Harper Immigration Policies destroy talents...

Canada is gripping with election fever but none of the parties seem to address or even acknowledge the misplaced immigration policies of Mr. Harper. This, while Canada's Global Competitive Index (GCI) ranking, a measure by World Economic Forum (WEF) on the ability of a country to bring prosperity to its population, has slipped to 15^th in 2015. GCI takes over 110 variables into account for the estimation. However, by comparing with US, I think the flawed immigration policies and the system skewed against immigrants could be one of the reasons along with spending cuts to R&D.

It seems there is a lot of groups lobbying to restrict immigration. To an extent, it is true that some tend to import cheap labor but skilled-immigrant population actually helps Canadian economy more than it hurts. For example, African doctors who migrated to Canada saved over 400 million dollars while costing their home countries billions. Assuming an average citizen of Canada makes a million dollars during his productive period, the savings mean 400 more jobs or possibilities to invest in opportunities that could produce even more jobs and consequently more income to the Govt. However, in an attempt to fix this problem the immigration policies enacted, actually seem to aggravate this problem and in some cases, pushing of skilled immigrants out of the country or derogate them to lower jobs. Thanks to improvement of conditions in Asia and the flawed immigration policies, Canada is now seeing reverse immigration.

Prof. McNiven, in an interview to CBC in 2012 said that PhDs from developing countries were lured to Canada with high hopes only to find that their qualifications were not enough making them to drive taxis and work in restaurants. He also mentioned that it is due to the Canadian Government's intention to keep the higher paying "good jobs" among Canada-born young people.  He was also correct in saying that Canada needs immigrants with minimal skill and a lot of drive. From my experience, if I'm to recruit some one to my team or company, more than the skill they have I would look for their ability to acquire the skill. Hence, I agree with McNiven on accepting immigrants with minimal skill and lot of drive. However, the same conditions ("good jobs" for Canadians) still exist and the flaws in the system still helps the industries bring cheap labor instead of attracting and retaining talents - resulting in brain drain.

As case in point is the situation of postdocs and scientists, visiting Canada to work in Federal  and other laboratories across Canada. These immigrants add to skilled workforce involved in the development of technologies and science which ultimately benefit Canada. However, when these postdocs want to find an academic position in an University after their tenure as a postdoc or move to industries, they hit a "glass wall". Since companies are not much inclined to spend time and money (a requirement by CIC), a residency becomes a requirement for a job offer. However, according to the current system, one needs a "valid" job offer to get invited to apply for residency. The end result is either under-utilization or drain of talents. If I'm not wrong, I guess the labs and government perceive these postdocs as expendable cogs. In other words, they are doing the same thing that they want others not to do - exploit immigrants and import cheap labor. What they fail to realize is that these young minds, while they do bring new ideas on their arrival also leave with more ideas on their departure. In addition to attributing to the attrition of talents, the scenario could very well play against Canadian interests in geo-politics.

On the other hand, according to the current point system, the people who would enter Canada are IT and similar professionals, under paid by their company back at home. When these companies bring these professionals, usually they are brought on deputation and instead of a full payment, they would receive allowances. However, after a year these professionals would be eligible for Experience Class immigration and since they already have a "valid" job offer with LMO (Labor Market opinion), they would be successful in immigrating to Canada. I leave it to the readers to determine which one is good for the country in short and long term.

The start-up visa program, is also a bit tricky and may not be effective in retaining talents. First, most of the postdocs prefer a scientific career. After all, they chose to do PhD when they could have very well proceeded to become an MBA, right? Also, it might be difficult for the postdocs in the Federal labs to bring together a team to form a start-up. At the most, some one in some universities could apply for the Start-Up visa program. From what I understand, there had not been many success stories. A person with right business mind, also may not be interested to create a startup/company here because of the cost of labor and raw materials, as well as the size of markets. For example, India and China are bigger markets than Canada.

The federal and provincial labs that host visiting fellows and scientists also provide next to nothing opportunities to build their skill-sets or acquire new skills, to help them move to industry or to improve their employability. This actually aggravates the postdoc crisis. I had attended a few interviews from data science start-ups. Though I have a good understanding on time series data and have been dealing with extremely discontinuous data, and, as any postdoc, acquire the programming skills along the way to complete my tasks, these start-ups invariably rejected opportunities as I was lacking skills in Hadoop or Scala. I was hoping to have an opportunity to acquire those skill sets. However, if I have to acquire them myself I need over 24hrs (I already sleep only for 4 hrs) and more money to set-up my own infrastructure to acquire the experience that these companies, apparently seek. Further, the regulations in effect, prohibits postdocs from attending International conferences (even when they have results to present. The same is the case for Federal Scientists as well.), which are vital to their career development. In short, the policies of the Canadian Government effectively destroys young scientific minds.

I guess these are what some call as invisible racism and Harpers Govt. is not just helping brain drain but effectively destroying them. I think it would do more good to Canada if the underlying problems that hinders the realization of the full potential of immigrant talents are addressed instead of directing racial slurs. However, both the opposition and the public seem to be oblivious to the issue... I guess, immigrant postdocs should be warned against coming to Canada... Would you agree?!

Note to Readers: I have been off for a couple of weeks, as I have been attending interviews. I greatly appreciate your patience and your continued support.  

Grexit: World may suffer with Greece

Currently, the world is going nuts over the Greek dilemma. The surprising move by the President of Greece, Mr. Alexis Tsipras to call for a referendum on EU bailout conditions, have stumped many of the EU's leaders that they have started to openly vilify Mr. Alexis Tsipras. While the world would know Greece's decision by the start of next week, in the mean time Mr. Tsipras has closed the banks and stock-exchange to prevent financial collapse. 

Greece's bold move

In my previous post, I had argued that austerity is likely to lead a country into a vicious cycle. As austerity tends to reduce disposable income, people may tend to be frugal which could further aggravate the problem. Austerity is also likely to cause unsurmountable hardships to the citizens of the nation. Hence, I regard Mr. Tsipras move for a referendum bold and creative. Apparently, the move have stumped the EU leaders' expectation that Mr. Tsipras could be pressured to submission as is apparent by their open personal attacks on him. If anything, he might be on the right track.

Greece is not without precedent. Many countries have defaulted and have recovered from the financial crisis in the wake of such default to become strong economies. In case, on July 5th, Greece rejects EU's proposal it may its exit from EU. In such case, Greece is at liberty to issue its own currency. Though the currency might start on par with Euro, it would soon be devalued which may increase inflation sharply. However, such devaluation may also turn out to be a boon as it could boost exports there by setting Greece on its path to recovery. The period of intense economic hardships due to inflation would have severe effects on the lives of the people. However, I hardly doubt if the situation would be any different if Greece accepts EU's proposal.

However, Greece should guard itself against continuing to commit the mistakes that had led it into the crisis - corruption and tax evasion. If the tax is not friendly or is felt unjustified, it is likely to encourage corruption and tax evasion. With increasing tax evasion, the country is unlikely to increase its revenue, which is critical for its recovery from the debt-trap.

Greece Exist cost more to EU

I believe Greece's exist from EU is likely to affect the other nations in EU more than the Greece itself. Greece's exit would mean a fracture in the political union of Europe. It is likely that other countries like Ireland and Spain may follow suit plunging Europe into financial crisis, affecting markets and resulting in financial instability whose effects would be felt all over the world. Euro would lose its value plunging EU into high inflation.

A fractured EU would likely see EU's influence diminished in the World politics. Greece is already trying to woo Russia to invest. In such case, the NATO allies may not be particularly comfortable knowing the growing influence of Russia in their backyard. In addition, China is also buying off Greece's debts, which would likely increase China's influence in the region.

Greece's exit at this juncture would also be inopportune as UK is in the process of conducting a referendum to decide whether to continue with EU or not. In case of Greece's exit, the anti-EU parties' claims could find support, which may further weaken EU.

Hence, Greece's tragedy is likely a EU's tragedy and may likely to lead to many set-backs, economic and strategic. I'm sure the EU leaders are not oblivious to the reality but their dogged insistent ofn austerity makes anyone wonder the reason behind their insistence...

In any case, the world would know Greece's verdict by Sunday evening...

India cries foul in Pakistan's glee

"...had the people of India refused to buy Chinese products/services for one day, China would have learnt its lesson...!"

For the last couple of days, Indian media is going crazy over China blocking India's proposal against Zakhir-ur-Rehman Lakhvi the terror mastermind of 26/11 massacre. However, it is neither new nor in the interest of China's grand strategy to help India in the issue of Pakistan-sponsored-terrorism.

China's act is nothing new

In fact China is consistently blocking India's attempt to bring Pakistan's state sponsored terrorism for quite sometime. China did the same in the case of Syed Salahuddin (United Jihad Council), when China put India's proposal on a "Technical hold", effectively stalling the process. Since December 2014, it seems India had filed three separate proposals with UN, each of which has been stalled by China. The discussion on Syed Salahuddin was even stalled for long time, thanks to China. Similarly, China had blocked India's proposals against Maulana Masood Ashar, Abdur Rehman Makki and Azam Cheema in 2010.

It is not just with the proposals on terrorism. China was against US-India nuclear deal as well and has been consistently sabotaging India's bid to UN Security Council. It was also consistently blocking India's entry into the Nuclear Supplier Group and was trying to push Pakistan, in the name of 'parity' with utter disregard to Pakistan's nuclear proliferation history. 

Hence, it could be safely said that China blocking India's proposal on Lakhvi is nothing new but was consistent with their unstated official policy. In other words, China is India's foe in the grab of a "friend". Though many in India would agree, those clamouring for a few bucks at the cost of the national security wouldn't and the government of India is still spineless to call spade a spade.

Pakistan's all-weather friend

In my previous post, I had argued that Pakistan plays a vital role in China's grand strategy, as spoiler state of the region and as a counter-balance for India. As long as India concerned with the Pakieconomic assistance to nuclear blue prints?

stan sponsored terrorism, it wouldn't look to challenge China in the global politics - at least thats what China expects. To add value to the expectation, India is extremely occupied with Pakistan than the source of the threat. Isn't this the reason, it is carefully harbouring Pakistan, from providing

There is also another dimensions, why China wouldn't go against Pakistan. Pakistan didn't hesitate to sabotage US operations and supply routes through Pakistan, even after accepting billions in aid, ostensibly against US' drone strikes. However, this is also viewed as the result of growing India-US relations in nuclear energy and counter-terrorism. Dwadar Port and the road through Karakoram range is vital to China's "String of pearl" strategy, aimed at encircling India. Further, Pakistan is one of the staunch supporter of China's "Silk Road" project. If China votes in favour of India, it is highly likely that it would face break-down in relation similar to US. While US had no "string of pearls", China has and it cannot afford to lose its advantage after spending billions for the purpose. 

India Cries foul

Yes, history stands as a proof for India's credentials to regional and world peace. However sometimes, India should look beyond its own self-inflicted restraints. Further, with a UNSC a foe and a supporter of the nations hostile to India's interest, India's efforts are next to nothing but just "optics" to fool people. Doesn't India know that China is going to block its proposals? Had it not done before? So waste time in doing the same and waste taxpayer's money? Until this date, India has not enacted any acts to counter China or make China rethink its actions. This shows nothing but the political-strategic ineptitude of our politicians and bureaucracy. "Linear" thinking may be great for bureaucracy but wouldn't work in power-play.

I believe India's state, with respect to terrorism, is a consequence of the ill-fated and ill-advised move by Mr. I. K. Gujral to disband India's covert operational capabilities in Pakistan. Had, the tough speaking Mr. Modi's Government determined in bringing the perpetrators to books, he would have re-instituted India's covert operational capabilities. With covert capabilities, these masterminds could have been eliminated. Similarly, had India spent some time in developing technologies, India could easily pinpoint and eliminate its hostile targets within Pakistan with perfect deniability. However, I don't see any sincerity on the part of Mr. Modi or his government, in this direction. Though, Mr. Modi is trying to emulate China is other aspects, he fails to emulate it in the most important one - reversing brain drain and bring technologies and know hows from other nations...

I understand that India, as a nation may not be in position to impose sanctions against Chinese business interests due to it being a part of WTO. However, what makes the people to renounce Chinese products? In response, to China's act in the US, had the people of India refused to buy Chinese products/services for one day, China would have learnt its lesson...!

West drives Russia...

US, EU  and NATO drives Russia to China and India is oblivious to the consequences

Russia has been a strategic friend and ally of India for the past few decades. However, Russia's policy maneuvers in the last 5 years seems to show an increasing trend towards China and Pakistan. While many Indian analysts term these moves a mistake, I think that these are strategic moves with multiple messages. This article views some of the policy maneuvers of Russia and the context in which they are made.

Sino-Russian Relations in the context:

Russia and China have been gradually building relations since the 1990s. However, the following policy maneuvers by Russia seems more of a consequences of geo-politics than of friendship...

2004 Complementary Agreement

Since the 1990s the Sino-Russia border situations has been steadily improving, which culminated in the transfer of land by Russia to China in 2004, with the complementary agreement. With the transfer of the islands, the border dispute between the two countries was resolved. This could enable them to pursue common strategic goals and deepen their economic ties.

Though, from the surface, it may seem like Russia capitulating to China, it is not the case when this act is viewed from a global perspective. During 2004, the West and Russia were trying to assert their influence in Ukraine. The joining of some former Soviet States in EU might have not gone well with Russia. In this context, by ceding some land that is disputed to China, Russia turned a potential foe into a friend. This is also a signal by Russia for a multi-polar world. US should have noted the signal, as such moves not only rises China's stature but also its aspirations, potentially making the Asia-pacific open to Chinese brinkmanship and adventurism.

India, should also have noted this Russian move as it has ominous warnings to India. Though China's military and economic capabilities are awesome, China is still far behind Russia in military technologies. The alliance would mean that China is now capable of acquiring more advanced weaponry for potential use against India and other nations with which it has hostilities over territories. China, being a "blood brother" of Pakistan is likely to influence Russia to end its arms embargo against Pakistan. Further, the boost in China's economy is likely to increase its defense spending. None of the mentioned situations bode well for India but I'm not sure how India chose to be blind to the developments. 

30 Year Gas deal

The long meddling of  West and Russia in Ukraine led to the break up of Crimea, which was successfully annexed to Russia on 18 March, 2014. Following which, the West (NATO and EU) were up in arms with a slew of economic sanctions against Russia. I believe the 30 year Gas deal with China is a consequence of these sanctions, as the deal followed the first two rounds of economic sanctions against Russia - its enterprises and individuals. In other words, the West's activities not only split Ukraine and pushed it into a civil war but also helped China to diversify its energy routes. With the supply of Russian oil, China is less dependent on its oil routes through Malacca strait, a strategic choke point. Further, the boost to China's economy is likely to affect the security and territorial interests of countries in the Asia pacific.

In this context, it should also be noted that Russia's proposal to bypass Ukraine as its main oil transit hub, which is likely to affect Ukraine's economy adversely and have far flung implications.

Personally, I think India missed an opportunity both in terms of strategy and solidarity. India could have struck a similar deal with Russia which would have provided a boost to Indian economy. However, India has been increasingly showing timidity and ineptitude in such affairs for quite some time (as in the case of Iran). I believe, the reason behind India's reluctance to make use of the opportunity is due to its intentions to purchase "not so much needed" nuclear reactors from Western nations. Please don't mistake me. India very much needs power but India, over the years, have developed capabilities to build its own nuclear reactors. At this juncture, what India needed most is to further develop its capabilities - which could be through attracting Indian diaspora as well as help from friends, as Chinese did. However, the 'turf-dom' politics, corruption, nepotism, etc., is a turn-away for most of the talents. India is also not serious in making its own facilities efficient. India also forgot that it was Russia which helped build its first capabilities. Hence, it is wonderful opportunity wasted. 

End of Arms Embargo to Pakistan

As I had mentioned earlier, China's close association with Russia is likely to influence the latter to end its arms embargo against Pakistan, a country which uses terrorism as its state-policy. However, the tipping point, I believe is the MMRCA deal to France in which Russia was one of the contender. In this context, the action of Russia seems like a punitive action for India's decision to give the deal to the West with which it is in conflict. Further, it is also a demonstration that Russia is not solely dependent on Indian market for its defense products. Though MiG-35 was cheaper considerably than Rafale, it was also inferior to Rafale in range and combat radius. However MiG-35 is faster than Rafale and had a better climb rate. Rafale is also consider among the top 10 dog-fighters. In addition, Rafale is tested and found to suit army needs based on other non-combative factors too. So, though it is in Indian interest to choose Rafale, it is likely that Russia had felt betrayed.

The economic prospect in the MMRCA deal is likely to make any country, rich or poor, drool. In this context, it may be a human nature to feel betrayed. However, India was both inept and myopic here. It could have gradually tried to acquire the crafts, instead of giving the total number of acquisitions in a "winner-takes-all" fashion. If at all, the 1998 sanctions against India, should have served as a warning. Further, by gradual increase, India is at a better position to acquire the latest and best. In any case, the deal is literally dead now, after many delays and cost overruns, portraying India's indecisiveness and ineptitude in strategic acquisitions.  This is much ado about nothing...

West drives East

In this context, some believe that Russia has diminished its stature and strategic sheen by "bear-hugging" with China. However, I believe that Russia's actions are more of its response to International events that has direct bearing to its security and economy.

Some times it is hard for me to shake the feeling whether the West (US, EU and NATO) is more intent on erasing Russia from the map instead of achieving world peace. If such is the case, it wouldn't surprise me given the cold-war attitude of the politicians in US and NATO. This attitude is against the very democratic principles, that the West supposedly champion (Isn't tolerance a core principle of democracy?). However, with the world dynamics changing, EU is no more the sole power wielder next to US. China is rising, belligerently. Unlike the erstwhile Soviet Union, it is more calculative and vicious. The world economy is suffering and the terrorism, ISIS, is at large. In this context, I believe the entire Ukraine episode could (should) have been avoided, had the West been a bit more sensitive to Russian sentiments (US was not particularly accommodative to communist ideals in its backyard, so why should Russia?!). With the events on the contrary, I believe the West drove Russia into China's embrace, a more aggressive opponent.

India would do well to have its interests as priority and develop ability to identify its friends from foes. As the rise of China would have a immediate bearing on its security and territorial integrity. Mr. Modi, should realize that boasting and Hindutva, is not going to make India rise to a super-power status if it makes a habit of missing strategic opportunities and continues show immaturity and inefficiently in building its capabilities.

It is not late for India and the West to realign their strategic priorities with a view on the future. 

Dragon's Rise: Could it be Caged?

For the past few decades, China is developing rapidly both in terms of economy and military prowess. However, China's rise is studied with caution by many countries while looked-upon in fear by the others. China's attempt to allay those fear is the propaganda of "China's peaceful rise" by Mr. Hu, the president of China from 2003 to 2013. Unfortunately, I believe many of the countries in China's periphery might buy that. In my previous post, I argued that the lack of leadership is aiding China's hegemony in the region. However, what are the cards China hold? What could be the possible implications of China's rise to the region? Could it be contained? - Let us See...

China's Tactics

Benevolence or Bait

China is now a member of many important international organizations and financial institutions. In its global aspirations it has extended credit lines to many nations. However, these financial assistance seem to come at a great cost to the debtor. These financial benevolence seems to become a debt trap forcing countries to work of Chinese interests instead of their own. Usually, China and Chinese companies benefit from these relations more than the debtor itself.

As case in point is Sri Lanka. When Sri Lanka was reprimanded by entire world for its excess and war crimes during the last phase of the Elam War, China became highly benevolent to Sri Lanka. Mr. Rajapaska trying to play the China card against India when India didn't support Sri Lanka in UNHRC resolution, neglecting the warnings of his opposition.  It seems part of the nation has been mortgaged to China. The new president, Mr. Sirisena, was not shy when he said "foreigners are stealing his nation" in his election manifesto. After his successful election as the president of Sri Lanka, he announced that he'd be reviewing the terms of Chinese loans to Sri Lanka. However, when he was visiting China after coming to power, it seems that he was forced by China to look away. Unfortunately, Sri Lanka didn't have much room to maneuver. 

Another case in point is Africa, where China has committed billions in aid. However, what is not well publicized is that in the same period (in the last 10 years) more than a million Chinese have settled in these regions, capturing every employment opportunities. 

Currently many countries are receiving financial assistance from China and are getting caught in its trap...!  

"Old Rum in New Bottle"

Another diplomatic route that China pursues is the "One Road One  Belt" project, which is a revival of the ancient (206 BC - 220 BC) "Silk Road". However, unlike the ancient silk road, the proposed project has security, strategic and political implications, though China is trying hard to sell its economic credentials. India for one seeing this project as a part of "String of Pearl" strategy to encircle it. China isn't helping either, by setting up suspicious listening towers in Sri Lanka.  Similarly, the Gwadar Port and the Karakoram Highway development by Chinese are watched with caution in India. US and Russia who should be concerned with the project. The revived silk route also will diversify China's supply routes thereby reduce its dependence on Malacca Strait, a possible choke point.

From the military perspective, it has a tremendous potential for China to mobilize its troops. Most of China's ICBMs and nuclear stockpile are mobile. In a case of confrontation, the road increases the probability of survival of China's stockpile for retaliatory action. If China is the offender, as could be the case in South Asia, it would ensure the destruction of China's opponents. No wonder countries with history of nuclear proliferation are the most interested in the project.  

Spoilers: Pakistan and North Korea

Source: IMF

Cultivating and harnessing these two spoilers of the regions is vital to the China's aspirations. While China commits a lot of financial aid to Pakistan, most of it are loans that could inevitably draw Pakistan into a debt-trap. Further, the benevolence of China is mostly in handing over its old war machinery such as submarines, missiles and nuclear technology, while Pakistan is suffering from militancy and poor economy. If I'm to guess, China wants Pakistan to be poor so that it can control and use it to counter India. Pakistan is stupid and arrogant, as is India,  for failing to look into the Chinese schemes. Pakistan is more than happy to give a piece of land to China that would ensure its unending sufferings than settle it with India, which is only looked up on as a soft-power.

Similarly in the Pacific, China is cultivating North Korea by arming it with nuclear and missile technologies (through Pakistan). It also has a similarity. Like Pakistan, North Korea is cultivated against Japan and US forces in the region. Having obtained reputation for being unpredictable and for having the least concern to the well being of its citizens, North Korea is full open to China to be prodded to attack on any US or Japanese installations, which would give China an edge in the region.

Interestingly, these two nations are reeling in poverty and both need not be actually asked to attack any of the countries in the region. For example, if Pakistan feels necessary or think it has an edge, it would attack India on its own volition and with the Chinese nuclear submarines the risk of nuclear clash has just gone up. Similarly, North Korea, would have no apprehensions to attack South Korea. That is the reason, I called these countries as "Spoilers" of the region. Further, US is more happy to engage with Pakistan, a spoiler state that survives with US aids but consider itself closer to China, than to help India or other countries for that matter, which have had no aggression or proliferation history. As a matter of fact, the only two choices US may have in the region are India and Japan...neither of them are capable of taking on China by themselves.

Fear

I have argued in my previous post that China wants to keep the border issue unsettled with India so as to extract financial gains that would inevitably finds its way to China's strategy for world dominance. But such pressure points has some strategic elements too. For example, any attempt of India to help Tibetan refugees could be chastised by China and India scarred by its humiliation in 1962 would try to "consider" China's sensitivities. 

Another incident that comes to mind is China's coercion of Vietnam against internationalizing the South China sea issue. In fact, though many countries are not happy with China constructing artificial islands in the South China Sea, most remains mute spectators even when their own domain is encroached fearing China's military and economic clout.

Philippines is no stranger to China's coercion either. 

Even the Asian quadrilateral to be formed between US, India, Japan and Australia fizzled away as the countries didn't want to be seen as block against China - yielding to Chinese sentiments. 

US: From China's perspective

Source: IMF

US is undoubtedly the most powerful country in the world in both economy and military terms. However, since 2008 US's economy and the economy of many of the Western countries have slowed down considerably. On the other hand, China's economy didn't suffer much due to recession and is strong even after that. Many of the US industries are dependent on China's exports of raw materials. US companies like Wal-Mart are also great importer of China's cheaper goods. This scenario could be seen as two economies entangled, though the countries themselves have diverging visions.

US' commitments in the Middle East, had emboldened China's regional and global brinkmanship and coercion. Much of the woes of US in the Middle East are its own doing. By destroying Libya and destabilizing Syria US has only succeeded in creating ISIS, much worse than Al-Qaeda itself. Hence, China is confident that US would give a free reign to its ambitions in South Asia. In fact, the US policy was ambiguous for a very long time. Even after the announcement of Asia pivot, there many lobbies that try to pull US back from Asia.

Chinese thinking do hold some credence as a confrontation with China is likely to send US economy in a nose drive, and currently US may not be in a position to absorb the economic fall-outs, having spent a lot in the Middle East. The best US could do is "optics", pretend it is serious in stopping China and provide some reassurance but nothing more than that. That's exactly, what the much hyped US' Asia re-balancing strategy is all about.

The Chinese are aware of this... the US is aware of this... but, for those this matters, is nothing but oblivious!

Possible impacts of China's uncontrolled rise

China's rise has serious socio, economic and strategic ramifications. Some of the possible impacts that could happen are:

• Most likely it would start with the withering away of US influence in the region, if not the entire world. 
• Japan which has a serious history with China would likely suffer the most - loss of territories, destruction of economy, etc. 
• Given Japan-China history and China's apathy to human right abuses, I wouldn't be surprised if the resulting poverty and mafia lead to increase in human trafficking and slave trade. The same result with other countries such as Vietnam, Philippines, etc as it is now happening... 
• Could likely spell a doom for South Korea as well. Given the close relationship between N. Korea and China, especially if China considers S. Korea a challenge to its communist ideologies and a competitor in economy. 
• India will lose its entire North Eastern region to China and secessionist forces and J&K to Pakistan. 
• India would also economically suffer, given China's penchant to dictate terms in any negotiations.
• Other countries may lose their economic well-beings and Communists ideologies will find a renewal.

Of course, the impact of the China's rise would not be felt immediately. As the proverbial frog, the countries would only realize when it is already too late. Think about the state of Tibetans in China now, that is pretty much the state the countries in the region would be after China's ascent. This may seem like a pretty pessimistic attitude towards China, but I don't have proof that convince me otherwise...!

Containing China

The Asia Pivot strategy of US is to deploy forward forces in the region to contain China. This is based on the assumption, that lack of US entrenchment in the region is what causing China's brinkmanship in the region and China is dependent on US for its growth. However, it is not entirely true. So, if China is to be contained:

• US, Japan, and other trading partners of China need to untangle their economies from China. Though this may not completely stop China, it would at least make China to rethink its conduct in the region and the world
• India is behind China by decades. Given the amount of nepotism, and corruption (I know some would disagree but many from South and East in the Hindi belt would agree...!) in India combined with red-tape, myopic attitude and racism, it is extremely difficult for India to increase its capabilities in any near future. The best India could do at the moment is to reinstate its covert operational capabilities.
• India should try and break the Chinese "String of Pearl" strategy while US should concentrate on the "One Road One Belt" strategy.
• International trade laws and understanding may prevent the nations from making anti-dumping duties. However, since the Govts. are vested in the interest and well-being of its citizens, they could try and ensure that the interest of their citizens are met. A simple rule India that all products imported should be biodegradable, and free of PBA or lead would greatly reduce the import of China goods. Further, India could make the importer pay for those tests and hold the importer accountable for any violations. This is would greatly increase the cost of import and could encourage the local industries to prime up their supplies. 
• Formation of  "SATO" or sort of: None of the countries in the region could counter China by itself. US, given its commitments in middle East may not be able to completely devote his muscles or money in the region. Hence, the need to form a block such as NATO or EU for the region, in the region and without China (and of course its proxies) is a need of the hour. Such a block would have benefits beyond the region.
• Most importantly, the countries together should find a way to counter Chinese espionage.

In simple words, some one should take the brave step or everyone is sure to perish...!

India on path to another humiliation?

For the past few days, the Indian Govt. is embarking on jingoistic propaganda about the success of operation in Myanmar. As had mentioned in my previous post, whenever there is a big news in the media we have to look into things that the news what to distract us from. This may not be far from the truth. 

China's Encroachments

Deccan Herald reported a face-off between China's People Liberation Army (PLA) and Indian troops in the Burtese and Depsang regions of north Ladakh on March 20 and March 28, 2015. This is the latest of the incursions that happened only a few days before the visit of Mr. Modi to China. A similar incursion occurred in the Chumar region last year when Mr. Xi Jinping was visiting Mr. Modi. However, this is nothing new. Medias, citing department of defense response to parliament, claims over a 1278 transgressions/incursions of PLA into the Indian Line of Actual Control (LAC). However, Mr. Parrikar (Defense Minister of India), maintains that Chinese troops entering Indian soil are transgressions not incursions. Similar denials were also aired during the last UPA regimes. However, analysts and experts note at least 15 major incursions of PLA into India. They believe that China is slowly eating into Indian territory through "salami slicing", for which India has not yet developed an effective strategy.  For how long the Indian Govt., would try to sweep these incursions under the carpet, is anyone's guess... 

Two-Front War

China calls Pakistan its "Iron Friend" and Pakistan views China as its all-weather friend. Since 1962, China hasn't gone to war with any country. However, it often flexes its military muscles to subdue smaller countries. China may not enter into war for its allies as was demonstrated during the Kargil war of 1999. However, the same cannot be said about Pakistan. Pakistan, is conventionally unmatched in its military prowess against India. Hence, it is unlikely that it would pass an opportunity should it show up. 

Though China is adopting "salami slicing" to encroach on Indian territories it is only a matter of time before the Indian public notices, when the Govt. would be forced by public pressure to defend its territories. In such conditions, Pakistan would likely capitalize on the situation as majority of the Indian troops would be deployed against China leaving India's Western regions vulnerable. The objective of the "Two-front war" doctrine to develop and deploy armed forces to simultaneously counter attacks on multiple fronts (East and West). 

Systematic weakening of India's war capabilities

• Weakening the Mountain Corps

          The Mountain corps officially christened as 17 Corps was raised particularly to counter China-threat. However, recently, the Govt. has decided to reduce the strength of 17 Corps just before Mr. Modi's visit to China making one to think if this step was some sort of gift to China. If it is so, then this could only be construed as ceding Indian regions over to China.   

• Clipping off the Air Force

          The sanctioned size of Indian Air Force is 39.5 squadrons with a healthy strength of about 44 squadrons. However, this strength was achieved only in the mid 1980s. This led to the MMRCA competition to buy 126 aircrafts from the winner of the competition (Rafale). However, this program is cut short, in the name of fund crunch. 

• Soldiers to fight with Stones and Sticks

      In May 2015, the press release by the CAG slammed the Army Head Quarters for acquiring ammunitions based on 'Minimum Acceptable Risk Level' (MARL), which corresponds to 20 days of intense period. This is in total disregard to authorized 'War Wastage Reserve' i.e. 40 days of intense period. It adds that MARL guidelines were also disregarded and 50% of the 175 types of ammunitions are "critical" i.e., could last only for 10 days of intense fighting or less. Apparently, this was already stated by Gen. V. K. Singh, 3 years ago. However, as usual, Mr. Rajnath Singh has denied that India's war preparedness is at stake. Similar sentiments were expressed by the recent article in 'The Hindu' on Army's failure to acquire the required small arms. 

However, what is more interesting is that neither the previous UPA nor the jingoistic NDA is in any hurry to meet the dismal shortages in war reserves!

• Infrastructure neglected

          In 2014, it was reported that the infrastructure along the border was in a dismal state reflecting high disparity between the preparedness on either side of Line of Actual Control (LAC). The only good news with the new NDA is the apparent emphasis of Mr. Modi to the border infrastructure projects.  However, its anyone's guess on how much is accomplished on reality rather than on the paper, given Mr. Modi's penchant for publicity. 

•  Trade deficit 

      In my earlier post, I argued that China wants to keep the border issue hot in an attempt to benefit from the gaping trade-deficit which largely favours China's military modernization drive. However, in stead of taking proactive steps to reduce the deficits, in the name of Confidence Building measures, Mr. Modi's Govt. is only setting up goals that is likely to increase this deficit even more. It is either Mr. Modi is naive or is just favouring China. I know that many would disagree with me for including economy, particularly trade, in the discussion on War capabilities. However, as Sun Tzu says, economy is vital for the machine and since trade is vital for economy, I have included my trade deficit as one for the factors contributing 

On path to another humiliation?

None of these deficiencies, by itself, would warrant an outcry among the Indian public who are inured by the bureaucracy and corruption in India. However, when these deficiencies are taken together, should warrant a public mobilization as it directly affects the security of nation.

It seems Mr. Modi is not much different from UPA, in its neglect towards India's war preparedness. This is in spit of the fact that he was the most vociferous  opponent of UPA for its soft-approach towards China. At that time UPA was blamed for lacking in strategic culture and many analyzts were hoping NDA would be any different. However, the problem lies not just with the Govt. and politicians. It seems even the army top brass is negligent and corrupt, as indicated by the article in 'The Hindu'. Such continued and systematic neglect and weakening of the India's war capabilities makes one suspect if India is preparing the grounds to handover its territories to China and Pakistan.

Lack of Regional leadership helps China's hegemony in South Asia

Xi Jinping, declared that "China will never pursue its development at the cost of sacrificing interests of other countries... We will never give up our legitimate rights and will never sacrifice our national core interests. No country should presume that we will engage in trade involving our core interests or that we will swallow the bitter fruit of harming of sovereignty, security or development interests", at a Party Politburo Study session on 28 Jan 2013 [1].

The statement is clear that it won't compromise on its territorial claims even though its claims, on historical grounds is dubious at the best[2].  However, I believe that the lack of regional leadership is what helping China push its way through coercion.

China aspires a bipolar world (at least for now) with US and itself as twin poles. China's booming economy is largely fuelling its aspiration. Its military expenditure grows accordingly. However, what is troubling to the countries in the region is its territorial claims. China claims almost the entire South China Sea and Arunachal Pradesh in India. 

Source: Wikipedia

The claims of China on the South China sea intensified following its publication of huge potential oil reserves in the region[3]. This area overlaps the Exclusive Economic Zones of Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan and Vietnam. However, none of these countries could stand up to the military brinkmanship of China whose military expenditure ($131 billions) is more than thrice the total military expenditure of these countries put together. However, China also has disputes with Japan and claims the Senkaku islands of Japan as its own[4].  US also comes into fray due to close association with Japan and interests in the region.  

Source: The Economist

Similar situation prevails in India's North East. After its occupation of Tibet, it claims Arunachal Pradesh as Southern Tibet. It claims the Twang region of the Arunachal Pradesh on the grounds that the Fourth Dalai Lama was born there. However, being a religious leader, Dalai Lama can be born anywhere[5]. The claims are in contrast to its earlier agreement in 2005 that no populated regions would be exchanged. Further, to complicate the issue China avoids providing clarifications on Line of Actual Control (LAC)[6]. To complicate the situation Chinese army routinely enter into regions claimed by India as under its LAC[7]. Though the CBMs and the established procedures had helped diffuse the situations from escalating into a full-fledged war, so far, it seems China is least interested to settle the dispute. It complicates the situation by implicitly accepting Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK) as Pakistani territory by issuing visa while contending J&K and Arunachal Pradesh as disputed territories. Historically, it doesn't share a border with Pakistan but thanks to PoK and Askai Chin, it now does and by enforcing PoK as Pakistani territory it tries to pre-empt India from reclaiming its regions, in future.

Whenever any of the countries, with which it has conflict with, tries to internationalize the situation or tries to build relations with a superior force, it adopts to coercive diplomacy, like in the case of Vietnam [8] and India [9]. At the same time, it pushes economic ties that are in its favour, which by fuelling its economy is helping in building its military might[10] leading to more coercion from China. 

The China's strategy in the region seems to be centred on: 

1. Make India pre-occupied with South East Asia
2. Pre-empt any attempt by countries in the regions from forming a front.
3. Resist US deployments

China is helping Pakistan to build its missile[11] and nuclear capabilities[12], though it is against International norms. Pakistan has good network of terrorists in India and is a volatile country constantly engaging in exchange of fire and has already been in war with India multiple times. By making Pakistan Nuclear, China is has placed India's focus on countering Pakistan which is more likely to engage in war than China whose last war with India was in 1962. Further, in the name economic cooperation it is pushing a "string of pearls" strategy to engage and contain India within the region. As a part of the strategy, China is developing Gwadar port in Pakistan and Hambantota port in Sri Lanka. Both these countries are also caught in the debt trap set by China and could not refuse to China's intentions without heavy cost to the economies[13]. In South China Sea region, China coerces countries that tries to internationalize the border dispute while pre-empting any attempts by the countries to form an alliance. It is forming artificial islands in the region to bolster its claims and to use them as backup airstrips to its carriers to pre-empt US from the region. China also feels that US is incapable of helping the region given its engagements in the Middle-East and its sagging economy. Nevertheless, it accepts US as a force to reckon with. 

China's tactic in the region is not just its military might. It uses economy as its second weapon. Pakistan, Sri Lanka and a host of other countries carry huge Chinese debt and have to follow Chinese suit in the matter. It now pushes its ambitious Silk Road policy, which India views with suspicion as the same infrastructure could be used to mobilize armed forces during conflict. As a matter of fact, I believe that China is slowly building infrastructure surrounding India in the name of co-operation with India's neighbours until an opportune moment. Similar situation prevails for the maritime route connecting countries in the South China sea as well.

Further, by encouraging rogue states such as Pakistan and N. Korea to develop nuclear weapons, it adds a level of uncertainty in the region. In the likelihood of war with China, Pakistan will jump in to make the most of the situation. India, having focused for a very long time on Pakistan is incapable to fight war at two fronts. Similarly, it can use unpredictable N. Korea against Japan and US installations in the region. 

If all the countries in the region including Japan and Australia forms a economic-military block, then it would be possible to contain China's hegemonist attitude and brinkmanship in the region. Such an attempt requires commendable leadership and the ability to outmaneuver Chinese designs in the region. However, it seems, the South Asian region is devoid of such leadership which is what is letting China unchecked in the region to pursue its hegemonist attitude. Though US could not spread its resources thin across the globe, it could let countries like India, Japan and Australia and help them from behind. However, US is also highly dependent on China for its imports and China holds ~7% of US treasury bonds, which makes one doubt if US would be full committed to contain China in the region. Unlikely, as is evident from the very many one step forward two-step backward acts of US in the region. This is the South-Asian Conundrum Waiting for a solution.

Reference

1. http://southasiaanalysis.org/node/1671
2. http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/historical-fiction-china%E2%80%99s-south-china-sea-claims
3. http://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/bitstream/handle/10635/15352/MASHAOHUATHESIS.pdf?sequence=1
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands_dispute
5. http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/node/1745
6. http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/node/1778
7. http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/node/1758
8. http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/node/1761
9. http://www.businessinsider.com/china-gripes-about-us-india-relations-2015-1
10. http://theanalyzt.blogspot.ca/2015/05/the-challenge-for-india-and-mr.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+TheAnalyzt+(The+Analyzt)
11. http://cns.miis.edu/archive/country_india/china/mpakchr.htm
12. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/12/AR2009111211060.html
13. http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/node/1753

Spot the "Mocking bird"

What Everyone Should know about the Media

The title is derived from the infamous CIA campaign of the 1950s called the "Operation Mockingbird". It was(?) the propaganda arm of CIA to spread dissent, influence public opinion, etc. During 1950s, in its peak, around 3000 employees were working on propaganda efforts. In 1976, the then Director of CIA George H. W. Bush declared that CIA wouldn't enter into any paid contract with journalists. However, if it is the actually the case is anyone's guess...

In any case, a close observer could find the footprints of "Mockingbird" all over the media. Let us see some of the cases, which may make one suspect if the "Mockingbird" is still alive. 

Iraq War I & II

Source: Wikipedia.org

Perhaps the most well known example in the recent history is the testimony of Nayirah al-Sabah. Until her testimony to the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq went widely unnoticed by the Western Media. The emotional testimony of Nayirah, supposedly as a part of the campaign, "Citizens for a Free Kuwait" helped stir public opinion in US to support Kuwait in the War (Operation Desert Storm). It is also alleged that she was paid by CIA to take acting lessons. 

Similarly, in the lead up to the Iraq War of 2003, Western media was whipping up mass hysteria and paranoia about the WMD in Iraq. Only after the war, at the cost many US lives and its allies', it was found that Iraq had none. While over 4000 US life were lost, some were extremely benefitted. I followed up the news to ExxonMobils website and apparently it is having a couple of affiliates in Iraq but I'm not sure if these oil companies shared their profit with the deceased, after all its the death of the service men which led to their profits, isn't it?

Interestingly, during the 1990s and in 2002, US was experiencing recession and unemployment was high. Can the occurrence of such incidents twice be coincidence?

Zunzeo

Source: www.mun2.tv

In 2014, AP exposed the secret US program aimed at encouraging Cuban Youth to revolt against the countries communist government. In 2010, US Agency for International Development (USAID) created a text only social networking and microblogging service called "Zunzeo" (in cuban slang referring to a hummingbird's call) through a complex network of shell companies in Cayman Islands. The US Govt. obtained the phone numbers of some 40000 Cuban youths, who would form the seed subscribers for the program. Though no details is available on how the phone numbers were obtained, it is suspected to be through covert means. While the programs objective was to slowly grow the network until it reaches a critical mass to foment "Cuban Spring", it was retired without notice in 2012, ostensibly due to the expiration of funds.

While the reception of "Zunzeo" among Cuban Youths and the "actual" reasons for its retirement is anyone's guess, it demonstrates US mastery over social networking. However, US is not alone in this. The UK's top secret STRAP COMINT unit of the GCHQ is similarly manipulating posts to go "viral". Thanks to Mr. Snowden the UK's capabilities of social network manipulation came to fore. The documents along with the exposure of Zunzeo reveals how aggressively the Western Govt. are exploiting Internet as a means to manipulate public sentiments both within and abroad to suit their interests.

Indian Elections

Source: post.jagran.com

While manipulating social networks for propaganda is organized by secret Govt. programs in the West, it seems Indian politicians are masters in that as well. The recent victories of Mr. Modi and Mr. Kejriwal is largely attributed to their adept manipulation of public sentiments through social networks. Mr. Modi has been cultivating NRI and upper middle class' networks for quite some time since his time as the Chief Minister of Gujarat. This network aided him to project himself as a leader of change though other states such as TamilNadu and Andhra Pradesh had better GDP, and was rated high in Human Development index than Gujarat. Wikileaks leak that he is incorruptible helped to secure public sentiments in his favour. However, the series of tweets later by Wikileaks that it never described Mr. Modi as incorruptible, never reached Indian ears. Thanks to Mr. Modi's vast network and effective propaganda. Another personality who rose to power by piggy-backing on the anti-corruption sentiment and Mr. Hazare's anti-corruption movement is Mr. Kejriwal. His party too have used social network extensively for its propaganda. The use of social networks for political propaganda are also effective in circumventing the restrictions imposed by the Election Commission of India (ECI) on Electoral spending since these restrictions only come to existence after the declaration of elections and since ECI currently don't have a means to estimate expenses in such propaganda.

Source: Cover image of The Bane of Ethical Journalism

It should also be noted that, unlike Western Media, Indian media is already for sale. Between 2009 - 2013, ECI registered 1400 cases of paid-news where politicians paid print and television media to run favourable stories on them. Some media, is also embarking on extortion of industries/celebrities by threatening to run stories against them.  Thankfully, Indian public were usually adept and they hardly believed the media. But apparently, the situation is currently changing with the rise of urban youth who thinks less but are more busy forwarding funny pics. These youths with large social networks but with least capabilities to separate "grain from husks" are likely to be the target of present and future social manipulation by foreign countries/companies. With its huge population, India is at the risk of attaining "critical mass" in a very short period of time.

Canadian Politics

Source: www.shoebat.com

Recently, I published post on Mr. Harper using Islamophobia and Xenophobia to divert public attention from the failure of his economic policies.  Mr. Harper's intention to spend over 200 million Canadian dollars in a fight against ISIS also closely resembles the US' actions against Iraq in 2003. Prior to attack, as mentioned before, US used its media to whip up mass hysteria. Similarly, Mr. Harper used the two lone attacks in Canada to whip-up Islamophobia, which in addition to encouraging racism provided him a basis to intervene in Iraq. The attempt was so successful that there was no public sentiment against him for the intervention which costed Canadian public over 200 Million CAD, which could have been used to generate more Canadian jobs. Just think about it, assuming that an average person makes 1 million during his effective lifetime, the amount means a close of 200 jobs. However, when these dollars are invested to encourage industries, more than just 200 jobs would be created. When looked from the perspective of beneficiaries of Canada's action in Iraq, it seems some oil companies do have interests in the region. In addition, the prolonged crisis in Iraq is likely to boost the profits of Canada's domestic oil sector. In other words, Canadian public (federal and provincial) lost their jobs so that certain parties could make billions. However, there was no public response, thanks to the effective propaganda machinery of Mr. Harper.

Source: http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/

In Canadian politics, Mr. Harper, is not alone in using media to push is agenda. Ms. Wynne, the premier of Ontario is also similarly using media to push her agenda on Sex Education. In my recent post, I described how Mr. Wynne is using the ignorance of teens to her advantage while diverting the public from asking pertinent questions. Her only defence is that parents could opt their children out of those subjects. What didn't she tell and what the public failed to ask is the efficacy of that measure, given that the children are now highly social-media savvy. Just imagine, how difficult it is for a student to keep her mobile open transferring the content of his/her sex-education to those students whose parents had opted out of those course. In that situation, the students who are not in the course are likely to err more given their natural curiosity and prurience at that age, which would eventually justify her curriculum. In effect, using media she had not only diverted public opinion but she is effectively manipulating the thought process itself. 

"Mocking Bird" everywhere

This phenomenon of manipulating or controlling media to manipulate public opinion is not limited to US and its allies alone.  China from the time of Mao is effective in using its propaganda to shape its public opinion. It even controls religion so that no other opinion creeps into public minds but its own. Censorship of foreign media criticizing it human rights abuses in Tibet or Xinjiang are also part of its strategy to prevent foreign media from sowing dissent in Chinese minds. In other words, China seeks to control what its people sees, hears or thinks. However, its propaganda machinery is not limited to its territory alone.  Its media, particularly Global Times, has been quite aggressive in posts in response to any Indian activities in Arunachal Pradesh, which China claims as its own as it claims the entire South China Sea. By terming 'Global Times' as a Tabloid it is able to maintain certain level of deniability. However, any one with some insights in how China operates would hardly believe it. However, recently there has been news of China's propaganda officials heading Chinese journalism schools. Taking a cue from China, Mr. Modi's Govt. too seems to be interested in training journalists in propaganda. If this phenomena continues unabated, the public could hardly believe what they hear, whatever they hear...!

Spot the "Mocking bird"

The previous sections gives a glimpse of how the Govts./politicians all over the world is using media (conventional and social) to shape/manipulate public sentiments in its favour. This is not limited to them alone. Even industries are in the game (Ex. Vogue). However, could we spot these attempts?

It is possible, but extremely difficult... From my perspective, asking rationally right questions is the start. However, as the "right questions" itself are subjective and changes with the news, spotting the public manipulation attempts become difficult. In my perspective, the following questions could help:

• Who are the beneficiaries?
• Why now?
• How could the claim be justified?
• What is not addressed? Why only certain things are addressed?
• How could the news/information be proved?
• What are the counter arguments against the said news?
• How the counter-arguments weigh against the advertised arguments?
• What is unstated expectation of the news?
• Why this particular news is given so much attention compared to others?
• How would I be benefitted?

These are just the some of the questions, in no specific order, that everyone should use to understand the real intention of the media coverage. The questions and analyzis become challenging and complex depending upon how the "news" is delivered. The very intention of this blog is to help people analyze situation and bring to fore those questions that were usually missed but, nevertheless, important to ask. The greatest of success of this blog would be how effective it is encouraging people to ask such questions.