Banner Advertiser

Sunday, December 12, 2010

[ALOCHONA] 4 Scenarios for the Coming Collapse of the American Empire



4 Scenarios for the Coming Collapse of the American Empire
 
The demise of the United States as the global superpower could come far more quickly than anyone imagines.
 
December 5, 2010
 
A soft landing for America 40 years from now?  Don't bet on it.  The demise of the United States as the global superpower could come far more quickly than anyone imagines.  If Washington is dreaming of 2040 or 2050 as the end of the American Century, a more realistic assessment of domestic and global trends suggests that in 2025, just 15 years from now, it could all be over except for the shouting.
 
Despite the aura of omnipotence most empires project, a look at their history should remind us that they are fragile organisms. So delicate is their ecology of power that, when things start to go truly bad, empires regularly unravel with unholy speed: just a year for Portugal, two years for the Soviet Union, eight years for France, 11 years for the Ottomans, 17 years for Great Britain, and, in all likelihood, 22 years for the United States, counting from the crucial year 2003.
 
Future historians are likely to identify the Bush administration's rash invasion of Iraq in that year as the start of America's downfall. However, instead of the bloodshed that marked the end of so many past empires, with cities burning and civilians slaughtered, this twenty-first century imperial collapse could come relatively quietly through the invisible tendrils of economic collapse or cyberwarfare.
 
But have no doubt: when Washington's global dominion finally ends, there will be painful daily reminders of what such a loss of power means for Americans in every walk of life. As a half-dozen European nations have discovered, imperial decline tends to have a remarkably demoralizing impact on a society, regularly bringing at least a generation of economic privation. As the economy cools, political temperatures rise, often sparking serious domestic unrest.
 
Available economic, educational, and military data indicate that, when it comes to U.S. global power, negative trends will aggregate rapidly by 2020 and are likely to reach a critical mass no later than 2030. The American Century, proclaimed so triumphantly at the start of World War II, will be tattered and fading by 2025, its eighth decade, and could be history by 2030.
 
Significantly, in 2008, the U.S. National Intelligence Council admitted for the first time that America's global power was indeed on a declining trajectory. In one of its periodic futuristic reports, Global Trends 2025, the Council cited "the transfer of global wealth and economic power now under way, roughly from West to East" and "without precedent in modern history," as the primary factor in the decline of the "United States' relative strength -- even in the military realm." Like many in Washington, however, the Council's analysts anticipated a very long, very soft landing for American global preeminence, and harbored the hope that somehow the U.S. would long "retain unique military capabilities… to project military power globally" for decades to come.
 
No such luck.  Under current projections, the United States will find itself in second place behind China (already the world's second largest economy) in economic output around 2026, and behind India by 2050. Similarly, Chinese innovation is on a trajectory toward world leadership in applied science and military technology sometime between 2020 and 2030, just as America's current supply of brilliant scientists and engineers retires, without adequate replacement by an ill-educated younger generation.
 
By 2020, according to current plans, the Pentagon will throw a military Hail Mary pass for a dying empire.  It will launch a lethal triple canopy of advanced aerospace robotics that represents Washington's last best hope of retaining global power despite its waning economic influence. By that year, however, China's global network of communications satellites, backed by the world's most powerful supercomputers, will also be fully operational, providing Beijing with an independent platform for the weaponization of space and a powerful communications system for missile- or cyber-strikes into every quadrant of the globe.
 
Wrapped in imperial hubris, like Whitehall or Quai d'Orsay before , the White House still seems to imagine that American decline will be gradual, gentle, and partial. In his State of the Union address last January, President Obama offered the reassurance that "I do not accept second place for the United States of America." A few days later, Vice President Biden ridiculed the very idea that "we are destined to fulfill [historian Paul] Kennedy's prophecy that we are going to be a great nation that has failed because we lost control of our economy and overextended." Similarly, writing in the November issue of the establishment journal Foreign Affairs, neo-liberal foreign policy guru Joseph Nye waved away talk of China's economic and military rise, dismissing "misleading metaphors of organic decline" and denying that any deterioration in U.S. global power was underway.
 
Ordinary Americans, watching their jobs head overseas, have a more realistic view than their cosseted leaders. An opinion poll in August 2010 found that 65% of Americans believed the country was now "in a state of decline."  Already, Australia and Turkey, traditional U.S. military allies, are using their American-manufactured weapons for joint air and naval maneuvers with China. Already, America's closest economic partners are backing away from Washington's opposition to China's rigged currency rates. As the president flew back from his Asian tour last month, a gloomy New York Times headline  summed the moment up this way: "Obama's Economic View Is Rejected on World Stage, China, Britain and Germany Challenge U.S., Trade Talks With Seoul Fail, Too."
 
Viewed historically, the question is not whether the United States will lose its unchallenged global power, but just how precipitous and wrenching the decline will be. In place of Washington's wishful thinking, let's use the National Intelligence Council's own futuristic methodology to suggest four realistic scenarios for how, whether with a bang or a whimper, U.S. global power could reach its end in the 2020s (along with four accompanying assessments of just where we are today).  The future scenarios include: economic decline, oil shock, military misadventure, and World War III.  While these are hardly the only possibilities when it comes to American decline or even collapse, they offer a window into an onrushing future.
 
Economic Decline: Present Situation
 
Today, three main threats exist to America's dominant position in the global economy: loss of economic clout thanks to a shrinking share of world trade, the decline of American technological innovation, and the end of the dollar's privileged status as the global reserve currency.
 
By 2008, the United States had already fallen to number three in global merchandise exports, with just 11% of them compared to 12% for China and 16% for the European Union.  There is no reason to believe that this trend will reverse itself.
 
Similarly, American leadership in technological innovation is on the wane. In 2008, the U.S. was still number two behind Japan in worldwide patent applications with 232,000, but China was closing fast at 195,000, thanks to a blistering 400% increase since 2000.  A harbinger of further decline: in 2009 the U.S. hit rock bottom in ranking among the 40 nations surveyed by the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation when it came to "change" in "global innovation-based competitiveness" during the previous decade.  Adding substance to these statistics, in October China's Defense Ministry unveiled the world's fastest supercomputer, the Tianhe-1A, so powerful, said one U.S. expert, that it "blows away the existing No. 1 machine" in America.
 
Add to this clear evidence that the U.S. education system, that source of future scientists and innovators, has been falling behind its competitors. After leading the world for decades in 25- to 34-year-olds with university degrees, the country sank to 12th place in 2010.  The World Economic Forum ranked the United States at a mediocre 52nd among 139 nations in the quality of its university math and science instruction in 2010. Nearly half of all graduate students in the sciences in the U.S. are now foreigners, most of whom will be heading home, not staying here as once would have happened.  By 2025, in other words, the United States is likely to face a critical shortage of talented scientists.
 
Such negative trends are encouraging increasingly sharp criticism of the dollar's role as the world's reserve currency. "Other countries are no longer willing to buy into the idea that the U.S. knows best on economic policy," observed Kenneth S. Rogoff, a former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund. In mid-2009, with the world's central banks holding an astronomical $4 trillion in U.S. Treasury notes, Russian president Dimitri Medvedev insisted that it was time to end "the artificially maintained unipolar system" based on "one formerly strong reserve currency."
 
Simultaneously, China's central bank governor suggested that the future might lie with a global reserve currency "disconnected from individual nations" (that is, the U.S. dollar). Take these as signposts of a world to come, and of a possible attempt, as economist Michael Hudson has argued, "to hasten the bankruptcy of the U.S. financial-military world order."
 
Economic Decline: Scenario 2020
 
After years of swelling deficits fed by incessant warfare in distant lands, in 2020, as long expected, the U.S. dollar finally loses its special status as the world's reserve currency.  Suddenly, the cost of imports soars. Unable to pay for swelling deficits by selling now-devalued Treasury notes abroad, Washington is finally forced to slash its bloated military budget.  Under pressure at home and abroad, Washington slowly pulls U.S. forces back from hundreds of overseas bases to a continental perimeter.  By now, however, it is far too late.
 
Faced with a fading superpower incapable of paying the bills, China, India, Iran, Russia, and other powers, great and regional, provocatively challenge U.S. dominion over the oceans, space, and cyberspace.  Meanwhile, amid soaring prices, ever-rising unemployment, and a continuing decline in real wages, domestic divisions widen into violent clashes and divisive debates, often over remarkably irrelevant issues. Riding a political tide of disillusionment and despair, a far-right patriot captures the presidency with thundering rhetoric, demanding respect for American authority and threatening military retaliation or economic reprisal. The world pays next to no attention as the American Century ends in silence.
 
Oil Shock: Present Situation
 
One casualty of America's waning economic power has been its lock on global oil supplies. Speeding by America's gas-guzzling economy in the passing lane, China became the world's number one energy consumer this summer, a position the U.S. had held for over a century.  Energy specialist Michael Klare has argued that this change means China will "set the pace in shaping our global future."
 
By 2025, Iran and Russia will control almost half of the world's natural gas supply, which will potentially give them enormous leverage over energy-starved Europe. Add petroleum reserves to the mix and, as the National Intelligence Council has warned, in just 15 years two countries, Russia and Iran, could "emerge as energy kingpins."
 
Despite remarkable ingenuity, the major oil powers are now draining the big basins of petroleum reserves that are amenable to easy, cheap extraction. The real lesson of the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico was not BP's sloppy safety standards, but the simple fact everyone saw on "spillcam": one of the corporate energy giants had little choice but to search for what Klare calls "tough oil" miles beneath the surface of the ocean to keep its profits up.
 
Compounding the problem, the Chinese and Indians have suddenly become far heavier energy consumers. Even if fossil fuel supplies were to remain constant (which they won't), demand, and so costs, are almost certain to rise -- and sharply at that.  Other developed nations are meeting this threat aggressively by plunging into experimental programs to develop alternative energy sources.  The United States has taken a different path, doing far too little to develop alternative sources while, in the last three decades, doubling its dependence on foreign oil imports.  Between 1973 and 2007, oil imports have risen from 36% of energy consumed in the U.S. to 66%.
 
Oil Shock: Scenario 2025
 
The United States remains so dependent upon foreign oil that a few adverse developments in the global energy market in 2025 spark an oil shock.  By comparison, it makes the 1973 oil shock (when prices quadrupled in just months) look like the proverbial molehill.  Angered at the dollar's plummeting value, OPEC oil ministers, meeting in Riyadh, demand future energy payments in a "basket" of Yen, Yuan, and Euros.  That only hikes the cost of U.S. oil imports further.  At the same moment, while signing a new series of long-term delivery contracts with China, the Saudis stabilize their own foreign exchange reserves by switching to the Yuan.  Meanwhile, China pours countless billions into building a massive trans-Asia pipeline and funding Iran's exploitation of the world largest natural gas field at South Pars in the Persian Gulf.
 
Concerned that the U.S. Navy might no longer be able to protect the oil tankers traveling from the Persian Gulf to fuel East Asia, a coalition of Tehran, Riyadh, and Abu Dhabi form an unexpected new Gulf alliance and affirm that China's new fleet of swift aircraft carriers will henceforth patrol the Persian Gulf from a base on the Gulf of Oman.  Under heavy economic pressure, London agrees to cancel the U.S. lease on its Indian Ocean island base of Diego Garcia, while Canberra, pressured by the Chinese, informs Washington that the Seventh Fleet is no longer welcome to use Fremantle as a homeport, effectively evicting the U.S. Navy from the Indian Ocean.
 
With just a few strokes of the pen and some terse announcements, the "Carter Doctrine," by which U.S. military power was to eternally protect the Persian Gulf, is laid to rest in 2025.  All the elements that long assured the United States limitless supplies of low-cost oil from that region -- logistics, exchange rates, and naval power -- evaporate. At this point, the U.S. can still cover only an insignificant 12% of its energy needs from its nascent alternative energy industry, and remains dependent on imported oil for half of its energy consumption.
 
The oil shock that follows hits the country like a hurricane, sending prices to startling heights, making travel a staggeringly expensive proposition, putting real wages (which had long been declining) into freefall, and rendering non-competitive whatever American exports remained. With thermostats dropping, gas prices climbing through the roof, and dollars flowing overseas in return for costly oil, the American economy is paralyzed. With long-fraying alliances at an end and fiscal pressures mounting, U.S. military forces finally begin a staged withdrawal from their overseas bases.
 
Within a few years, the U.S. is functionally bankrupt and the clock is ticking toward midnight on the American Century.
 
Military Misadventure: Present Situation
 
Counterintuitively, as their power wanes, empires often plunge into ill-advised military misadventures.  This phenomenon is known among historians of empire as "micro-militarism" and seems to involve psychologically compensatory efforts to salve the sting of retreat or defeat by occupying new territories, however briefly and catastrophically. These operations, irrational even from an imperial point of view, often yield hemorrhaging expenditures or humiliating defeats that only accelerate the loss of power.
 
Embattled empires through the ages suffer an arrogance that drives them to plunge ever deeper into military misadventures until defeat becomes debacle. In 413 BCE, a weakened Athens sent 200 ships to be slaughtered in Sicily. In 1921, a dying imperial Spain dispatched 20,000 soldiers to be massacred by Berber guerrillas in Morocco. In 1956, a fading British Empire destroyed its prestige by attacking Suez. And in 2001 and 2003, the U.S. occupied Afghanistan and invaded Iraq. With the hubris that marks empires over the millennia, Washington has increased its troops in Afghanistan to 100,000, expanded the war into Pakistan, and extended its commitment to 2014 and beyond, courting disasters large and small in this guerilla-infested, nuclear-armed graveyard of empires.
 
Military Misadventure: Scenario 2014
 
So irrational, so unpredictable is "micro-militarism" that seemingly fanciful scenarios are soon outdone by actual events. With the U.S. military stretched thin from Somalia to the Philippines and tensions rising in Israel, Iran, and Korea, possible combinations for a disastrous military crisis abroad are multifold.
 
It's mid-summer 2014 and a drawn-down U.S. garrison in embattled Kandahar in southern Afghanistan is suddenly, unexpectedly overrun by Taliban guerrillas, while U.S. aircraft are grounded by a blinding sandstorm. Heavy loses are taken and in retaliation, an embarrassed American war commander looses B-1 bombers and F-16 fighters to demolish whole neighborhoods of the city that are believed to be under Taliban control, while AC-130U "Spooky" gunships rake the rubble with devastating cannon fire.
 
Soon, mullahs are preaching jihad from mosques throughout the region, and Afghan Army units, long trained by American forces to turn the tide of the war, begin to desert en masse.  Taliban fighters then launch a series of remarkably sophisticated strikes aimed at U.S. garrisons across the country, sending American casualties soaring. In scenes reminiscent of Saigon in 1975, U.S. helicopters rescue American soldiers and civilians from rooftops in Kabul and Kandahar.
 
Meanwhile, angry at the endless, decades-long stalemate over Palestine, OPEC's leaders impose a new oil embargo on the U.S. to protest its backing of Israel as well as the killing of untold numbers of Muslim civilians in its ongoing wars across the Greater Middle East. With gas prices soaring and refineries running dry, Washington makes its move, sending in Special Operations forces to seize oil ports in the Persian Gulf.  This, in turn, sparks a rash of suicide attacks and the sabotage of pipelines and oil wells. As black clouds billow skyward and diplomats rise at the U.N. to bitterly denounce American actions, commentators worldwide reach back into history to brand this "America's Suez," a telling reference to the 1956 debacle that marked the end of the British Empire.
 
World War III: Present Situation
 
In the summer of 2010, military tensions between the U.S. and China began to rise in the western Pacific, once considered an American "lake."  Even a year earlier no one would have predicted such a development. As Washington played upon its alliance with London to appropriate much of Britain's global power after World War II, so China is now using the profits from its export trade with the U.S. to fund what is likely to become a military challenge to American dominion over the waterways of Asia and the Pacific.
 
With its growing resources, Beijing is claiming a vast maritime arc from Korea to Indonesia long dominated by the U.S. Navy. In August, after Washington expressed a "national interest" in the South China Sea and conducted naval exercises there to reinforce that claim, Beijing's official Global Times responded angrily, saying, "The U.S.-China wrestling match over the South China Sea issue has raised the stakes in deciding who the real future ruler of the planet will be."
 
Amid growing tensions, the Pentagon reported that Beijing now holds "the capability to attack… [U.S.] aircraft carriers in the western Pacific Ocean" and target "nuclear forces throughout… the continental United States." By developing "offensive nuclear, space, and cyber warfare capabilities," China seems determined to vie for dominance of what the Pentagon calls "the information spectrum in all dimensions of the modern battlespace." With ongoing development of the powerful Long March V booster rocket, as well as the launch of two satellites in January 2010 and another in July, for a total of five, Beijing signaled that the country was making rapid strides toward an "independent" network of 35 satellites for global positioning, communications, and reconnaissance capabilities by 2020.
 
To check China and extend its military position globally, Washington is intent on building a new digital network of air and space robotics, advanced cyberwarfare capabilities, and electronic surveillance.  Military planners expect this integrated system to envelop the Earth in a cyber-grid capable of blinding entire armies on the battlefield or taking out a single terrorist in field or favela. By 2020, if all goes according to plan, the Pentagon will launch a three-tiered shield of space drones -- reaching from stratosphere to exosphere, armed with agile missiles, linked by a resilient modular satellite system, and operated through total telescopic surveillance.
 
Last April, the Pentagon made history.  It extended drone operations into the exosphere by quietly launching the X-37B unmanned space shuttle into a low orbit 255 miles above the planet.  The X-37B is the first in a new generation of unmanned vehicles that will mark the full weaponization of space, creating an arena for future warfare unlike anything that has gone before.
 
World War III: Scenario 2025
 
The technology of space and cyberwarfare is so new and untested that even the most outlandish scenarios may soon be superseded by a reality still hard to conceive. If we simply employ the sort of scenarios that the Air Force itself used in its 2009 Future Capabilities Game, however, we can gain "a better understanding of how air, space and cyberspace overlap in warfare," and so begin to imagine how the next world war might actually be fought.
 
It's 11:59 p.m. on Thanksgiving Thursday in 2025. While cyber-shoppers pound the portals of Best Buy for deep discounts on the latest home electronics from China, U.S. Air Force technicians at the Space Surveillance Telescope (SST) on Maui choke on their coffee as their panoramic screens suddenly blip to black. Thousands of miles away at the U.S. CyberCommand's operations center in Texas, cyberwarriors soon detect malicious binaries that, though fired anonymously, show the distinctive digital fingerprints of China's People's Liberation Army.
 
The first overt strike is one nobody predicted. Chinese "malware" seizes control of the robotics aboard an unmanned solar-powered U.S. "Vulture" drone as it flies at 70,000 feet over the Tsushima Strait between Korea and Japan.  It suddenly fires all the rocket pods beneath its enormous 400-foot wingspan, sending dozens of lethal missiles plunging harmlessly into the Yellow Sea, effectively disarming this formidable weapon.
 
Determined to fight fire with fire, the White House authorizes a retaliatory strike.  Confident that its F-6 "Fractionated, Free-Flying" satellite system is impenetrable, Air Force commanders in California transmit robotic codes to the flotilla of X-37B space drones orbiting 250 miles above the Earth, ordering them to launch their "Triple Terminator" missiles at China's 35 satellites. Zero response. In near panic, the Air Force launches its Falcon Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle into an arc 100 miles above the Pacific Ocean and then, just 20 minutes later, sends the computer codes to fire missiles at seven Chinese satellites in nearby orbits.  The launch codes are suddenly inoperative.
 
As the Chinese virus spreads uncontrollably through the F-6 satellite architecture, while those second-rate U.S. supercomputers fail to crack the malware's devilishly complex code, GPS signals crucial to the navigation of U.S. ships and aircraft worldwide are compromised. Carrier fleets begin steaming in circles in the mid-Pacific. Fighter squadrons are grounded. Reaper drones fly aimlessly toward the horizon, crashing when their fuel is exhausted. Suddenly, the United States loses what the U.S. Air Force has long called "the ultimate high ground": space. Within hours, the military power that had dominated the globe for nearly a century has been defeated in World War III without a single human casualty.
 
A New World Order?
 
Even if future events prove duller than these four scenarios suggest, every significant trend points toward a far more striking decline in American global power by 2025 than anything Washington now seems to be envisioning.
 
As allies worldwide begin to realign their policies to take cognizance of rising Asian powers, the cost of maintaining 800 or more overseas military bases will simply become unsustainable, finally forcing a staged withdrawal on a still-unwilling Washington. With both the U.S. and China in a race to weaponize space and cyberspace, tensions between the two powers are bound to rise, making military conflict by 2025 at least feasible, if hardly guaranteed.
 
Complicating matters even more, the economic, military, and technological trends outlined above will not operate in tidy isolation. As happened to European empires after World War II, such negative forces will undoubtedly prove synergistic.  They will combine in thoroughly unexpected ways, create crises for which Americans are remarkably unprepared, and threaten to spin the economy into a sudden downward spiral, consigning this country to a generation or more of economic misery.
 
As U.S. power recedes, the past offers a spectrum of possibilities for a future world order.  At one end of this spectrum, the rise of a new global superpower, however unlikely, cannot be ruled out. Yet both China and Russia evince self-referential cultures, recondite non-roman scripts, regional defense strategies, and underdeveloped legal systems, denying them key instruments for global dominion. At the moment then, no single superpower seems to be on the horizon likely to succeed the U.S.
 
In a dark, dystopian version of our global future, a coalition of transnational corporations, multilateral forces like NATO, and an international financial elite could conceivably forge a single, possibly unstable, supra-national nexus that would make it no longer meaningful to speak of national empires at all.  While denationalized corporations and multinational elites would assumedly rule such a world from secure urban enclaves, the multitudes would be relegated to urban and rural wastelands.
 
In Planet of Slums, Mike Davis offers at least a partial vision of such a world from the bottom up.  He argues that the billion people already packed into fetid favela-style slums worldwide (rising to two billion by 2030) will make "the 'feral, failed cities' of the Third World… the distinctive battlespace of the twenty-first century." As darkness settles over some future super-favela, "the empire can deploy Orwellian technologies of repression" as "hornet-like helicopter gun-ships stalk enigmatic enemies in the narrow streets of the slum districts… Every morning the slums reply with suicide bombers and eloquent explosions."
 
At a midpoint on the spectrum of possible futures, a new global oligopoly might emerge between 2020 and 2040, with rising powers China, Russia, India, and Brazil collaborating with receding powers like Britain, Germany, Japan, and the United States to enforce an ad hoc global dominion, akin to the loose alliance of European empires that ruled half of humanity circa 1900.
 
Another possibility: the rise of regional hegemons in a return to something reminiscent of the international system that operated before modern empires took shape. In this neo-Westphalian world order, with its endless vistas of micro-violence and unchecked exploitation, each hegemon would dominate its immediate region -- Brasilia in South America, Washington in North America, Pretoria in southern Africa, and so on. Space, cyberspace, and the maritime deeps, removed from the control of the former planetary "policeman," the United States, might even become a new global commons, controlled through an expanded U.N. Security Council or some ad hoc body.
 
All of these scenarios extrapolate existing trends into the future on the assumption that Americans, blinded by the arrogance of decades of historically unparalleled power, cannot or will not take steps to manage the unchecked erosion of their global position.
 
If America's decline is in fact on a 22-year trajectory from 2003 to 2025, then we have already frittered away most of the first decade of that decline with wars that distracted us from long-term problems and, like water tossed onto desert sands, wasted trillions of desperately needed dollars.
 
If only 15 years remain, the odds of frittering them all away still remain high.  Congress and the president are now in gridlock; the American system is flooded with corporate money meant to jam up the works; and there is little suggestion that any issues of significance, including our wars, our bloated national security state, our starved education system, and our antiquated energy supplies, will be addressed with sufficient seriousness to assure the sort of soft landing that might maximize our country's role and prosperity in a changing world.
 
Europe's empires are gone and America's imperium is going.  It seems increasingly doubtful that the United States will have anything like Britain's success in shaping a succeeding world order that protects its interests, preserves its prosperity, and bears the imprint of its best values.
--------------------------------
 
Alfred W. McCoy is professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.  A TomDispatch regular, he is the author, most recently, of Policing America's Empire: The United States, the Philippines, and the Rise of the Surveillance State (2009). He is also the convener of the "Empires in Transition" project, a global working group of 140 historians from universities on four continents. The results of their first meetings at Madison, Sydney, and Manila were published as Colonial Crucible: Empire in the Making of the Modern American State and the findings from their latest conference will appear next year as "Endless Empire: Europe's Eclipse, America's Ascent, and the Decline of U.S. Global Power."
 


__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Shahrukh Khan’s concert in Dhaka



Shahrukh Khan's concert in Dhaka
Courtesy New Age 13/12/10

LIKE Tayeb Husain I too welcome Shahrukh Khan's concert in Dhaka (12/12/10). But some matters about the concert leave a bad taste in the mouth. The long delay in the concert starting, technical glitches, dead microphones, poor presenters, cheap stage setup, etc do not bode well at all. Many suspect regional involvement in the BDR tragedy. The cost of the tickets indicates the increasing the gap between our haves and have-nots. Some say this is the event of the year. Given the complete absence of Bangladesh on the international tours of any major act it seems that this is the event of the decade and this is not something to be proud of. The concerns about the taxation of fees paid to the stars are perhaps secondary. Could the authorities confirm that tax was paid by the organisers—let alone the stars? We all know the answer to that. Finally, I hope this is not the start of a new trend where Indian film stars pop over to Dhaka for an evening of dance to earn some good money while we think that Dhaka has finally arrived on the world stage.

Ezajur Rahman

Kuwait



__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] CONTRIBUTION IN INDEPENDENCE : Bangladesh to honour 400 foreigners



CONTRIBUTION IN INDEPENDENCE : Bangladesh to honour 400 foreigners
 
Dhaka, Dec 13 (bdnews24.com)—The government has chosen some 400 foreigners including 226 Indians and 40 Pakistanis to honour them for their outstanding contributions in the nation's war of independence.

It has also picked 24 international organisations for the honour, 39 years after the independence from Pakistan in 1971.

Former Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi, former Cuban president Fidel Castro, former Yugoslavian president Marshal Josep Broz Tito and former Soviet Union prime minister Leonid I Brezhnev are on the list.

In addition to politicians, the list of 388 also earmarked military personnel, poets, philosophers, journalists, human-rights activists, singers and filmmakers who had worked to inform the international community about the Pakistani atrocities against the Bangalees in the bloody nine-month war.

The national committee, headed by foreign minister Dipu Moni, on Sunday finalised the names of the foreign nationals and organisations at a meeting at the foreign ministry.

Moni chaired the meeting attended by foreign secretary Mohamed Mijarul Quayes, liberation war affairs secretary Mizanur Rahman, freedom fighter Shahrier Kabir and other members of the committee.

"We have finalised the list and will make it public after talking to the prime minister soon," the foreign minister told bdnews24.com at her office.

The list also includes eight Russians, 35 Britons, two Irishmen, five Australians, three Dutchmen, three Argentinians, eight Swiss, two Germans, 13 Frenchmen, three Butanese, 13 Japanese, two Sri Lankans and 15 Nepalese for helping the freedom struggle in different ways, one of the committee members told bdnews24.com after the meeting.

In addition, the lists contains one person each from Canada, Cuba, Denmark, Italy, Korea, Malaysia, Venezuela, Sweden, New Zealand and the former Yugoslavia, he said.

According to a letter of the liberation war affairs ministry, obtained by bdnews24.com, the president or the prime minister will distribute a 50 gram gold (18 carat) crest and the recipients will get honourary citizenship of Bangladesh.

Some of the Indian recipients include former West Bengal chief minister Jyoti Basu, former foreign minister Sarder Saran Singh, former foreign minister Krishna Menon, former Congress leader Sachindra Lal Singha, former defence minister Jagojibon Roy, diplomat D P Dhar, P N Dhar, I J Gujral, Pranab Mukherjee, Field Marshal Manek Shaw, Gen Jagjit Singh Aurora, Pandit Ravi Shankar, film maker Satyajit Roy, singer Manna Dey, artists Makbul Fida Hussain and Bishnu Dey, and singer Mohmmad Rafi.

Pakistani politicians include G M Sayeed (nationalist leader of Sindh and Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman's friend), Sheikh Ayaz, Master Khan Gul and Ghous Baksh Bijenjo.

Dr Tareq Rahman and Umar Asghar--the men who resigned from the Pakistani army-- and Air Marshal Azgor Khan, human rights activists Ahmed Selim, Tahera Mazhar and advocate Zafor Malik are among the recipients.

A total of 83 US nationals have been selected by the committee.

Senator Edward M Kennedy and Edmond Mulky, diplomat Archer Kent Blood (consul general of the US embassy in Dhaka in 1971), singer Joan Baez (who sang for Bangladeshis in US), Allen Ginsenberg (who wrote poem styled September on Jessore Road), Layer Levin, the maker of the film "Joy Bangla", are among the selected personalities.

Russel Johnston, Bruce Douglas Mann, John Stonehouse and Tom William are among the 14 UK politicians on the list.

The UK journalists Sir Mark Tully, Simon Dring, Nicholas Tomalin and Clare Hallingwasth, singer George Harrison, Donald Chesworth, Paul Connel, Marietta Procop will also be honoured by the state.

The five Australian recipients are political leader William A S Ouderland (who was awarded the title Bir Protik), Les Johnson MP, W A Waderland, Penny Tweedie and physician Dr Geofrey David.

French recipients include former French foreign minister Andre Vumik, Andre Malraux, Lucien Bigeault, Prof Alexander Minkowski.

Former Bhutanese King Jigme Dorji Wangchuk, former Bhutanese foreign minister Ugyen Tshering and his foreign secretary Dasho Karma Dorjee are also on the list.

Takashi Hayakama, Setsurei Tsurushina and Hajima Katsube are among the 13 Japanese to be honoured.
Nepalese leaders B P Koirala, G P Koirala, Sushil Koirala and Ram Baran Yadav have also been selected by the committee.

The Ireland nationals barrister Nora Shariff and Bimol Basu, Canadian national Sagir Ahmed, Korean Hang Sook Ja, Malaysian politician Dr Soorian, Sri Lankan national Mohammad Sanoon Mohamed Salley and Senarat Gunawardena,Venezuelan national Cardinal Jose Humberto Quintero, Dutch nationals (human rights activist) Jan Willem van der Eb, Els van der Berg and Kinten Wat Bage, former New prime minister Kain Elyok, Swedish national Lars Leijonborg MP, Danish national Knud Neilson, Argentine nationals Edvardo Mallea, Ernesto Sabato and Swiss national (Bangladeshi born) Khan Majlish, Tidor von Suppon, Victor Umbricht and Tony Hagen, German nationals Sunil Dasgupta and Horst Faas and Italian Father Marino Rigon have been selected for the honour.

Swiss Red Cross, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), Indian radio station Akhash Bani, Geneva-based International Commission of Jurists, ICRC, Oxfam GB, World Health Organisation, International Labour Organisation are some of the 24 international bodies.
 


__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] China: a new kind of superpower in the making



China: a new kind of superpower in the making
 
 
By Bhaskar Roy
 

"The USA can defend its close allies in the Asia-Pacific region. But India cannot depend on the USA to bail it out. Washington has its complex foreign policy objectives whether correct or wrong, and can ditch India as Obama thought of doing in 2009."

The Chinese Communist Party mouthpiece, the 'People's Daily' (Sept 06) announced China's latest challenge in an article titled "China Needs Powerful Carrier Killers". It remarked "In a bid to protect its own strategic interests, China should not only build its anti-ship missile capacity, but also possess a range of other carrier-destroying measures as well".

China has always maintained that development and security go hand in hand, and are interdependent.

Although the article names the United States and unnamed western states, the warning cannot be ignored by the smaller neighbors of China, who are perceived by Beijing to be coming under the new US influence challenge in the Asia-Pacific region. The article went on to say that, "China should let the world be aware that no foreign aircraft carrier is allowed to do whatever it wants to do in China's waters", but tempered it by adding it will not attack foreign aircraft carriers without a justified reason. In China's political lexicon, its waters go beyond the UN Law of the Seas Conference (UNLOC) of territorial waters.

This kind of an article carried by the People's Daily and its English language subsidiary, the Global Times, making it easily accessible to non-Chinese reading foreigners, cannot be ignored. Its implications are immense and can be stretched to other military and territorial areas. This article also said such capacity is necessary for an emerging power and is a necessary infrastructure for China's military modernization.

China has always maintained that development and security go hand in hand, and are interdependent. This should be acceptable if a state ensures its security from outside attacks to concentrate on its economic, social and political development and stability. This is fair. But when a country starts going beyond its natural boundary and "covets the neighbor's territory" and beyond, it becomes a cardinal sin.

China enjoyed a phenomenal economic growth in the last 30 years, pipping Japan to the second largest economy in the world, recently. Following its principle of mutual support, the economy put China's military modernization on a fast road. It is now poised to set its foot prints in a large regional arc.

The astute Deng advised that while building power, China should not flaunt it, hide its capabilities, and wait for the right time; secure its position, and be calm...

China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) conducted its largest ever military exercise from the west of the country to the east, 'stride 2009', demonstrating that it had achieved complete security for its territory. The exercise comprised four of its seven military regions, the air force, rapid action force, warfare under informatized conditions, other para-military forces and co-opted the civilian sector. It is for the first time that the PLA inducted tactical nuclear force which are embedded with PLA forces and not the 2nd Artillery, its main strategic force under direct command of the Central Military Commission (CMC).

The 'stride' exercise was followed by its international naval review in December, 2009 to which 45 other nations were invited. For the first time the PLA Navy (PLAN) unveiled for public view its newest nuclear submarines the SSN type-093 and SSBN Type-094. Earlier, the PLA's 60th anniversary parade had demonstrated China's strategic nuclear muscle capability. New missiles displaced, especially the DH-10 nuclear tipped cruise missile suggested Revolution in China's tactical nuclear warfare. More details of the DH-10 are expected to come out gradually.

The usually opaque Chinese military deliberately displayed some capability about where it was going. While the Americans and NATO found that China was still far behind in military technology, it did awe China's neighbors. This was precisely the intention.

Skipping over a series of developments, suffice it to say that Beijing is concentrating on a bi-polar world context with China and the USA as the two poles. The concept is not new, but in the present context replicates USA's Obama presidency's proposal of G-2, the US and China, as the leading global players. In G-2, Beijing saw a trap that it was being ensnared to take equal responsibility in global affairs, especially economic affairs. This is a responsibility that China does not want, and insists it is a developing country quoting various statistics and parameters.

This is the practice of the age old Chinese Art of War (Sun Zi) 'denial and deception' strategy, but not necessarily in that order always. With its wealth of $2.4 trillion dollars in foreign exchange, holding around $800 billion US treasury bonds, and now buying up Japanese currency, and the second largest economy, it claims the position of developing country. On the other hand, supported by its huge modernized military it has started aggressively projecting its power.

The Chinese navy will soon be positioning its flag on a permanent basis in the Indian Ocean, a maritime area acutely relevant to India's security and a strategic area for India.

With its economic and military power, and buying political support in both pariah and poor countries, China appears to be bent upon elevating the global competition between itself and the US. It could be an effective strategy for some time, but does not have sustainability for a long and effective period. For example, Rwanda and Sudan regimes are not sustainable. North Korea is as much a card as it is a headache. But a very strong drive in Beijing, despite recent bilateral problems with the USA, is to link its place as a junior competitive partner with the US. This reflects China's genius. Emphatic emphasis on this level of relationship with Washington hammered day in and day out can convince many, especially how the White House responds.

Part of this is reflected by a recent article in the official Global Times (Sept. 12, 2010). The article, more seriously a policy examination, titled "US contraction offers China fresh opportunities" examines how China can benefit from USA's cyclic contraction and expansion examined by America analysts years ago. The article points out that presently the US has entered a period of contraction, engulfed by its financial crisis, forcing it to relegate the war on terror, nuclear proliferation and other security challenges and challenges from emerging powers as a lower priority, and China can take advantage of this. The article accepts that the US is the only country capable of causing substantial damage to China's national and internal stability, but a weak America unable to contain China will ease US-China tensions, allowing space to Beijing.

This article cannot be missed by China watchers. It makes clear that the US is the only country that can contain China, but is in a kind of decline at the moment because of its economic problems which US President Barak Obama is fumbling with. The writers of this article have identified the weakness of the Obama administration, but remained careful not to project when China can or will overtake the USA. Other countries are dismissed from this equation, but Washington is warned that it is not paying enough attention to other emerging powers that can challenge the US. Although these countries are not named the indications are very clear one would be India.

Also read: How India can acquire great power status?

The article, however, is not the whole truth, but one that is trying to diminish other emerging powers and powers on decline, which are beginning to rise – Russia and Japan. Yet, hidden in such Chinese articles and diplomacy are subtle variants of deception. It encourages other powers and countries to adversely engage a third, while keeping itself out of direct involvement. China had earlier tried to pit Russia against the US, the US against the erstwhile Soviet Union, Iran and North Korea against the US and Japan.

China's recent growing assertiveness should not surprise anyone. It was quietly growing from around 2004 and even earlier. While the PLA remains in control of the communist party, some subtle changes in the equation has been going on from about 1995. The PLA resisted new communist leaders as the Chairman of the Central Military Commission (CMC), till veteran leader Deng Xiaoping forced party General Secretary Jiang Zemin on them as the Chairman of the CMC, in 1993. But both Jiang Zemin and his successor Hu Jintao had to depend on the PLA for their political power. For this they had to pay a price – giving the PLA more say in territorial affairs, relations with the USA and Japan, and boundary/ border negotiations. While the PLA understands that they draw their power from the party, they have carved out a policy niche for themselves.

The Chinese intentions were clear when they started issuing stapled visas to Kashmiris of India for the last two years, while issuing visas on the passports of POK residents visiting China.

These changes became visible to the outside world from 2004. A debate emerged over the relevance of Deng Xiaoping's 1991 dictum, "hide your strength, bide your time". The astute Deng advised that while building power, China should not flaunt it, hide its capabilities, and wait for the right time; secure its position, and be calm; maintain low profile, never take lead.

An article by a security think-tank in China argued (2004) that Deng's policy had served its time, and an economically and militarily powerful China should assert its place. It went as far as to argue that the region between the (Gulf and Middle East and Indian Ocean) Eastern Line and (Asia – Pacific region) Western Line should be China's sphere of influence. This theory was also tested out informally by a Chinese military officer with the USA Pacific Command Chief in 2008. In fact, US President Barak Obama almost partially agreed to this postulate during his visit to China in 2009, suggesting Beijing could mediate in the affairs of South Asia. Apparently, wiser heads in Washington prevailed over Mr. Obama's obtuse understanding of the dynamics of the region.

A clear indication of China's growing ambition came again in 2004 in an official document titled "Historic Mission of the Armed forces in the New Period of the New Century". This document re-assessed the party leadership's strategic view, looking at retrieving territories that they claimed should be China's and expanded the national security concept.

The party constitution in 2007 at the 17th National Congress of the CCP was amended to include more articulated contents of the "Historic Missions" document. Apart from expanded security tasks including providing guarantee to the party's rule, the PLA was given the additional task to "play an important role in safeguarding world peace and promoting common development".

...since China occupies Aksai Chin illegally. Beijing seeks to legitimize this occupation without addressing other sectors of the boundary

The PLA was also involved in one way or the other in the country's economic development, but as Secretary General and CMC Chairman Hu Jintao elaborated subsequently, the military was to play a larger role in securing China's strategic interests including its energy and raw material procurement through sea lanes well beyond its territory. The next step expected is PLA Navy patrolling the Indian Ocean to secure sea lanes for the oil and gas import from the Gulf and Africa to overground pipelines through Myanmar already under construction, and Gwadar port in Pakistan for pipelines to be constructed.

The Chinese navy will soon be positioning its flag on a permanent basis in the Indian Ocean, a maritime area acutely relevant to India's security and a strategic area for India. Military Operations Other Than War (MOOTW) operations like this one could quickly change to confrontational attributes when Chinese ships come head on with ships of other countries including that of the Indian Navy. There are cases of Chinese warships coming into face-to-face positions with US warships in South China Sea. The naval character of the Indian Ocean is set to change by 2013.

PLA spokespersons and PLA and other official think tanks specialists, have shown aggressive positions especially from 2008. The PLA officers have been in the front line in taking such stands.

India and South Asia are on the Chinese strategy focus mainly to disturb the established balance. The target is India as usual. Despite Beijing's attempts to dwarf India by encircling it (with Pakistan as the pivot) for the last fifty years which proved costly for India, China did not succeed.

The recent round of confrontation was growing from 2008. The Chinese Defense White Paper 2008 noted that conflicting claims of territorial and maritime interests continued to be serious, regional hotspots were complex, and the "US had increased its strategic attention to and input in the Asia-Pacific region". Assessing these developments, China stepped up preparation for local wars under informatization conditions, joint military training and rapid reaction, and has recently conducted an exercise in its coastal waters testing local war under electro-magnetic conditions.

China's military development, Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) is also focused on asymmetric warfare and area denial. The aircraft killer missile, the DF-21 D, is being developed for this reason and aimed at the US aircraft carrier force.

The sinking of the South Korean frigate, the Chaoan, in March 2010 by a North Korean torpedo, sparked off the recent round of diplomatic confrontation and naval showing between Beijing and the USA, Japan as well as South Korea. Military exercises between the two sides are going on and may last till the end of the year if not more.

A corollary to this is China's claims on maritime territory from Japan controlled Senkaku (Diaoyu in Chinese) islands in the East China Sea, to the Spratly islands in the South China Sea. The Spratly islands are claimed in entirety both by China and Vietnam, and partially claimed by Malaysia, the Philippines and Indonesia.

The problem here is that China's claim in South China Sea emphasizes its sovereignty over it Sea to control the shipping lanes. This prompted US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to assert in Hanoi in June, that the South China Sea freedom was in America's national interest. By retorting that Ms. Clinton's statement was "an attack on China", Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi revealed Beijing was preparing to take over full control of this vital international shipping waters. With this, China could blackmail the concerned countries, especially Japan which imports 90 percent of its energy requirements through this stretch of water. Recently, a Chinese submarine planted a Chinese flag on the floor of the South China Sea.

Arunachal Pradesh may soon be depicted by China as "Southern Tibet", making it a "core interest" of China, therefore, reserving military action to achieve its objective.

There is something peculiar about China's behaviour with its neighbours. Following a shooting incident in Manila in August in which seven tourists from Hong Kong got killed, Beijing has demanded that Manila resolve this issue properly as it could impact bilateral relations. This was an incident in which the Philippines government was as much taken aback as anybody else. But Beijing wants Manila to apologies for allegedly mishandling the situation.

Similarly, Beijing has threatened Japan over an incident in which a Chinese fighting vessel collided with two Japanese patrol boats in Japanese water, and the captain of the Chinese vessel was put to mild legal chastisement. China elevated the incident to the level of serious bilateral relations, and cancelled important engagements with Japan.

China is very much aware that neighbors like Vietnam, the Philippines and Indonesia are busy rearranging their relations with the USA in the face of Chinese threats. Military-to-military relations between the USA and Vietnam have commenced for the first time, with the US hosting a group of senior Vietnamese military officers on board the aircraft carrier USS George Washington in August. Hanoi is also procuring maritime military equipment from Russia like Sovreimny class destroyers from Russia, which can patrol the South China Sea effectively.

The ruling Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), which had resolved to change the pro-US policy of Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) to construct a win-win relationship with China, has been pushed back to the USA's corner. By the end of this year Japan and USA are expected to come out with a new joint military agreement. Even South Korea has reverted to the US fold for security.

China cannot blame anybody but itself by aggressively pushing domination in the Asia Pacific region which is changing the power equations. This does not bode well for the security and stability of the region.

Also read: China factor in Kashmir

India and South Asia are on the Chinese strategy focus mainly to disturb the established balance. The target is India as usual. Despite Beijing's attempts to dwarf India by encircling it (with Pakistan as the pivot) for the last fifty years which proved costly for India, China did not succeed.

China has embarked on a new approach. China's refusal to give a visa to Lt Gen BS Jaswal, who heads the Northern Command including Jammu and Kashmir, using its military to build and repair roads in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK), describing officially POK as northern Pakistan, and projecting India's sovereign territory of J&K as a disputed territory is intended to change the entire Kashmir question on its head.

The Chinese intentions were clear when they started issuing stapled visas to Kashmiris of India for the last two years, while issuing visas on the passports of POK residents visiting China. Typically, the Indian government underplayed the issue. Having tested India's resolve and finding there was none, they embarked on the subsequent steps stated above.

China and Pakistan appear to have decided to convert POK as Pakistani territory, and in doing so to legitimize the 5,400 sq kms of POK ceded by Pakistan to China in 1963 as Chinese sovereign territory. With this, Pakistan along with China would acquire a strategic military advantage over India.

India has to work on its own and must not succumb to US pressures to restrict its military modernization.

It would follow from here that the Indian Jammu & Kashmir be converted into a tripartite issue between India-Pakistan-China, since China occupies Aksai Chin illegally. Beijing seeks to legitimize this occupation without addressing other sectors of the boundary.

As for the India-China talks to resolve the border issue, a solution is nowhere in sight. In fact, further complications by China may be expected. There are reports to suggest that Arunachal Pradesh may soon be depicted by China as "Southern Tibet", making it a "core interest" of China, therefore, reserving military action to achieve its objective.

China has been suddenly increasing its areas of "core interest". From Tibet and Taiwan it recently included the South China Sea under this nomenclature. Other territories are likely to be added.

What defies common sense is why China is opening so many fronts at the same time. This contradicts Chinese strategy which lays down taking on one adversary at a time while cooperating with others. At the same time, signals coming out of China in the first fortnight of September, 2010 suggests China wants to mend military exchanges with the US which they suspended in November, 2009.

One explanation could be that at the 18th Party Congress to be held in 2013 Hu Jintao retires as Party General, but he would like to hold on to power as the Chairman of the CMC, which does not have a tenure or age limit. He would, therefore, need the PLA's support and acquiesce to the PLA's military policies.

Unfortunately, however, once the powers are given to the PLA they cannot be easily withdrawn. Hu Jintao is no Mao Zedong or Deng Xiaoping. The structure of the Long Marchers does not exist. Mao and Deng could dismiss their top military commanders. Mao did it with Lin Biao. Deng did it with Yang Shangkun and Yang Baibing. Hu Jintao cannot do it with Chen Bingde.

The USA can defend its close allies in the Asia-Pacific region. But India cannot depend on the USA to bail it out. Washington has its complex foreign policy objectives whether correct or wrong, and can ditch India as Obama thought of doing in 2009.

India has to work on its own and must not succumb to US pressures to restrict its military modernization. The Agni-5 nuclear missile must be operationalized as soon as possible. China respects strength which can damage it. Effective nuclear capacity is for larger deterrence. The Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) policy between the USA and the Soviet Union ensured peace during the cold war.

http://www.indiandefencereview.com/IDR-Updates/China-a-new-kind-of-superpower-in-the-making.html



__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] RMG violence



RMG violence
 
 
 
 
 
Garment workers clash with law enforcers and burn a bus at Chittagong Export Processing Zone gate yesterday. The shockwave sent ripples through the entire apparel sector forcing many factories to close
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Officers from the police Rapid Reaction Battalion dispersing garment workers' protest in Dhaka, Bangladesh, 12 December 2010


__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

Re: [ALOCHONA] Shah Rukh Khan



Hakka Hua - you sound so jealous. Dont be!

 

you, La Bamba from Ozzie and the Angry Young man from the sands of Kuwait can form your band and entertain us. at the Army stadium. I am sure the Army wives will also love to attend.


-----Original Message-----
From: Faruque Alamgir
Sent: Dec 11, 2010 3:16 AM
To: alochona@yahoogroups.com, wideminds , dahuk , serajurrahman@btinternet.com, "Dr. Abid Bahar" , Sonar Bangladesh , Banglar Nari , notun_bangladesh@yahoogroups.com, Nayan Khan , mohiuddin@netzero.net, Ovimot@yahoogroups.com, Anis Ahmed
Subject: Re: [ALOCHONA] Shah Rukh Khan

 

Friends


Can we ponder over the following relevant issues :

1. Does Sharrukh carries diplomatic status ?? The answer is a BIG  NO. He is an ordinary vendor of commodities like sex and amusement.
    So, why millions of taka was spent to cover security for an ordinary " Vendor" . Whereas our normal citizens do not get rightful protection from   murderers, hijackers,rapist,hooligans,arsonist.

2. Do our film, cultural personalities, poets of international repute get even one hundredth of such welcome and security cover  when they visit HINDU  STAAAN ???  The answer is a BIG  NO ?????

3. Many a time our erudite,prudent PM and her stooges said that the Cantonment is an out of Bound for general public since it caters the sensitive national security then how come an ordinary HINDU STAANI  vendor with his big entourage(who knows there were RAW agents??) was allowed to break the sensitive security of Army Cantonment ?????????
The argument was placed to the people of Bangladesh to  oust Khaleda from her home for last 30 years that she cannot do politics from within the out of bound area.The quislings HINDU  STAAAN echoed the same day in and day out through media by waging a media war favouring the illegal ousting.

4. Do the friends( HINDU  STAAAN) of the present seat of power allows such public function in their Cantonment ???? The answer is a BIG NO ?

5.  Does the half naked n obscene dances matches the customs and tradition of Bangladesh ?? The answer is a BIG NO ?

6. The detractors may take this act as an act of subjugative nation to the whims of the ferocious mentor or helplessness of the hidden indebted power.

7. The most important one who benefited from the show ? Was it a show of  cultural aggression further to that is waged  through electronic media just one sided not allowing Bangladeshi channel free flow in HINDU   STAAAAN.

8. That is tragic episode of HINDU  STAAAN - BANGLADESH's subservient subjugative uneven so-called friendship ???????????????

Faruque Alamgir


On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:05 PM, ezajur <Ezajur@yahoo.com> wrote:
 

Here's me making five silly, silly comments of little humour and no value:

1. Now that all the girls in Dhaka have seen Shah Rukh Khan in person I think we can safely say that the argument for transit with India has been safely won.

2. It is fitting that our ruling classes ignore the murders of our working classes by the BSF so that they can wear Indian saris to see Indian superstars. 

3. Dead microphones, hour long delays, stupid presenters and lousy opening acts at the Shahrukh Khan Concert indicate fine progress towards a Digital Bangladesh.

4. The Indians have fully resolved suspicions of their involvement in the BDR massacre of Army officers by sending Shah Rukh to dance at the Army's stadium with free tickets for Army wives.

5. Shah Rukh cleverly calmed Hasina's jealousy of his fame by conveying his respects to her via the audience.

Now to more serious matters. Our MPs want Hasina to get the Nobel Peace Prize

Now - thats real entertainment!

   




__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Farraka waters

Farraka waters

http://www.dailynayadiganta.com/2010/12/12/fullnews.asp?News_ID=249796&sec=1

http://www.dailynayadiganta.com/2010/12/12/fullnews.asp?News_ID=249858&sec=6


------------------------------------

[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.comYahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alochona/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alochona/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
alochona-digest@yahoogroups.com
alochona-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
alochona-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[ALOCHONA] Shahrukh live

Shahrukh live

http://www.dailynayadiganta.com/2010/12/12/fullnews.asp?News_ID=249795&sec=1

http://www.dailynayadiganta.com/2010/12/12/fullnews.asp?News_ID=249857&sec=6


------------------------------------

[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.comYahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alochona/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alochona/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
alochona-digest@yahoogroups.com
alochona-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
alochona-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/