The StrategyUnit has recently posted several articles relating to India, with the strongest being “Getting India Right : Recreating the Anglosphere“, where it is declared:

“There has been discussion that just as Great Britain gracefully passed its world power status to the United States, the United States must look to do the same with India or else face decline in the face of a raising China.”

Now the Economist (Feb 25), ahead of Bush’s March visit to India, leads with two articles highlighting the Bush Administration’s approach with India. The second article, “The Great India Hope Trick“, goes through the three major topics: 1) the difficulty surrounding the Bush Administration’s nuclear technology deal with India; and 2) the American temptation to see India as part of an anti-China axis partner; 3) while India needs and wants to be seen as an equal in any partnership with the US.

The article also touches moves by the US to offer technology to assist with India’s energy security needs, while it faces the difficulty dealing with India’s relationship with Iran, Syria and China on energy projects.

As mentioned earlier on StrategyUnit, India’s geostrategic location near the Middle East, Asia and Central Asia make it an essential ally and a practical ally with its shared Anglo history, language and democractic institutions. While somewhat differing from StrategyUnit, the Economist ends the article highlighting the attractiveness of India highlighting its “Stabiliy, Democracy, and Demography”:

Nevertheless, in the long term, India has two great attractions. One is stability. India has proven mechanisms for the peaceful transfer of power and the ability to withstand terrible internal conflicts—in Kashmir and the north-east, for example—without danger to its integrity. China’s eventual transition to democracy could be traumatic. Another attraction is demography. China’s one-child policy ensures that it will grow old before it gets rich: a generation of only children may suddenly find themselves struggling to support the parents who once pampered them. India will remain younger and more dynamic well into the middle of the 21st century.

For many reasons, a close partnership between India and America seems both desirable and inevitable. The fraught negotiation over the nuclear issue, however, has revealed how difficult it will be to achieve. To America, and to many Indians, it must seem inconceivable that India—still so poor, and so desperately in need of just the sort of help America is offering—should not jump at the chance of a special relationship. How on earth, for example, could the idea of siding with Iran instead be seriously debated? But for many in India, “non-alignment” is a synonym for independence, and should not be sacrificed, however enticing the prize. Moreover, so confident is India’s mood at the moment, that many seriously believe America needs it more than the other way round. Tomorrow belongs to Asia.

Other articles by StrategyUnit for 2006 on India:
1. “Needed in Asia: Security and Energy Cooperation”
2. “Year of Chinese-Indian Friendship…on Oil?“

While the need for a security forum is apparent to all players involved, the specific issue that should help bring a security forum into fruitarian is Energy Security. The need for energy security coordination in a region highly dependent on imported oil is well overdue.

Indeed, even in the OSCE, the current chairman has called for a conference for all OSCE members to discuss the need for better coordination on energy security matters. It is time for the even more imported energy dependent nations of Asia to do the same and much more.

Introduction
Many pundits have been talking about the Asian Century; indeed, the Economist recently ended its special report” article on India with “Tomorrow belongs to Asia”. Asia has been roaring ahead in economics, technology, science and beginning to match such might with political and military power. Yet, there lacks an mechanism to discussion security issues and more importantly coordinate on energy issues

Asia is home to many of the biggest importer of oil, such as China (40%), India (70%), South Korea (~100%) and Japan (~100%), who are also additionally major players in the world economy. Taken into account that some experts have claimed Peak Oil has already passed (December 16, 2006), we see the dire need for such states, many with rapidly growing economies, to take energy security extremely seriously.

Setting-Up Energy Cooperation
As StrategyUnit has mentioned, China and India has already made some steps into energy cooperation, but there is a need for a more formal network towards regional security and coordination in energy security. An organization similar to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) is in order to coordinately, share and develop market strategies that benefit all the players in the region, including Russia and the United States. Cooperation/coordination on energy-conservation, diversification of energy types and sources and transportation of energy resources are key areas deserving attention by all states in the region.

A forum that would enable cooperation, coordination and (at least) discussion on energy matters would also lessen the occurence of fierce competiton of energy resources that could lead to unnecessary friction and strain among the Asian states.

The ASEAN, APEC and the East Asian Summit are either not effective enough or does not includes Russia, the United States and India. The participating states in the Six-Party talks (North Korea excluded) along with India should be the initial members in this security organization. Having all states from Burma to the Philippines would prove too unwieldy.

Conclusion
Will such an organization ever appear? In the short-term, there appears to be no major players willing to publicly support such a move, but the India-China cooperation is a sign that in the medium-long term momentum may build as it will become obvious that regional energy cooperation is to the benefit of all.

The one issue fo the United States is Iran, as any talk of energy security would invovle China and India’s energy dealings with Iran. But, ultimately, the US cannot let this one issue (albiet a major issue) lock itself out from having any positive influence in contributing to the energy and security discussions of the growing powers in Asia.

Via Chief Wiggum and Coming Anarchy, comes this interesting story:

A close look at the final results of last month’s Palestinian election shows that the apparent landslide that gave Hamas 74 of the 132 seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council and only 45 to the once-dominant Fatah movement was, in the words of one analyst, “an optical illusion.”

Read more Here

2. Can “Psiphon” Beat China’s State Censorship?

Non-State actors continues to undermine state control over information:

[A] band of Internet volunteers headquartered in Cambridge has launched the Tor Project, which uses people’s spare Internet bandwidth to help others bypass the censors. And in Canada, computer scientists at the University of Toronto are working on a similar project, called Psiphon.

Anonymizer and Tor have attracted strong support from the US government. American military and intelligence services are major customers of Anonymizer, because it lets them scan foreign Internet sites without revealing their identities. The Voice of America, a broadcasting service sponsored by the US government, uses Anonymizer to help people in Iran tune in, despite their country’s efforts to block the signal.

Read More

3. Forget Russia, China and Russia, there’s also Japan in Central Asia

From PINR (published by Asia Times):

Japan added a new dimension to its engagement with Central Asia with the formation of the Central Asia Plus Japan (including Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan) initiative in August 2004. While low-key compared with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO – China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan), Japan through the Central Asia Plus Japan initiative is likely to play an increasingly significant geopolitical role, not just in Central Asia but also in Eurasia. An important question is how Japan’s new regional initiative will impact the SCO, which is largely considered the de facto regional organization in Central Asia.

Read More

4. John Yoo on FISA and the War on Terror

Interesting short interview by Foreign Policy:

While an attorney with the U.S. Justice Department after September 11, his legal memos helped lay the groundwork for what some see as the Bush administration’s constitutional power grabs—from the treatment of enemy prisoners to domestic wiretapping. FP recently asked Yoo, now a law professor at Berkeley, about amending FISA, ending the war on terror, and whether torture works.

Read More

5. Refrigerator with Built-In Beer Tap!

Words cannot describe StrategyUnit’s Joy:

There has been discussion that just as Great Britain gracefully passed its world power status to the United States, the United States must look to do the same with India or else face decline in the face of a raising China. But something else that needs as much mentioning is the geopolitical significance of India, being so close to the Middle East and Central Asia (something that the map on the left I hope conveys). It is also India geography that makes it an attractive ally and partner for the United States and the West.

India has moved beyond its former position as “neutral” and leading the non-aligned movement of the Cold War. Today, we see India as a growing high-tech, financial services and biotech powerhouse; and, while India is modernizing its economy like China, it is taking an open and democratic route. And just as US has its roots in the UK, so does India in many ways (beyond colonialism). Indeed, it belongs every bit as much as the Anglosphere, as the other principal members of the Anlgosphere (US, UK, Australia).

In the February-March issue of PolicyReview, Parag Khanna and C. Raja Mohan’s “Getting India Right” outlines a very comprehensive view of the geopolitical history and direction of the Indian state. Its a length article, but worth the read.

Indeed, in order to grow and survive, the United States and the West needs an ally and partner in the New Core, India is that state.

Taking a look at “Getting India Right”
Khanna and Mohan go through the usual argument for why India is an essential and undervalued partner for the United States: 1) Share democratic values, which the PM had recently emphasized; 2) US wants stability in Central Asia and The Middle East, the backyard of India; and 3) India has the ability to engage and limit China.

However, what I would like to share on Khanna and Mohan are some important concepts that should attain wider circulation:

1. The Indian Strategy – Neo-Curzonia, Multi-Alignment
Excerpt:

While there is no guarantee that India will become more allied or aligned, there has been a continuous trajectory toward a diplomatic posture which is perhaps best described as “neo-Curzonian,” after the British imperial viceroy and player of the “Great Game” Lord George Curzon. Ironically, India’s neo-Curzonian worldview is the logical heir to one of the nation’s strategic ur-texts, Kautilya’s fourth-century B.C. Arthashastras, which locates India at the nucleus of concentric rings of potential friends and foes. A neo-Curzonian foreign policy is premised on the logic of Indian centrality, permitting multidirectional engagement — or “multi-alignment” — with all major powers and seeking access and leverage from East Africa to Pacific Asia. Such a forward foreign policy emphasizes the revival of commercial cooperation; building institutional, physical and political links with neighboring regions to circumvent buffer states; developing energy supplies and assets; and pursuing multistate defense agreements and contracts. Today, India has recovered this 360-degree vision, looking west to boost investment from Europe and the Persian Gulf, north to secure stable energy supplies from Central Asia (including Iran), and east for partnerships and free trade agreements with South Korea and Australia. It engages actively in regional fora such as the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (saarc) and the Association of South East Asian Nations (asean) while not shying away from potential strategic competition with neighbors such as Pakistan and China. Furthermore, it has transitioned from demanding respect on the basis of its nuclear status to proving greatness on the basis of its political and economic accomplishments.

2. India – The Anchor in the Middle East, Central Asia and East Asia
Excerpt:

Historically, the U.S. has viewed the Middle East and Pacific Rim theaters as separate policy realms, with India falling in between and viewed through the exclusive prism of South Asian politics. But India lies at the crossroads of Asia, a factor which was at the heart of British policy towards the East. Only after the Second World War and the partition of the Subcontinent was India’s position weakened, a shift accentuated by India’s socialist and inward-looking policies. Yet as India’s weight grows in the international system, it can become a strong anchor in support of America’s ambition to pursue a liberal order across Eurasia. Indeed, if the U.S. should welcome the emergence of any one Asian power, it should be India, which shares America’s concern over the spread of Islamic fundamentalism, sub-state nuclear proliferation, and China’s ambitions. Furthermore, each Indian election entrenches its status and credibility as the world’s largest democracy, and its growing economic clout and diaspora presence in the U.S. are tying the two societies on opposite sides of the world together as never before. Indeed, there is not a single area in which India’s rise threatens America’s interests.

3. India’s Economy and Demographics v. China’s
Khanna and Mohan both speak of India’s advantages over China, despite China being in the spot light at the moment. China may have the “industrial revolution” in terms of manufacturing, but India is conquering the “information revolution” in the important new service-sector industries. A similar vain was mentioned in Foreign Policy’s “India Outsmarts China” piece, they outline India’s lead in the “knowledge workers” area:IT, financial services, biotech, medical services, etc. See an excerpt of “India Outsmarts China” here.

Another of India’s advantage is its population. India’s population is expected to be reaching its work-force peak in 2015, around the same China’s is expected to shrink and India “may even provide surplus labor to an aging China”. As Khanna and Mohan notes, “India is aging gracefully while China is heading towards an unprecedented challenge of getting old before it gets rich.”.

4. US-India – Building Closer Ties: Immigration and Economic Integretion
Excerpt:

India’s quest to go global has not only reached the United States; in many ways it originates here. Numbering almost two million, Indian-Americans are now the wealthiest ethnic minority in the country, boasting a median income of $60,000 and 200,000 millionaires. Fifteen percent of Silicon Valley start-ups have been launched by Indians, many of them first-generation immigrants who have chosen to make the U.S. their home….Given the Indian diaspora’s contributions to American economic and cultural life, the more than 50 percent decrease in h1-b visas for Indian professionals has been extremely disturbing to Indians in both countries, and the 25 percent drop in mba applicants from India is similarly worrying. If the U.S. does not allow Indian nationals to become Indian-Americans — in a demonstration of American pride, many prefer this term to be de-hyphenated as well — it ignores the Asia Foundation’s advice that the Bush administration should “continue to take advantage of Indian-Americans as a bridge” between Washington and New Delhi.

Towards the end of the Cold War in 1989, the Pentagon commissioned the Rand Corporation’s George Tanham to report on India’s strategic thinking; he famously concluded that there was none. This is no longer the case. India is beginning to rediscover the enduring elements of its own traditional geopolitical thinking and actively considering partnership with America, if only to advance its own interests. Within a constellation of shifting regional alliances among major states and powers such as the U.S., eu, Russia, Iran, Pakistan, China, South Korea, and Japan, India’s relevance to the future of international power balances is assured. India’s strategic canvas is broadening, as is its thinking in the military, economic, diplomatic, and cultural realms. America’s trade with China will eclipse that which it has with India for years to come, but democratic India is sure to be a more reliable partner.

Better relations, however, create rising expectations. As American and Indian interests naturally come into closer alignment, both countries must recognize that their noisy democracies will examine every minute detail in the agreements that the two governments negotiate. Preventing these noises from overwhelming the long-awaited strategic signals of greater engagement will be the most difficult challenge that Washington and Delhi have to overcome.

Conclusion and Final Comments
As mentioned earlier and throughout this blog, the US and the West must reach out beyond its current base to find new partners in the New Core, such as Brazil, India, China etc. However, there are unique qualities about India that make it an ideal candidate as the first New Core member to be fully embraced by the US.

India dynamic knowledge economy and democratic values (which it has increasingly identified as part of its foreign policy orientation) is something the United States must encourage and integrate with. India is not just a large state, but also represents ~20% of humanity.

On the realpoltik side, India is in a geopolitically important area of the world, in the crossroad of Eurasia and the shipping-lanes that carry Middle East oil and near the energy rich area of Central Asia. For the US, India is too important to ignore – we must embrace her or lose her to a geopolitical orientation contrary to our interests.

US and India does have disagreements over the issue of a Iran-Pakistan-India energy pipeline that is an essential part of India’s energy security goals. And also, there is the recent announcement of the India-China Energy Partnership. The Iranian pipeline runs contrary to US goals of isolating Iran. How the US handles this issue, as well as its cooperation with Pakistan, will be a test of how viable a US-Indian partnership is.

India is eager to find partnerships where it can, but it’s up to the US to find a way to nurture a true deeper relationship that goes beyond an partnership of convenience. Let’s hope that the US (especially under the future Post-Bush administration) has the vision and finesse to help lead the way.

Contrarian Views
In “Is India a Menance to the West?“, Samizdata posted a counterpoint with India (under strong Hindu nationalism) being the potential enemy further down the line. He quotes Immanuel Wallenstein, who stated:

Was then the new Indo-U.S. joint statement a victory for U.S. diplomacy? In it, the U.S. for the very first time legitimated India’s role as a nuclear power, by promising India that it “will work to achieve full civil nuclear energy cooperation with India as it realizes its goals of promoting nuclear power and achieving energy security.” This of course undermined enormously the already weak position of the U.S. in opposing Iranian nuclear ambitions, since what India has received from the U.S. is precisely what Iran has been claiming is its right, “full civil nuclear energy.”

And in return, what did the U.S. get? – a promise “to combat terrorism relentlessly.” Since India was already doing this, it wasn’t very much. Meanwhile, India is maintaining its close relations with Iran and Russia, and even (on paper) a strategic alliance with China. More importantly, India is proceeding with Project Seabird, aimed at turning it into the major military power in the Indian Ocean. This does not make the Chinese too happy, to be sure, but it shouldn’t make the U.S. too happy either, since at the moment, it is the U.S. that is the major military power in the Indian Ocean.

Introduction: Chinese and Indian Energy Cooperation

India and China kicked off their “Year of Friendship” to a rather good start. Only a few days ago (Jan 9), China and India’s respective state-owned oil companies agreed on a joint venture on the purchase and development on oil assets in Syria. And now China and India agreed on sharing bid information on bidding on foreign hydrocarbon fuel (to avoid driving prices unnecesarrily) and to encourage joint ventures.

The document that China and India signed, the two most populous states, outlined “cooperation in upstream exploration and production, refining and marketing of petroleum products and petrochemicals, oil and gas pipelines, research and development, and promotion of environmentally friendly fuels.” (source) The document also included agreements on coopertion on the production of biofuels.

In a visit to China, the Indian Petroleum and Natural Gas Minister Mani Shankar Aiyar stated:

“We look on China not as a strategic competitor but a strategic partner,” said Aiyar in an exclusive interview in Beijing. “It is clear to me that any imitation of the ‘Great Game’ between India and China is a danger to peace. We cannot endanger each other’s security in our quest for energy security.”

Aiyar also brought up the idea of joint pipeline connecting India and China, but this is something India has brought-up in the past as well without substantial response from China.

Motives and Benefits?

On the surface, this partnership is quite puzzling. This movement towards cooperation would benefit India far more than China:

• India is more dependent on imported oil (China’s 30-40% to India’s 70%)
• Indian oil companies have been repeatedly outbided by China, so why the need for China to cooperate?
• China’s “Go-Out” oil strategy has been thus far successful with its connections in Central Asia, South American and from Sudan to Iran. So why would China cut a deal now?
• China and India have gone through minor wars in the past and unresolved border disputes. How will these issues loom over China and India’s ability to cooperate?

However, China and India have cooperated in some major instances, such as China’s support of India for permanent membership in the Security Council and in the Russian-Chinese led Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), India sits as an observer and a potential future member.

But in a larger context, Chinese would be foolish to stand-by as US and India continue to forge a closer tie, esp. with word last year about the Bush Administration wishing to “help India become a major world power in the 21st century”, which has mainly manifested itself in the US willingness to help India’s civilian nuclear energy program despite the nuclear testing in 1998.

Broad energy cooperation from China (successful so far in its “Go Out” strategy) would prove very significant for an equally energy hungry India. Indeed, one could say that using energy cooperation would present a more enticing carrot than what the US can offer India: military equipment and nuclear energy technology.

Additionally, engaging and building relationships with neighboring partners would fit into China’s strategy of “Raising Peacefully”. China is continuing to build regional institutions to project its power, such as through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the recent Easts Asia Summit.

Some would perhaps point out that any partnership would never work between India and China, as they are economic rivals. This is true in the area of energy resources, but when it comes to their economies, the two are very different. China is concentrating on manufacturing where as India moving ahead to high-tech software area and providing advances services, such in the financial industry.

Conclusion

With the exception of Japan (which even signed a $3 billion deal for Iranian oil), things are looking rather lonely for the U.S. in Asia. US must more vigorously appraoch India as natural partners, in its shared Anglo-heritage and as the world’s largest democracy. India can help share the burden as one of the pillars of security in the Middle East and Central Asia. And China too should be approach and incorporated under a new security framework in East Asia, with the United States and Japan.

The U.S. needs to lead in incorporating China, India and other emerging New Core powers into international organizations, as prescribed by Thomas Barnett. Else, these New Core states will look to seize the initiative and form their own alliances and institutions that will increasingly sideline the United States. We can help lead the future or sit back and watch as others make it for us.

PS: Why the lack of any coverage in this on New York Times, Washington Post etc? I am writing this on 1/13/2005 12:36AM, Pacific Time. Only the Financial Timeshas something major so far.

But what is generally never discussed or even ignored is China’s geopolitical challenges.

(Map showing major countries surrounding China)

China is Surrounded?

• To the East, there is China’s Japan (its archrival) and South Korea.
• In the North, there is Russia, a weakened state, but may revive in the future.
• To the West, there is a raising India, that may align themselves with the rest of the Anglosphere.
• To the South (technically the southeast), there is some space for China to maneuver though the region borders Australia.

Look past the landmasses and to the oceans, we see that in the Indian Ocean, critical for energy supplies from the Middle East, the United States remains dominant. This is one reason why China will have to create a blue-water navy and why it is building a port in Gwadar, Pakistan.

There is also Japan’s navy to contend with, which packs quite the punch. Keep in mind that Japan’s military has one hand tied behind its back because of the Constitution, which may change in the intermediate future. Indeed, China and Japan are now in a diplomatic spat - with China asking Japan to “explain” its military posture and Japanese FM calling China a threat. China raise to power is being met by hawkish nationalism in Japan.

Conclusion
There are at least three conclusions to derive from the map:

1. If you look at the map, the idea of containment of China by a US-Japan-Indian plus Russia group almost appears possible. I find this idea of “containing China” utterly dubious, but the map demonstrate that some natural constraints to China’s power.

Perhaps if China was still a closed economy, containment would be possible, but too much money is at stake for anyone, even Americans, to ignore.

2. Surrounded by such major states, we would expect China to be insecure in its own neighborhood. After all, there are US bases in Japan, Korea, Guam and formerly in Uzbekistan, along with US-India military cooperation. Is there a Chinese military base in Mexico?

So when we hear of China’s growing influence in the world, just remember China’s neighbor to better appreciate its own regional challenges.

3. If China ever aligns with one of its major neighbors, the U.S. will truly have a big worry on its hands. India, Japan and S. Korea are not possible partners at this point, but Russia (despite its fear of the Yellow Scare) is a potential partner.

Like China, Russia has been criticized for its lack of democracy, transparency and human rights; such criticisms, may drive the two to uniting. Indeed, if Russia follows a “Primakov Doctrine” of seeking a multi-polar world, it follows that Russia should help prop up China to challenge the U.S.

China would supply the capital and discipline, while Russia would provide access to its military technology and raw commodities. On a lower level, this is already happening, but a full blown alignment has yet to happen any time soon.

As proposed by Malaysia and championed by China, the summit was conceived as a way for the 10 countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations to cooperate with China, Japan and South Korea — but not the United States — on security, social and economic problems. Many officials viewed it as a vehicle for Chinese leadership, making China the motor of an Asian bloc with a voice distinct from that of other Asia-Pacific groupings that include the United States.

Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea were some of the major nations invited to EAS. Russia was invited as well as an observer, making it all the more striking that the US wasnt.

Despite the growth in China’s clout in its region, the U.S. is still the de facto security guarantor of the region. While East Asia Summit, like ASEAN, will probably be mired by discord and inability to create concrete action, the fact that the U.S. is not part of the discussion in Kuala Lumpur is the ill-gotten fruit of our publicly voiced insecurity regarding China.

All this talk of China as the threat is driving China to play the game in Asia as zero-sum: its either the U.S. (pun intended) or China.

Given geography and culture, the East and South-East Asia is not the “natural” sphere of influence for the U.S. and we need to be reminded this. World War II gave our position in Asia, we should be careful not to squander it by driving China to carve its sphere and fight for influence at our expense.

Instead of containment in China, we should encourage tying China in to a mesh of pan-Asian institutions that will help China gain confidence in the region despite U.S. presence, while also constrain its range of maneuver.

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in Central Asia is a demonstration of China ability to create its own regional institutions as a tool to challenge the U.S. We need to build our own tool by putting China and the U.S. together in it.

Additionally, India is also looking to assert itself globally, we encourage and guide them on this process as partenrs, least they form their partnership with states that hold interests contrary to ours.

Former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong of Singapore was quoted as saying : “We have little choice but to construct a new architecture for East Asia…If East Asia does not coalesce, it will lose out to the Americas and Europe…The key question is not whether East Asia will integrate. It is how quickly and the form East Asian regionalism will assume.”

Indeed, Gok Chok Tong is correct and it is even more the reason the U.S. needs to be able to partipate in these dicussion (EAS specifically and the future of Asia in general). We cannot ignore a region as sizeable and vibrant as Asia.

Someone needs to ask why what’s going on in the State Department and why isnt President Bush at the EAS?

Stung by the rising international price of oil and domestic shortages coupled with high requirements of a growing economy, India has revived a plan for an oil and gas grid for the Asian continent.

The grid is part of a two-fold strategy by the two top Asian oil guzzlers, China and India, to ensure reliable delivery networks and energy security. The other element involves acquiring stakes in production and exploration projects for which New Delhi and Beijing continue to cooperate as well as compete.

The emphasis on the grid comes in wake of reports that India and China, the most aggressive shoppers for oil and gas assets in the world, are coming together to put in a joint bid. The China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) and the Oil & Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC), two of the most high-profile emerging global oil companies in the past year, could jointly bid for Petro-Canada’s $1-billion oil and gas fields in Syria. Both India and China feel the strategic need to diversify their energy sources from the current dependence on West Asia.

It will take years before this project turns into fruition if it ever gets there, but such a bold statement alone is a testament of new realities that the Bush Administration nor any political leader in the U.S. have began to address.

More on this later…

Here’s quick Weekend Reading…just in case you need a break from all that turkey and gravy. By the way, I’ve been doing some light posting this past two weeks, but I’ll start going back to the normal beat of things soon.

OxBlog on Jame’s Fellow’s “Why Iraq Has No Army” in December’s Atlantic Monthly

David Adensik does an analysis of James Fallows’ cover story in the Atlantic monthly “Why Iraq Has No Army”. The article has caused such a buzz that even “George Stephanopoulous attempted to use the article to cross-examine Donald Rumsfeld on Sunday morning.”

I agree with David Adesnik that despite the hype of a title, Fallows doesnt really say anything new nor goes into depth about anything groundbreaking. Adesnik also the lack of definately strong position in the article (from critical/pessimistic to hawkish) as reflective of the overall difficult position of the Democrats:

“So is there a third way that will allow Democrats to both criticize the war and be seen as hawkish? Yes there is. They can click their heels three times and say “I agree with John McCain.””

The article is available for subscribers only, but if you would like a copy let me know and I can email it over. And, dont forget your local library (via online database) may carry a copy.

Oil Drum’s “There’s A New Kid In Town — Iran Versus Kazakhstan”

I’ve done an extensive research on Kazakhstan’s foreign policy and energy resources as part of my thesis in college, so its interesting (but not too surprising) to see Oil Drum’s “There’s A New Kid In Town — Iran Versus Kazakhstan” – which boldy proclaims the growing importance of Kazakhstan OVER Iran on energy resources:

Iran is still a giant and Kazakhstan is a middle tier country among the world’s oil suppliers. Iran produced 4081/kbd in 2004, 5.2% of the world’s total while Kazakhstan produced 1295/kbd, a paltry 1.6% percent of the whole. Iran has 132.5 billon barrels in proven reserves, 11.1% of the world’s total while Kazakhstan has 39.6 billion barrels, a 3.3% world share. But let’s look into our chrystal ball to see what the future may look like.
…
Around the years 2008 to 2009 period, Kazakhstan is exporting more total oil supply to the OECD countries, China and (perhaps) India than Iran is (Empahsis mine)

Eurasianet’s “China joins the Central Asian Base Race”

Stephen Blank of Eurasianet writes on China’s recent move to secure a military base in Kyrgyzstan and even in Uzbekistan, which the US has recently been kicked out from.

While Blank focuses on Chinese miltiary presence on Central Asia, we should not forget the joint Chinese-Pakistan naval base in Gwadar, Pakistan.

Beijing’s search for a base has occurred against a backdrop of growing regional militarization and an intensification of great power rivalry in Central Asia. Thus, China’s requests of Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, even if made sotto voce, have served to heighten the geopolitical jockeying in the region. It also suggests a growing willingness entertain the use of the military instrument to address regional issues. This cannot be considered a good sign.

While SCO (which includes Russia, China all all major Central Asian states) asked for the US militray to leave Central Asia, Blank correctly points out that Russia come out more strongly against a Chinese over a US presence in Central Asia.

In the UK: “Gas industry on brink of winter crisis”

The OilDrum and EnergyBulletin have been covering the less known natural gas issues that faces the US, UK and others, but here’s a mainstream news on UK’s winter energy crisis:

The country’s gas industry is on a knife edge this winter and could tip into crisis if there is a major breakdown in its ageing North Sea fields and pipelines, analysts said on Thursday.

Europe’s biggest consumer is fast running out of gas from the fields that once made it self sufficient and kept prices among the lowest in Europe. Today, UK gas is the world’s costliest fuel and winter supply will be the tightest in memory.Government ministers are under pressure to explain how one of the world’s richest nations has left its energy policy hostage to the weather and ageing North Sea equipment.

China has made two recent announcements this week:
1. Earmarking 180 billion USD for Renewable Energy
2. Push Towards Building Sustainable Cities (first by 2010)

1. The 180 Billion USD Push for Renewable Energy

From China Daily “Renewable energy gets huge outlay“:

Up to 1.5 trillion yuan (US$184 billion) will be invested by 2020 to achieve China’s plan to boost renewable energy consumption to 15 per cent of the country’s energy mix by the benchmark year.

“We are committed to our promises,” said Zhang Guobao, vice-minister of the National Development and Reform Commission. “Our renewable energy law will take effect beginning next year, and we aim to increase our renewable consumption in the energy mix from the current 7 per cent to 15 per cent by 2020.”

WSJ’s “Beijing vows to increase use of clean energy” points to the practical reason for energy diversification – security and environmental issues (which is also security related):

China has increased its emphasis on the use of alternative power sources out of concern for both the environmental costs of the country’s heavy use of fossil fuels and the security risks of its growing reliance on imported oil. But oil and inexpensive, but dirty, coal still account for most of the energy consumption in China, the world’s second-largest producer of greenhouse gases after the U.S.

Yet even on the issue of the environmental issues, environmental pollution has become an issue of domestic stability. Pollution from factories and power plants have prompted mass protests against the government. The Chinese Government has responded and is well aware of the danger of pollutions issues potentially igniting massive unrest. See my post “China – Environmentalism as a National Security Issue”

There is obviously a good amount of spin in the story, but regardless China’s announcement demonstrates that China is looking to confront energy security issues with greater resolve than the US has done with its latest energy bill.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 has been rightfully criticized for heavily subsidizes businesses in developing existing energy types (oil and nuclear) and makes exceptions on environmental regulation for various energy-related construction. China seems to be really pushing the development of new and more efficient, clean and renewable energy resources in a bid to avoid dependence on oil (and the global oil prices that dictate oil-based energy cost).

The Energy Bill does state, however, that 10% of energy from utility companies must be from renewable sources by 2020; China appears to be 15% by 2020, but China doesn’t give much detail on what that exactly means.

In addition, the Senate just passed a bill allowing the drilling of Alaska National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR). While I think the US Government should always reserve the right to exploit readily available energy resources when needed, government attention would be better served to pushing for hybrid vehicles or at least more gas-efficient vehicles.

2. Push Towards Sustainable Cities
A British consulting firm, Arup, has won a contract to build sustainable cities in China – with the goals of sustainable energy and water use and zero emissions for its transportation system. See the article here at the Guardian’s “British to help China build ‘eco-cities’” for more information:

British engineers will this week sign a multi-billion contract with the Chinese authorities to design and build a string of ‘eco-cities’ – self-sustaining urban centres the size of a large western capital – in the booming country.

Arup, the London-based consulting firm that has already signed up for one such project near Shanghai, will announce it has clinched a deal to extend the concept into a string of cities around China.
…
The Dongtan development, on an island in the mouth of the Yangtze river near Shanghai, aims to build a city three-quarters the size of Manhattan by 2040. The first phase will accommodate some 50,000 people. It is on target to be open by the time of the Shanghai Expo trade fair in 2010
…
The eco-cities are intended to be self-sufficient in energy, water and most food products, with the aim of zero emissions of greenhouse gases in transport systems.

Some hints of the technologies involved are mentioned at Arup’s Press Release, “Arup unveils plans for world’s first sustainable city in Dongtan, China“:

The first phase of Dongtan is planned to be completed by 2010 when the Expo will be held in Shanghai. This phase will include a wide range of developments with urban parks, ecological parks and world class leisure facilities. Priority projects include the process of capturing and purifying water in the landscape to support life in the city. Community waste management recycling will generate clean energy from organic waste, reducing landfills that damage the environment. Combined heat and power systems will provide the technology to source clean and reliable energy. Dongtan will be a model ecological city, and its buildings will help to reduce energy use, making efficient use of energy sources and generating energy from renewable sources.

Again, surely a good amount of spin is involved, but I am not hearing anything remotely similar to this in the United States with such a high level of government involvement. Would the US Government at least try to make suburban sprawl areas more self-sufficient and sustainable?

Conclusion
I have no time to go to any deep analysis at the moment, but sufficient to say that the United States would be foolish in not taking concrete steps in addressing its energy security issues and taking a look at what China is doing.

Energy security can potentially be a more existential threat than terrorism, but its not being fully addressed by the US. In this regards, China is strengthening itself as compared to the US – at least in its stated goals.

More thoroughly analysis later…