objectives:

•  To resorb France's national debt by 2017 (cancel tax cuts for the wealthy and tax exemptions introduced by Sarkozy)
•  To raise income tax by 75% for incomes beyond one million euros
•  To bring back the retirement age to 60 years old, for people who have worked 42 years (full pension)
•  To recreate the 60 000 jobs in public education, which were cut by Sarkozy
•  To give the legal right to marry and adopt to homesexual couples
•  To give the right to vote in local election to the residents without European Union passports, but who have atleast 5 years of legal residency
•  To regulate rises in rent
•  To use punitive measures in compelling towns and cities to apply the 2000 Law on Solidarity and Urban Renewal 
•  To provide public lands for the building of social housing, provided by the above mentioned Law.

Some of the declaration which he made:

"I will be President for all French people".

"Everyone in the Republic will be treated on equal rights and duties."

"I spoke in recent months about the French dream: it is our history, it is our future. It is simply called progress!"

“I would like to wish Hollande that France cope successfully with all of its trials”, - said Nikolas Sarkozy who is being replaced by Hollande.

Head of the Russian Federal Agency for the CIS Affairs Konstantin Kosachev said in a statement that the winning of the French presidential election by Socialist Francois Hollande will favourably affect Russian-French relations. Kosachev feels that Russia and France share cultural interests and enjoy extensive civil society contacts [Source: Hollande’s victory to favourably affect relations with Russia – official]. 

Hollande has come at the time when Europe is probably going through one of the worst time. Unemployment is rising and hitting its highest level ever in Europe since the creation of the euro. Hollande's campaign calls to rewrite not so old, long-negotiated EU fiscal pact to have budgetary discipline, causing uneasiness in the markets and which could disturb German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

France and Germany was responsible for handling the Europe's financial problem, as German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Nikolas Sarkozy shared good relations, it is now to see how they perform as now Spain has cashflow trouble, Italy is struggling to stay afloat and France, whose performance has gone down, is facing increasing unemployment rate, growing disparity with Germany and alarms of possible downgrade of its rating.

However, German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle has given indication that Germany is willing to work with the new President of France positively. "We will work together on a growth pact".

 

Now, the question is how will his victory influence the economic future of Europe as a whole. The Economist had earlier labelled him as "the rather dangerous Monsieur Hollande." However, Thomas Klau of European Council of Foreign Relations said, Europe  should have no real reason to fear Hollande's victory.

Please share and join the discussion on facebook by clicking the "Like" below.

Fyodor Lukyanov,
Editor-in-chief, Russia in Global Affairs

Written by Fyodor Lukyanov

Vladimir Putin is back. Monday, May 7th, he once again takes the oath of president of Russia. After his third term as president, Putin will be 65, and he will have been in power for almost 19 years.

Since the beginning in August 1999, the core of Putin’s views has hardly changed. He can be classified as moderately conservative. The president-elect does not consider a return to the Soviet system as either possible or desirable, though he freely employs Soviet nostalgia in his rhetoric.

In general, up to now his power has rested on a coalition of mainstream liberals who have had economic policy in their grip practically since the start of the 1990s and former officials from security agencies who considerably expanded their influence in the 2000s.

While this coalition eventually produced a form of Russian state capitalism with tough fiscal policy and good macroeconomic indicators, it was largely monopolized and unable to produce effective innovations.

Putin believes Russia has not yet recovered from the collapse of the 1990s and, therefore, it is not fully ready for a pluralistic democracy. He insists that “manual control” must continue in Russia until the country becomes sufficiently mature both civilly and politically.

Meeting with a group of political analysts in February, Putin said that he and his team had managed to restore the framework of the state, but it was still in need of completing construction work. A few more years of gradual development and stability, then let us open up and liberalize, but not immediately. Russian conservatives have said that throughout Russian history, but they never received the time demanded…

Putin and his generation remember well Gorbachev’s “Perestroika” – how the enormous hopes and best intentions of the time quickly gave way to complete disintegration. The caution and sobriety instilled by such experience are helpful, but they also dramatically reduce one’s capacity for bold action, which is a quality every major politician must possess.

Putin’s conservatism is also reflected in his foreign policy. For all his tough talk, he is generally cautious and responsive. Putin sees the world around him as extremely dangerous, unpredictable and chaotic; and so he is prone to measure thrice and cut once. He has an idea of Russia’s rightful place in the world and is ready to take part in a new “great game” to secure it, but he knows what lines he should not cross.

According to Putin, Russia must remain a global power acting across the entire field. This distinguishes his approach from that which took shape under President Dmitry Medvedev: toward the pursuit of immediate and geographically close, albeit vast, interests.

Importantly, activity all around the world, that is, a global status, is required not for expansion but for the maintenance of the status quo. In this context Putin sees Russia not just as a consistent US opponent, as many believe he does, but as a guarantor of a classical system of views and relations that, in his opinion, is shared by the BRICS countries. This system is based on the primacy of strategic independence, the inviolability of sovereignty and a balance of forces.

Putin does not doubt that Russia is an object of permanent and mostly unfriendly influence – from military challenges (such as missile defense, other high-tech improvements and NATO’s expansion) to attempts to impose other forms of social arrangement on it by way of media campaigns and “illegal instruments of soft power.”

The world as a whole is being perceived as a highly risky and hostile environment. Reliance on force – solid force – is the only path to success.

For all that, Putin views Russia as an open country that is ready for economic cooperation with all countries; as a country that is not seeking isolation and is not trying to build even a semblance of autarky in the economy.

In general, Putin is interested in big business and its promotion, strategic alliances of large companies and major deals as an instrument of political rapprochement.

Russia and its policy are strongly, almost fatally, dependent on a host of external factors that are beyond Moscow’s control. Russia faces numerous problems, one of which is conceptual in nature – the search for a political model to replace the one that worked relatively well in the 2000s, but has been exhausted for objective reasons.

This depends on the Russian leaders who will make decisions. And that challenges Putin’s genuine conservatism which, in this non-linear situation, might be both useful and damaging.

The author, Fyodor Lukyanov is the editor-in-chief of the journal Russia in Global Affairs. Republished following the legal disclaimer of Russia Today. Original Article appeared on Russia Today blog.

Please share and join the discussion on facebook by clicking the "Like" below. 

Agni V, India's indigenous ICBM
Indian Ministry of Defense, via Associated Press

Interview with Gennady Yevstafiev, retired Lieutenant General of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service.

Interviewer: Yekaterina Kudashkina

Mr. Yevstafiev, thank you so much for joining us now. So, the way I’m looking at various reactions of the successful Agni-V Indian intercontinental…


The first test launch was basically successful. It is a great achievement of the Indian research technology and we have to admit that India has become one of the major missile countries in this world. And it was developed for a number of years. Initially the idea was to develop Agni-III into number IV and number V, but then number IV somehow has not been tested yet and now we have Agni-V. This is a formidable missile with the range of, some people say it is 5000 kilometers, but I’m afraid they are misleading the public opinion because there are people who believe that it has a potential of 8000 kilometers. And of course the range of throw is a classified information but nevertheless between 5000 and 8000, this makes it intercontinental strategic missile.

Approx. Range of Agni Series Missiles

The missile was coming under the Strategic Forces command. So, it is in a proper hands and it has been launched from a traditional place, there is a Wheeler Island where Defense Research and Development Organization of India has its sights. And it would take a number of test flights, not less than four or five, before a missile itself will become operational. Now it is a success but it is not yet operational and it will also take three or four years before they really develop what they say. They want to have at top of this missile MIRV system – Multiple Independently Targeted Vehicles with a number of, between two and ten, separately targeted nuclear bombs. And it will take some time, this technology is not yet ready.

And what we have of course it is a huge missile, it is almost 18 meters, and its diameter is 2 meters, it is really a robust and solid mechanism. It can carry about 1500 kilos of weight of load and it is enough to carry a vessel with a nuclear bomb or to have four or five MIRV bombs which could present a very serious difficulty for missile defense. And we have to give credit to Indians, they have mastered, which has taken more time in bigger countries like the United States and Russia, they right from the beginning have put the missile into a canister which is sealed and the missile could be kept for quite some time before it is being thrown out from a canister and after that it starts moving. Of course we know the Indians have serious successes in navigational systems, in GPS systems that’s why as far as guidance is concerned that’s quite a reliable thing because the standard of Indian electronics and space technology evokes respect.

So, having fired this missile Indians have stated by the firing test that they have joined the club of the great missile powers. Being the nuclear state they have declared that they have a very universal weapon for the future developments because of course they have their own threats perceptions and risks. And that’s why it has been done according to their view of developing situation. If you have a look on how far it can fly – it covers all China and it can come up to Europe. I wonder if these people in Europe, would they think about a threat from a third world country and what do they think about their missile defense system because it is much more developed than anything we have in Korea or in Iran for that matter.

Indian researcher Bahukutumbi Raman says that Agni-V is, like he put it, a Chinese centric missile. And he says that once it is put on operation, it can reach those parts of Eastern China on which its economic prosperity depends. Now, if that is really so? Are we going to see something like arms race between China and India?


The arms race between China and India is going on for the last 15-20 years. The range of Agni-V covers the whole of China, not only the areas on which the Chinese prosperity depends.

In terms of Indian perception of threats of course in the Indian General Headquarters, among the military China is the major threat and that’s why they have found now, say by 2015 they will have a reliable weapon to respond to Chinese threat. But on the other hand I think it will make the whole situation, as far as stability is concerned, more predictable and both sides, I would say, would be very cautious about playing with muscles.

But it is a certain warning to other countries around India, in the Indian Ocean and in other places that India has a potential and they have to deal with India very cautiously, they should not irritate India and it has Indian Ocean at her disposal because with this kind of missiles, they will have a number of them, they would control the whole area. And it happens, interestingly enough, it happens in times when Americans are trying to develop their assets and potential in Australia. And America is preparing for some sort of a showdown with China sooner or later. In this situation we have a new player, very important player who has got something to say.

And is the player going to take sides in that situation?


No, I don’t think India will take any sides in this because Indian policy is very mature. Indians know the border of their national interests and they won’t go a step over this border. They know the Chinese points of aim, so to say, which they should not step on. But in a long run I think it would play well in containing the United States.

Containing the United States?


Yes, in the long run, especially if China and India would agree among themselves and would really divide the spheres of interests, it could be a very serious reminder to the United States that they have to behave in this area because they are not the only one country which possesses this kind of formidable arsenal of weapons.

But interestingly enough India has close cooperation with the United States in nuclear matters. So, do you think that could be a leverage for the United States to apply some pressure to India?


No, I don’t think so. You know, the agreement with Bush Administration signed with India about scientific cooperation, but mainly in a nuclear field, in 2007 is of the particular interest to the United States because they know the Indians have a huge energy program which is based mostly on, due to rather poor energy resources, it is based mostly on the development of the nuclear industry. We benefit from this idea of Indians develop nuclear industry, Kudankulam which we are going to convert into something very spectacular.

But the Indian request is huge because Indians are planning within 20-25 years to build about 50 nuclear energy reactors and American industry which is not producing nuclear reactors now for the use in the United States, they have stopped producing them to the United States industry, they badly need some market for the advanced technologies in that. By the way, French are in the same boat, though of course French industry is of a much smaller size. That’s why the fight for Indian market in nuclear technology is basically a commercial fight for the share of Indian market. But the market is going to be so big that for the next 15 years there will be enough space for everybody to work on this market.

Mind you that Indians are very serious customers and they demand a lot of set benefits when they sign agreements and these set benefits would of course sponsor the Indian industry in developing their own technologies. And sooner or later they will produce more than 50% of what they need for themselves.

And now of course the final question based on your assessment. Just how good are the chances, the way you see, that eventually India and China might come to terms? Because now we’ve got more than half a century standing conflict between the two. And on the other hand there are so many forces which would be trying to prevent the two countries reaching any kind of agreement.


That’s true. And for example America very cautiously but they do have the share of really provoking the rift between the two countries, but very carefully. They don’t want to be caught red handed.

This is very difficult to predict but both countries are quite mature in their diplomacy and foreign policy. Both countries understand the level of their pretensions over the influence in this world and that’s why unless there is something very special, and very special in this case might be Pakistan which is an ally of China. But Indians are cautious with Pakistan, they don’t want to take upon themselves the burden of handling the affairs of this almost fail state and they really don’t mind the Chinese working there and having their share of influence in Pakistan.

But on the other hand there is no serious problem of fighting for resources up to now between China and India because China is trying to master the situation in the Pacific Ocean zone, and especially on those islands like Paracel or on other kinds of isles, and these are the priorities for the Chinese. They don’t show much their flag in the Indian Ocean. From time to time they come but just to show that there is the Chinese Fleet and so on. But they understand and they see that the Indian Ocean is the zone of influence of India, and they don’t provoke India for all kinds of responses.

The same thing with India, it is quite far from this Pacific Ocean area. It has a lot of things to do around the Indian Ocean and that’s why they are not a competitor for Chinese in the area. Whereas the United States, Japan, maybe even Indonesia, Vietnam, these countries are more anti-Chinese in a sense that they are afraid of Chinese, they don’t want to have the increased Chinese influence. And that brings me to some sort of a hope that understanding this Chinese and Indians, especially in times of possible Chinese-American tensions, they would keep quite good relationships among themselves.

Well, let’s hope so. Though there is the painful issue of Tibet.


Tibet of course is a point of disagreement but with the course, the way things develop, Indians will soon be deprived of their hope to have something in Tibet which would be more favourable to their heart then what is now. Chinese are moving there slowly but I would say resolutely and I don’t think Tibet is having some chance of independence.

And what about the new port which the Chinese are building in Pakistan?


Pakistan is a different thing. And Pakistan basically strategically is surviving on the strategic partner agreement with China. But times change. I believe that Pakistan in many respects is a fail state. And Indians do understand this and they don’t want to touch Pakistan in terms of military invasion.

But still, are the Chinese interested in getting the port and getting access into the Indian Ocean ultimately?

Not now. Time will come but now they have different priorities. I think they have a priority of China Sea oil resources and in the surrounding countries. In American opposition to this, they have the priority of Taiwan, deciding the future of Taiwan in some way which would be acceptable and they are very flexible on the way how to decide. So, for the next 15-29 China has enough to do in this area and if it is not going to provoke anybody on the other side of their borders, and they would prefer to have some sort of détente with India, this will work.

Mr. Yevstafiev thank you so much.

Yekaterina Kudashkina is the author and presenter at the Voice of Russia, Russia's first internationally broadcasted Radio. On air since 1929. 

Please share and join the discussion on facebook by clicking the "Like" below.