kalu_miah's new world order, a road map for the future

[mosu]

kalu miah plZ dont post 2months old news with ur fake name this is not ur imagination i have read this post on hamid zaids pakdefenceunit 2months ago plz kalu dont be over samart

 

[kalu_miah]

kalu miah plZ dont post 2months old news with ur fake name this is not ur imagination i have read this post on hamid zaids pakdefenceunit 2months ago plz kalu dont be over samart

what news? what exactly are you talking about, care to explain a little please.

 

[kalu_miah]

Kalu Miah, there are 3 basic things you miss in your dreams. the plan you have, needs a WW3 type things which may change the maps. otherwise the three main things as below won't let your dream come true in 21st century:

1st, Religious factor, mainly for Muslims, which is very dominant. Turkey couldn't get a place in EU due to that, US/EU/Australia/Canada type countries are trying hard to restrict Muslim immigration also. even ASEAN is divided on the name of religion and we find Philippines with West, Malaysia more willing to invite muslims in their country only, Thailand and Vietnam have their own separate standing as their own cultural background etc. just ask beloved China of Pakistan+Bangladesh, will they invite migrants from these two muslim countries? in fact, China was found to have the toughest stand against muslims than anyone else. even in South America, blacks are welcomed but they want to maintain a distance from Muslims....

2nd, racial/identity feeling. do you want Korean and Japanese to invite Bangladeshis, in your stage 2????? Japanese and Koreans have serious racial complexity with even Chinese, they keep talking about inferiority of Chinese on this forum, will they invite Bangladeshis? never, even if Japan and Korea may become as poor as Burma, they will fight for their 'Identity' but they will not let others come to their countries. only Unified Korea is possible rest, none from ASEAN will also like your idea, they have business trade only among them, nothing else

3rd, none will share their wealth/resources with others. even mineral rich Canadians/Australians won't let British come so easily which may increase unemployment rate there with increased burden of subsidies also, which will come from the pockets of locals . have a look on EU, if Greece will exit EU, their economy fall, then there will be a flow of Greeks into other EU's states which will be the biggest problem there. EU could be formed because most of the EU's states were equally wealthy and they invited small Eastern European countries only. otherwise, EU does try to influence small Belarus of per capita income $16,000 but they maintain a distance from Ukraine of per capita income $6,000, also because Ukraine is very big, 45mil population with lower middle income group, which EU nations dont want. here, will they ever wish a country like Bangladesh of 160mil population of hardly $1,800 per capita income? see how Saudi behave with muslim workers there??????????

we have to make our own country first, no other option . or, lets see whether we may have any WW3 type things which may help us straight change the maps

It is not my dream, it is a prediction about a possible future scenario of the world, considering that regionalism will become an important geopolitical tool for nations to achieve balance of power. My personal dreams have nothing to do with it as I can do little to make something like this happen.

1. Religion: This is a factor, EU is mainly a Christian club and Turkey is not being accepted because of religion, very true. But ASEAN is already multi-religous. China has 50 million Muslims and they are not fanatic anti-Muslims.

Ok now, going to migration and immigration issue. This simply is not a factor for many of the unions, because unrestricted migration is not going to be the way the Unions will initially function. So whether or not member countries want to open up for immigrants like the US, Canada, Australia or New Zealand, that decision will be up to their legislatures and people. People already take in temporary guest workers, for example Korea has a program called EPS system that it developed in consultation with ILO:
http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@asia/@robangkok/documents/publication/wcms_145630.pdf

This program works with govt. of Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Uzbekistan and Vietnam. Note how many Muslim countries are included in the above list.

But this is a guest worker program, and they are not real immigration with a path to citizenship. Many workers however do get married with local girls and get citizenship. This has happened to many Asian countries who allowed migrant labors to work in their country with labor shortage like Japan, South Korea and Malaysia. In a regional union like ASEAN+, what may happen is that the number of countries in this list may get limited to ASEAN+ members.

Migration is actually a net negative for the host country, in my opinion, as it creates disruption and tension in host society trying to assimilate an alien population and I believe it will not be a requirement for a country to join a union. Member countries should not have to accept migrants from other members. Union is for collective strength by teaming up, not for loosing cultural/ethnic continuity of any particular society. In fact, if Japanese and Koreans would agree to assimilate into Chinese culture, they would gladly be accepted. But people want to keep their cultural and historical continuity. I talk about the importance of historical continuity here:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...orld-order-road-map-future-8.html#post2758071

2. Racial/Ethnic: Ethno-liguistic nationalism is a valid factor. But Koreans, Japanese and Malaysians are already inviting many people from many countries and many are settling down in these countries and becoming citizen. The only xenophobic country I can see in ASEAN+ is Myanmar/Burma, but they are a small insignificant country in ASEAN to make any difference. Once they develop their economy, I am sure they will also change out of practical needs.

ASEAN has a comprehensive economic integration program. Eventually they will tie up more with South Korea and Japan and create a NATO like security structure within Asia, which I call ASEAN+.

3. Resource/wealth sharing: First of all union members may or may not share their resources. It depends on rules of the union. But if they do become members of a regional union, then they have to follow the union guidelines. So it is up to individual countries to make a decision, whether it makes sense for them to become a member of a certain union.

Countries will become member because of collective security and economic advantage. To get this benefit, they have to pay a price, which will be in the form of sharing their resources.

What you are forgetting is that human beings are also resources if they can be developed with good nutrition (since conception), good education and training. Japan and South Korea are not rich because of natural resources, they are rich today because they have worked hard to develop their human resources and as a result can utilize the creativity and high level of productivity of their masses. While resource rich Nigeria still remains essentially an underdeveloped country.

EU states come from a wide variety of wealth/resource spectrum. The mistake in EU was to start using the Euro common currency in the Eurozone which in my opinion was premature and too early. This eventually helped create this problem we have today of endless debt crises.

Former Soviet countries like Ukraine, will hopefully join Eurasia+, and will not need to join EU.
Greece will not leave the Eurozone or EU. Ukraine, I believe, will go with Eurasia+.

Bangladeshi people will work as guest worker in ASEAN+, GCC+ and other countries. Out of whom only a small number will settle down and become local citizen. Others will come back when their visa expires.

I am not sure if you have taken the time to read this whole thread. I would suggest for you to do that, before you pass a hasty judgement about my prediciton.

Of course we have to make our own countries, I am not disputing that, but countries will look at regionalism as a solution to many of the geopolitical problem they face. Just look at the problems Vietnam and Philippines are facing with China about the islands. Working to build an ASEAN+ gives them one possible way to bring a more balanced situation in the geopolitical power mismatch in the neighborhood.

And I am not the first one to propose something like this, EU is slowly changing the map, so will ASEAN+, African Union, GCC+, Eurasia+ etc., if my prediction is correct. But the process will span many decades. It is not going to happen over night.

 

[kalu_miah]

there is a certain reason behind it, that is, why would russians think to merge with EU while now its EU's nationals who want to go to Russia for a better future prospects?



also, Russia hardly has around 8% public debt, while that of US its 103% to its GDP while many major EU's economies now just beg for debt to feed their civilians while they are already heavily indebted? then here, why would Russia invite these civilians of EU to Russia? why would Russia join EU or US to share their debt?

List of countries by public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For Eurasion Union, please find my discussions here:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/180767-geopolitics-eurasia-region.html

 

[Holmes]

India+Nepal+Maldives+Bhutan+Sri Lanka

Good proposal.

EU+Russian speaking countries

It won't happen. Russia is building another union, the "Eurasian Union", which will work out.

 

[kalu_miah]

Good proposal.

It won't happen. Russia is building another union, the "Eurasian Union", which will work out.

I think you were looking at the first draft, here is the updated model:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...rld-order-road-map-future-11.html#post2836627

About Eurasian Union, it is part of the above model and also I discuss it here:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/180767-geopolitics-eurasia-region.html

 

[kalu_miah]

The more I look at history of our people, the more it pains me. In the history of mankind, many a times this tool of nationalism was used by imperial powers to break countries and empires and caused immense suffering for people. Essentially this nationalism is a European disease, a nasty virus imported from Europe. Before the advent of European nationalism such ideas were not commonplace among people:

Nationalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nationalism is a political ideology that involves a strong identification of a group of individuals with a nation. There are two main perspectives on the origins and basis of nationalism, one is the primordialist perspective that describes nationalism as a reflection of the ancient and perceived evolutionary tendency of humans to organize into distinct grouping based on an affinity of birth; the other is the modernist perspective that describes nationalism as a recent phenomenon that requires the structural conditions of modern society, in order to exist.[1] There are various definitions for what constitutes a nation, however, which leads to several different strands of nationalism. It can be a belief that citizenship in a state should be limited to one ethnic, cultural, religious, or identity group, or that multinationality in a single state should necessarily comprise the right to express and exercise national identity even by minorities.[2]
The adoption of national identity in terms of historical development, has commonly been the result of a response by an influential group or groups that is unsatisfied with traditional identities due to inconsistency between their defined social order and the experience of that social order by its members, resulting in a situation of anomie that nationalists seek to resolve.[3] This anomie results in a society or societies reinterpreting identity, retaining elements that are deemed acceptable and removing elements deemed unacceptable, in order to create a unified community.[3] This development may be the result of internal structural issues or the result of resentment by an existing group or groups towards other communities, especially foreign powers that are or are deemed to be controlling them.[3]
National flags, national anthems, and other symbols of national identity are commonly considered highly important symbols of the national community.

…..........................

Critics of nationalism have argued that it is often unclear what constitutes a "nation", or why a nation should be the only legitimate unit of political rule. A nation is a cultural entity, and not necessarily a political association, nor is it necessarily linked to a particular territorial area - although nationalists argue that the boundaries of a nation and a state should, as far as possible, coincide.[55] Philosopher A.C. Grayling describes nations as artificial constructs, "their boundaries drawn in the blood of past wars". He argues that "there is no country on earth which is not home to more than one different but usually coexisting culture. Cultural heritage is not the same thing as national identity".[56]
Much of the early opposition to nationalism was related to its geopolitical ideal of a separate state for every nation. The classic nationalist movements of the 19th century rejected the very existence of the multi-ethnic empires in Europe. Even in that early stage, however, there was an ideological critique of nationalism. That has developed into several forms of anti-nationalism in the western world naming it a 'theoretical and political challenge for the foreseeable future' [57]. The Islamic revival of the 20th century also produced an Islamic critique of the nation-state.
At the end of the 19th century, Marxists and other socialists (such as Rosa Luxemburg) produced political analysis that were critical of the nationalist movements then active in central and eastern Europe (though a variety of other contemporary socialists and communists, from Vladimir Lenin(a communist) to Józef Piłsudski (a socialist), were more sympathetic to national self-determination).[58]
In his classic essay on the topic George Orwell distinguishes nationalism from patriotism, which he defines as devotion to a particular place. Nationalism, more abstractly, is "power-hunger tempered by self-deception." [59]
For Orwell the nationalist is more likely than not dominated by irrational negative impulses:
There are, for example, Trotskyists who have become simply enemies of the U.S.S.R. without developing a corresponding loyalty to any other unit. When one grasps the implications of this, the nature of what I mean by nationalism becomes a good deal clearer. A nationalist is one who thinks solely, or mainly, in terms of competitive prestige. He may be a positive or a negative nationalist — that is, he may use his mental energy either in boosting or in denigrating — but at any rate his thoughts always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations. He sees history, especially contemporary history, as the endless rise and decline of great power units, and every event that happens seems to him a demonstration that his own side is on the upgrade and some hated rival is on the downgrade. But finally, it is important not to confuse nationalism with mere worship of success. The nationalist does not go on the principle of simply ganging up with the strongest side. On the contrary, having picked his side, he persuades himself that it is the strongest, and is able to stick to his belief even when the facts are overwhelmingly against him.[59]
Massacres of Poles in Volhynia in 1943. Most Poles of Volhynia (now in Ukraine) had either been murdered or had fled the area.


In the liberal political tradition there is widespread criticism of ‘nationalism’ as a dangerous force and a cause of conflict and war between nation-states. Nationalism has often been exploited to encourage citizens to partake in the nations' conflicts. Such examples include The Two World Wars, where nationalism was a key component of propaganda material. Liberals do not generally dispute the existence of the nation-states. The liberal critique also emphasizes individual freedom as opposed to national identity, which is by definition collective.
The pacifist critique of nationalism also concentrates on the violence of nationalist movements, the associated militarism, and on conflicts between nations inspired by jingoism or chauvinism. National symbols and patriotic assertiveness are in some countries discredited by their historical link with past wars, especially in Germany. Famous pacifist Bertrand Russell criticizes nationalism for diminishing the individual's capacity to judge his or her fatherland's foreign policy.[60] Albert Einstein stated that "Nationalism is an infantile disease... It is the measles of mankind." [61][62][63]
The anti-racist critique of nationalism concentrates on the attitudes to other nations, and especially on the doctrine that the nation-state exists for one national group to the exclusion of others. This view emphasizes the chauvinism and xenophobiathat have often resulted from nationalist sentiment. Norman Naimark relates the rise of nationalism to ethnic cleansing and genocide.[citation needed]
Political movements of the left have often been suspicious of nationalism, again without necessarily seeking the disappearance of the existing nation-states. Marxism has been ambiguous towards the nation-state, and in the late 19th century some Marxist theorists rejected it completely. For some Marxists the world revolution implied a global state (or global absence of state); for others it meant that each nation-state had its own revolution. A significant event in this context was the failure of the social-democratic and socialist movements in Europe to mobilize a cross-border workers' opposition to World War I. At present most, but certainly not all, left-wing groups accept the nation-state, and see it as the political arena for their activities.[citation needed]
A snack bar sign advertising "American" fries at Knott's Berry Farm. The sign formerly read "French".
In the Western world, the most comprehensive current ideological alternative to nationalism is cosmopolitanism. Ethical cosmopolitanism rejects one of the basic ethical principles of nationalism: that humans owe more duties to a fellow member of the nation, than to a non-member. It rejects such important nationalist values as national identity and national loyalty. However, there is also a political cosmopolitanism, which has a geopolitical program to match that of nationalism: it seeks some form of world state, with a world government. Very few people openly and explicitly support the establishment of a global state, but political cosmopolitanism has influenced the development of international criminal law, and the erosion of the status of national sovereignty. In turn, nationalists are deeply suspicious of cosmopolitan attitudes, which they equate with eradication of diverse national cultures.[citation needed]
While internationalism in the cosmopolitan context by definition implies cooperation among nations and states, and therefore the existence of nations, proletarian internationalism is different, in that it calls for the international working class to follow its brethren in other countries irrespective of the activities or pressures of the national government of a particular sector of that class. Meanwhile, anarchists reject nation-states on the basis of self-determination of the majority social class, and thus reject nationalism. Instead of nations, anarchists usually advocate the creation of cooperative societies based on free association and mutual aid without regard to ethnicity or race.[citation needed]

Anti-nationalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anti-nationalism denotes the sentiments associated with the opposition to nationalism, arguing that it is undesirable or dangerous. Some anti-nationalists are humanitarians or humanists who pursue an idealist form of world community, and self-identify as world citizens. They rejectchauvinism, jingoism and militarism, and want humans to live in peace rather than perpetual conflict. They do not necessarily oppose the concepts of countries, nation states, national boundaries, cultural preservation or identity politics.
Some anti-nationalists oppose all types of nationalism, including ethnic nationalism among oppressed minority groups. This strain of anti-nationalism typically advocates the elimination of national boundaries. Variations on this theme are often seen in Marxist theory. Marx and Engelsrejected nationalism as a whole, believing "the working class have no country". [1] More recently, certain groups descended from the Maoist tradition of Marxism have moved towards this fiercely anti-nationalist stance in a different way than Trotskyists, saying that although it may be a painful and unpopular position to hear, ultimately opposing all nationalism strengthens proletarian internationalism. Many Trotskyists, however, such as Chris Harman, were critical of nationalism while advocating support for what they saw as progressive national struggles. [2]
In recent times, Islamism has been described as anti-nationalist movement, calling for unity of all Muslims and discarding the notion of nationality.
Anarchism has developed a critique of nationalism that focuses on nationalism's role in justifying and consolidating state power and domination. Through its unifying goal, nationalism strives for centralization, both in specific territories and in a ruling elite of individuals, while it prepares a population for capitalist exploitation. Within anarchism, this subject has been treated extensively by Rudolf Rocker in Nationalism and Culture and by the works of Fredy Perlman, such as Against His-Story, Against Leviathan and "The Continuing Appeal of Nationalism".[3]
In his "Aphorisms on the Wisdom of Life", Arthur Schopenhauer rejected nationalism, seeing it as an abandonment of personal identity.[4] The philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche can also be seen as opposing all forms of nationalism, although he opposed virtually every other form of social movement and ideology as well.[5] Søren Kierkegaard's philosophy is a criticism and vehement rejection of Christian nationalism.[6]

Now consider this, traditional mainstream Islam is against nationalism, which is called Asabiyyah, it is not encouraged:
Asabiyyah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

`Asabiyya or asabiyah (Arabic: عصبية, ʻaṣabīya) refers to social solidarity with an emphasis on unity, group consciousness, and social cohesion,[1] originally in a context of "tribalism" and "clanism", but sometimes used for modern nationalism as well, resembling also communitarism. It was a familiar term in the pre-Islamic era, but became popularized in Ibn Khaldun's Muqaddimah where it is described as the fundamental bond of human society and the basic motive force of history. `Asabiyya is neither necessarily nomadic nor based on blood relations; rather, it resembles philosophy of classical republicanism. In the modern period, the term is generally analogous to solidarity. However, the term is often negatively associated because it can sometimes suggest loyalty to one's group regardless of circumstances, or partisanship.[2]

Overview
Ibn Khaldun uses the term Asabiyyah to describe the bond of cohesion among humans in a group forming community. The bond, Asabiyyah, exists at any level of civilization, from nomadic society to states and empires.[3] Asabiyyah is most strong in the nomadic phase, and decreases as civilization advances.[3] As this Asabiyyah declines, another more compelling Asabiyyah may take its place; thus, civilizations rise and fall, and history describes these cycles of Asabiyyah as they play out.[3]
Ibn Khaldun argues that each dynasty (or civilization) has within itself the seeds of its own downfall. He explains that ruling houses tend to emerge on the peripheries of great empires and use the much stronger `asabiyya present in those areas to their advantage, in order to bring about a change in leadership. This implies that the new rulers are at first considered "barbarians" by comparison to the old ones. As they establish themselves at the center of their empire, they become increasingly lax, less coordinated, disciplined and watchful, and more concerned with maintaining their new power and lifestyle at the centre of the empire—i.e, their internal cohesion and ties to the original peripheral group, the `asabiyya, dissolves into factionalism and individualism, diminishing their capacity as a political unit. Thus, conditions are created wherein a new dynasty can emerge at the periphery of their control, grow strong, and effect a change in leadership, beginning the cycle anew.
Khaldun's central concept of asabiyah, or "social cohesion", seems to anticipate modern conceptions of social capital arising in social networks[citation needed]:
This cohesion arises spontaneously in tribes and other small kinship groups; and it can be intensified and enlarged by a religious ideology. Khaldun's analysis looks at how this cohesion carries groups to power but contains within itself the seeds - psychological, sociological, economic, political - of the group's downfall, to be replaced by a new group, dynasty or empire bound by a stronger (or at least younger and more vigorous) cohesion.[who?]
Examples

The Asabiyyah cycle described by Ibn Khaldun was true for nearly all civilizations before the modern era. Nomadic invaders had always ended up adopting the religion and culture of the civilizations they conquered, which was true for various Arab, Berber, Turkic and Mongol invaders that invaded the medieval Islamic world and ended up adopting Islamic religion and culture.
Beyond the Muslim world, the Asabiyyah cycle was also true for every other pre-modern civilization, whether in China whose dynastic cycles resemble the Asabiyyah cycles described by Ibn Khaldun, in Europe where waves of barbarian invaders adopted Christianity and Greco-Romanculture, or in India or Persia where nomadic invaders assimilated into those civilizations.

Now that we know a little bit more about nationalism, consider how linguistic (language based) nationalism was used by past Empires as geopolitical tools. Turkish nationalism, which came out of Pan-Turanism and Pan-Turkism started in 19th century were used by European powers, such as British and French empires. Arab nationalism was nurtured and created by them educating Lebanese and Syrian Christians in France, which still lives on as Bathism, but on its deathbed now in Syria. Note what they did, they broke Ottoman empire and create immense suffering for its inhabitants and the region still have not stabilized today. Note also Europeans how after seeing the negative effects of nationalism, have decided to go for a European Union. Also note how Indian nationalists borrowed this idea from Europe and drove out the British from India, but alas a Muslim nationalism was also created here, which gave rise to two nation theory, based on which Pakistan was created. In Bengal there were some Hindu and Muslim Bengali nationalists, here is the history of it:

Bengali nationalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bengali nationalism is the political expression of ethno-national consciousness of the Bengali people, who inhabit the ethno-linguistic region of Bengal.[1][2] The region's territory is divided between Bangladesh and the Indian state of West Bengal. Arising in the 19th century with the Bengal Renaissance and the Indian independence movement, it would be the central influence in the Bengali Language Movement, the Bangladesh Liberation War and the creation of Bangladesh (Country of Bengal) in 1971.

History

Main articles: History of Bengal and Bengal Renaissance
Bengali nationalism is rooted in the expression of pride in the history and cultural heritage of Bengal.[citation needed] In what is described as the Bengal Renaissance, the introduction of Western culture, science and education led to a major transformation and development of Bengali society. Bengal became a centre of modern culture, intellectual and scientific activities, politics and education under British Raj. The first social and religious reform movements such as the Brahmo Samaj and Ramakrishna Mission arose in Bengal, as did national leaders and reformers such as Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Sri Aurobindo, Ramakrishna Paramhansa and Swami Vivekananda. Bengali literature, poetry, religion, science and philosophy underwent a massive expansion with the works of Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, Debendranath Tagore, Michael Madhusudan Dutt, Sharat Chandra Chattopadhyay, Rabindranath Tagore, Satyendra Nath Bose, Jagdish Chandra Bose and Kazi Nazrul Islam. The Young Bengal , and Jugantar movements and newspapers like Amrita Bazar Patrika led the intellectual development of India. The Calcutta-based Indian National Association and the British Indian Association were the earliest political organisations in India.
The first Bengali nationalist agitation emerged over the 1905 Partition of Bengal by British authorities.[citation needed] Although the partition was supported by Bengali Muslims, a large majority of Bengalis protested the partition and participated in civil disobedience campaigns such as theSwadeshi movement and mass boycott of European goods. Seeking a united Bengal and rejecting British hegemony, Bengalis also spearheaded an emerging revolutionary movement, which assumed a central role in the national independence struggle. Bengal became a strong base of the Indian struggle for independence, giving rise to national political leaders such as Bipin Chandra Pal, Khwaja Salimullah, Chittaranjan Das, Maulana Azad, Subhash Chandra Bose, his brother Sarat Chandra Bose, Syama Prasad Mookerjee, A. K. Fazlul Huq, Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy — the latter two would become important leaders of the Pakistan movement.
United Bengal

Main article: United Bengal
As the Hindu-Muslim conflict escalated and the demand for a separate Muslim state of Pakistan became popular amongst Indian Muslims, the partition of India on communal lines was deemed inevitable by mid-1947. To prevent the inclusion of Hindu-majority districts of Punjab and Bengal in a Muslim Pakistan, the Indian National Congress and the Hindu Mahasabha sought the partition of these provinces on communal lines. Bengali nationalists such as Sarat Chandra Bose, Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy, Kiran Shankar Roy, Abul Hashim, Satya Ranjan Bakshi and Mohammad Ali Chaudhury sought to counter partition proposals with the demand for a united and independent state of Bengal. Ideological visions for a "Greater Bengal" also included the regions of Assam and districts of Bihar.[citation needed] Suhrawardy and Bose sought the formation of a coalition government between Bengali Congress and the Bengal Provincial Muslim League. Proponents of the plan urged the masses to reject communal divisions and uphold the vision of a united Bengal. In a press conference held in Delhi on April 27, 1947 Suhrawardy presented his plan for a united and independent Bengal and Abul Hashim issued a similar statement in Calcutta on April 29. A few days later, Sarat Chandra Bose put forward his proposals for a "Sovereign Socialist Republic of Bengal." With the support of the British governor of the Bengal province, Frederick Burrows, Bengali leaders issued the formal proposal on May 20.
The Muslim League and the Congress issued statements rejecting the notion of an independent Bengal on May 28 and June 1 respectively.[citation needed] The Hindu Mahasabha also agitated against the inclusion of Hindu-majority areas in a Muslim-majority Bengal, while Bengali Muslim leader Khawaja Nazimuddin and Maulana Akram Khan sought the exclusion of Hindu-majority areas to establish a homogenous Muslim Pakistan.[citation needed] Amidst aggravating Hindu-Muslim tensions, on June 3 British viceroy Lord Louis Mountbatten announced plans to partition India and consequently Punjab and Bengal on communal lines, burying the demand for an independent Bengal.
Language movement

Main article: Bengali Language Movement
February 22 rally after Janaja at Dhaka Medical College on Dhaka University road, Dhaka.
The Language movement was a political and cultural agitation in East Pakistan that centred around the recognition of the Bengali language as an official language of Pakistan and a broader reaffirmation of the ethno-national consciousness of the Bengali people.[citation needed] Discontent against Pakistan's "Urdu-only" policy had spilled into mass agitation since 1948 and reached its climactic strength after police fired upon and killed student demonstrators on February 21, 1952. After the creation of Pakistan in 1947, the central government under Muhammad Ali Jinnah ordained Urdu to be the sole national language, even though the Bengali-speaking peoples formed a majority of the national population.He did so because Urdu was a neutral language;not the mother tongue of any one of Pakistan's ethinicities. The policy, compounded by sectional tensions served as a major provocation of political conflict. Despite protests in 1948, the policy was enshrined into law and reaffirmed by national leaders, including several Bengali politicians. Facing rising tensions, the government in East Pakistan outlawed public meetings and gatherings. Defying this, the students of Dhaka University and other political activists started a procession on February 21. Near the current Dhaka Medical College Hospital, police fired on the protesters and numerous protesters, including Abdus Salam, Rafiq Uddin Ahmed, Abul Barkat, and Abdul Jabbar were killed. The deaths of the students served to provoke widespread strikes and protests led mainly by Bengali political parties such as the Awami League (then Awami Muslim League). The central government relented, granting official status for Bengali. The Language movement served as a catalyst for the assertion of the Bengali cultural and national identity within Pakistan.[citation needed]
Creation of Bangladesh

Main articles: Awami League, Six point movement, and Bangladesh Liberation War
Nationalist flag of Bangladesh
The Language movement and its fallout had created substantial cultural and political animosity between the two wings of Pakistan. Despite constituting a majority of the Pakistani population, Bengalis constituted a small part of Pakistan's military, police and civil services. Ethnic and socio-economic discrimination against Bengali people aggravated and agitations arose in East Pakistan over sectional bias, neglect and insufficient allocation of resources and national wealth. Stepped in Perso-Arabic culture, West Pakistanis saw Bengali culture as too closely associated with Hindu culture.[citation needed] One of the first groups demanding the independence of East Pakistan was the Swadhin Bangal Biplobi Parishad (Free Bengal Revolutionary Council).[citation needed] Under Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the Awami League became more secular in character[citation needed] and launched the Six point movement demanding substantial political, administrative and economic autonomy for East Pakistan. Seeking democracy, a separate currency and balanced sharing of wealth and resources, Mujib also sought the recognition of the term "Bangla-desh" to describe the eastern wing of Pakistan, instead of East Pakistan.[citation needed] Mujib was arrested by Pakistani forces in 1966 and tried for treason in what became the Agartala Conspiracy Case. Following violent protests and disorder, Mujib was released in 1968. In the elections of 1970, the Awami League won an outright majority in the Parliament of Pakistan. When Pakistan's president Yahya Khan and West Pakistani politician Zulfikar Ali Bhutto resisted Mujib's claim to form the government, sectional hostility escalated significantly. Before his arrest on the night of March 25, 1971, Mujib issued a call for Bengalis to fight for their independence; the message was conveyed over Shadhin Bangla Betar Kendro by MajorZiaur Rahman on March 27 and the independent state of Bangladesh was officially declared by the Awami League's government-in-exile in Mujibnagar. Mujib's trademark "Joy Bangla" (Victory to Bengal) salute became the rallying cry of Bengali nationalists,[citation needed] who mobilised to form the Mukti Bahini guerrilla force, which received training and equipment from the Indian government. Indian intervention at the height of the liberation war would eventually lead to the surrender of Pakistani forces and the establishment of the Bangladeshi state on December 16.

Note that this Bengali Nationalism was a product of Bengal Renaissance based in Kolkata (1757-1947), and in a way it was a tool of domination of the Hindu Zaminder (land lord) class, created under the British and subsumed and marginalized the strong Muslim ruling class that has developed in Sultanate and Subah Bangala during Muslim rule 1200-1757.

It was used by this same Hindu Zaminder (land lord) class in 1905 to oppose Bango-Vongo or division of Bengal, which was supported by Muslims of East Bengal. This incident was the point where Muslims of Bengal created Muslim League.

Ironically when the time of partition came, this same Hindu Zaminder class opposed Bengali nationalism and supported partition of Bengal to separate West Bengal and Kolkata to save it from Muslim domination and merge it with greater Hindu “mainland” India.

After partition, there should have been no hope ever to get West Bengal again with East Pakistan, Hindu Bengali’s would never agree to join a Muslim dominated independent Bangladesh, even if it had Assam and North East states along with it as its part. Once that opportunity was lost in 1947, there was no possibility of getting West Bengal back, which renders Bengali Nationalism after that point a moot exercise.

About North East states of India, they wanted independence and Pakistan’s ISI and Chinese intelligence were trying to help them, as at that time it was within the realm of possibility to bring it to fruition. But once India got wind of this ISI activity in Nagaland in 1956, they quickly realized that they have to counter fire with fire. So they found some ready made “useful idiots” like Mujib and others in Awami League who were still nostalgic of lost opportunity to create their own country. So India started its own game of secessionism in Pakistan using Awami League. They played a very skillful game, which is beyond the capacity of brains such as Mujib. Note what they did. They told them strictly never to utter the word independence but only AUTONOMY within the six point, which would get broad public support, this was how the public was deceived by RAW and their agents within Awami League. The rest has been repeated many times. The end result:

- India got a broken Pakistan, a reduced threat
- North East states was secured and saved from China and Pakistan’s help for secession
- people of Bangladesh were left with the bag or hate hariken as we say in Bengali, now we have become a small isolated Muslim nation with no physical connection to any other Muslim nation of the world with small limited resource to protect our people. While Pakistan went on to develop Nukes, which we could share and also protect Rohingya’s and the threat against Burmese, now our ability to address geopolitical threat like this has become much reduced and constrained

Essentially people of our landmass had been taken for a ride by a Bengal Renaissance influence group of Bengali’s who were used as geopolitical pawns by masterminds in Delhi.

People quickly figured it out in 1971-1975 from the incompetence and misrule of this Awami League (many rival freedom fighters were gun downed by Awami supported militia Rakkhi Bahini, some say around 40,000) and from signing of secret treaties with India compromising the sovereignty of our people. So Bangladeshi masses did not shed much tear when Mujib’s family was massacred in 1975, except for blind loyalist party activists of Awami League. After all this coup was planned by one of the founders and friend of Mujib, Khondoker Mushtaque Ahmed, who knew all inside dealings within Awami League and finally realized the truth about them. The country realized what just happened with leadership of Awami League (1960’s-1975). So now it was time for picking up the pieces and Ziaur Rahman, a freedom fighter, who is much closer to the heart of Bangladeshi people created and promoted Bangladeshi Nationalism, which is based on the territory of Bangladesh and also on the Muslim consciousness of its majority population:

Bangladeshi nationalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bangladeshi nationalism is a political ideology that glorifies and promotes the citizens of the People's Republic of Bangladesh as a distinctive cultural and political nation. In contrast with its rival Bengali nationalism, the ideology emphasizes a clear distinction amongst the Bengali people, that essentially Bangladeshi citizens are different from their linguistic and cultural counterparts in the Indian state of West Bengal which borders Bangladesh. The term also has religious significance and was initially developed by Bangladesh's first military regime in order to politically counter the ideology of the Awami League party, that professed Bengali nationalism and led the Bangladesh Liberation War on the basis of the establishment of a sovereign homeland for the Bengali people. As opposed to the secular Bengali nationalism, Bangladeshi nationalism stresses the ethnic and Islamic consciousness of the people of Bangladesh, where 89% of the population are Bengali Muslims.
Throughout the late 1970s and then in the 1980s, the concept of Bangladeshi nationalism evolved into the principal ideology for a large section of Bangladesh's political and military establishment. It had been fiercely promoted by President Ziaur Rahman and his formation of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, now one of two major political parties of the country, had centered around the development of Bangladeshi nationalism. Politically, the concept is today advocated by the center-right and rightist political parties in Bangladesh led by Zia's Bangladesh Nationalist Party.

This is close to:
Territorial nationalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Territorial nationalism assumes that all inhabitants of a particular nation owe allegiance to their country of birth or adoption.[1] A sacred quality is sought in the nation and in the popular memories it evokes.[2] Citizenship is idealized by territorial nationalist.[2] A criterion of a territorial nationalism is the establishment of a mass, public culture based on common values and traditions of the population.[2]
Because citizenship rather than ethnicity is idealized by territorial nationalism, it is argued by Athena S. Leoussi and Anthony D. Smith (in 2001) that the French Revolution was a territorial nationalistic uprising.[2]

Territorial nationalism in Europe

In Western Europe national identity tends to be more based on where a person is born then in Central and Eastern Europe.[3] Scholars have argued this might be explained by the fact that states in the later two emerged from imperial states.[4] Thecommunist regimes in the Eastern Bloc actively suppressed what they described as "bourgeois nationalism"[4] and considered nationalism a bourgeois ideology.[5] In the Soviet Union this led to Russification and other attempts to wipe out cultures other the Russian culture,[4] even while, at the same the Soviet state promoted certain forms of nationalism that it considered compatible with Soviet interests (Ron Suny, The Revenge of the Past). Yugoslavia being the exception, where "Yugoslavism" was promoted.[4]
Territorial nationalism in the Middle East

Although territorial nationalism is on contrast with the university of Islam[6] Especially Egypt and Tunisia had territorial nationalistic policy's after gaining Independence.[1] This was gradually replaced by Pan-Arabism in the 1950s, but Pan-Arabism declined by the mid-1970s[6][7]
Territorial nationalism in North America

Just like in Western Europe national identity tends to be more based on where a person is born than in North America.[3]

This is what I promote, as it is free from dependence on overt religious, ethnic or linguistic affinity and it is more logical to our current Westphalian nation states:

Westphalian sovereignty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Westphalian sovereignty is the concept of nation-state sovereignty based on two things: territoriality and the absence of a role for external agents in domestic structures.
Scholars of international relations have identified the modern, Western originated, international system of states, multinational corporations, and organizations, as having begun at the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.[1] Both the basis and the conclusion of this view have been attacked by somerevisionist academics and politicians, with revisionists questioning the significance of the Peace, and some commentators and politicians attacking the Westphalian system of sovereign nation-states.

BNP’s Bangladeshi nationalism is closest to the above and definitely much closer to this ideal than the anachronism of Bengali Nationalism that was geopolitical tool used by India. I would suggest more movement towards this goal of territorial nationalism for all states avoiding linguistic, religious or ethnic versions of nationalism, as much as practically possible.

Territorial nationalism also can be smoothly extended with expansion of territory of evolving supra national state systems, such as the Regional Unions like EU or a future ASEAN union, Eurasian Union, African Union, UNASUR, GCC union, etc.

And to solve our geopolitical vulnerability and weakness, I suggest that Bangladesh should look towards ASEAN observership, as is already the national policy of Bangladesh govt. and eventually become a part of ASEAN without depending on land connection via Myanmar, rather using sea-links, as many nations in ASEAN are island nations and their only connection to ASEAN mainland is via sea. Hopefully in the future we can create a new ASEAN territorial nationalism and promote it. For the people of North East states, if they can keep the demographic invasion in check from “mainland” India, they may hope to become a part of this ASEAN in a peaceful separation, but if they become a minority in their own land because of demographic invasion, then that possibility will not arise. But at least with development of ASEAN and Bangladesh in it, North East states will greatly benefit from its close proximity with ASEAN surrounded by ASEAN from almost all 4 sides, except for the 14 mile wide connection to mainland India via Siliguri corridor. Essentially once Bangladesh joins ASEAN, North East States will become an island enclave nation within ASEAN union community territory and its economy and culture will gradually more and more interconnected with greater ASEAN community economy and culture.

My conclusive words on this issue is that people should understand geopolitics and should have clear conception about geopolitical ideologies such as different forms of nationalism. Only when people clearly understand the implications of these -isms and ideologies can they choose and promote certain nationalisms or any other -isms for practical and pragmatic future benefit of their group of people. Ideas that harm the geopolitical interest of a people, should be avoided at all cost. Islamic extremism is one such toxic idea for example.

Just like for Bangladesh I support our country to become ASEAN member, I support other nations to consider promoting their own regional unions and then promote a territorial nationalism for the larger regional union rather than being stuck with older narrower idea of nationalism of a smaller territory. That will be beneficial for all nations on the globe. Nations and people are what we make of them. When a child is born, the baby has a clean slate, it is up to us how we program the minds of future generations for the greater benefit of mankind.

 

[Vinod2070]

Selective memory, selective facts and fantastic dreams.

Not to mention ignorance of geography. South East Asia doesn't include South Asia and the "Japanese empire" is not coming back.

Anyway, not sure Japanese and Koreans even know of BD, let alone have a favorable opinion.

Negative views of Muslims were also strong in several Asian countries: Half or more of the Japanese, Indians, Chinese and South Koreans surveyed said they had negative impressions of Muslims.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/17/world/europe/17iht-poll.4.16247639.html

Interesting that we are not seeing much emphasis on the Islamic Ummah here.

Perhaps, the real life experience has helped for once.

 

[Killuminati]

Selective memory, selective facts and fantastic dreams.

Yes, this is the great dream of zionists that believes that they are the chosen people by God and that the whole world must serve their nation only. This great dream you call is based on racism. They already prepared the minds of humanbeing for this, i dont know what will happen after 100 years if guys like you stay stupid like this.

We must organize ourselves agains such a world government crime. A government where the people are suppressed and mindcontrolled. I will not give my mind and my spirit to them. I WILL STAY INDEPENDENT!!!

DONT SERVE THESE SATANIC PEOPLE!!!

 

[kalu_miah]

Why UNITE & SHARE is more important than DIVIDE & RULE

I have sort of touched on this issue before, I will explain this issue again with some detail, as it relates to ongoing discussions on some world affairs. I have noticed an interesting phenomenon in the South China Sea maritime conflict. India is supporting ASEAN states like Vietnam and Philippines in its dispute with China. And Bangladesh as an aspiring ASEAN member, if it wants to express solidarity with other ASEAN states it has to support future fellow states like Vietnam and Philippines, against its own friendly nation China and aligning its interest with ASEAN as well as India.

But when the US or Japan is expressing support towards ASEAN states, Bangladesh has no problem in those situations, as both US and Japan are friendly nations to Bangladesh.

What these examples show is that sometimes in certain regional situations a country’s interest may align with the interest of its own arch enemy or otherwise hostile nation. A funny situation but reality nonetheless. A temporary friend of a permanent friend is a temporary friend? Probably not, but at least it shows the necessity to accept the fact that one’s friend can have one’s enemy as a friend, under certain circumstances.

The main factor that contributes to this situation is the current fragmented status of the regional union in question. As long as the regional union has not integrated enough and the foreign policy has not been centralized and unified, these kind of contradictions will remain, as it happens in today’s EU and ASEAN, but in case of EU this difference is going down slowly as European Parliament takes over the functions of individual national govts. ASEAN is not at that stage yet, so its foreign policy differences become more acute, for example, the SCS dispute case divides ASEAN nations into pro and anti China groups.

The other interesting thing I noticed is that some Asian nations in Asia prefer their Western protector or balancer such as the US and are not afraid to antagonize fellow Asian powers such as China. While this is ok, considering the current situation, my feeling is that it is better for all Asians to help fellow Asians attain a better status than far away USA or EU, regardless of current conflicts and disagreements. In politics or international politics or geopolitics, there is no permanent friends, there is only permanent national interest. I would extend this concept from national to regional and even to continental. So I would say that in inter-regional geopolitics there is no permanent friends, only permanent regional interest. If some nations are members or potential new members of a certain regional union, then those nations are destined to be permanent friends. And for Inter-continental geopolitics, regional unions or states within a continent should naturally align against a far away nation from another continent and should favor a fellow regional player from the same continent instead.

So keeping the above in mind, although the US is used as a balancer, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam or Philippines should not burn their bridges with China and Bangladesh also should not burn its bridges with India. After all eventually entire Asian landmass may become parts of a giant economic union even if there are separate political entities, such as China, India, ASEAN+, Eurasia+, GCC+ etc. The collective goal of all these states should be to reduce influence of outside powers, such as US or EU and rely on each other and promote regional unity and harmony rather than conflicts, which is bad for the region and greater humanity as well.

Unfortunately some far away great powers, as their geopolitical strategy, have in the past and will in the future, try to subvert this unity and harmony and create dissension, so it can remain supreme in global stage. The challenge for China, India, ASEAN+, Eurasia+ and GCC+ is to avoid conflict among themselves in the Eurasian land mass, so they can continue to integrate their economies in their regional unions and also continent wide, improve their human resources and improve on their green sustainable economy. To attain a stable order in Asian continent and to reduce influence of external powers, it will become increasingly clear that nations have to think more about regionalism and regional unions to offset the size imbalance that currently exists between very large states like China or India and other smaller Asian states. After achieving some measure of stability with the set up of these unions, the next step will be the economic integration of all of Asia leveraging this stability, which will truly usher in an Asian dominance in world affairs for the foreseeable future.

As mentioned in the Eurasia+ thread, Russian geopolitics due to its geographic location and ethno-religious make up, has several dilemma. Ethnic Russians and related Ukrainians and Belorussians are essentially European people. But because of their history with Mongol Khanate Golden Horde, they extended their domains to not only in vast Siberia but also further South in Central Asia. If they join EU they would become subservient to Germany, France and England which is distasteful for Russians who have gotten used to their position as the dominant ethnic group in Romanov/Russian empire for several centuries. So because of this geographic expanse they find themselves spread from Eastern Europe to Asia all the way to pacific coast. They have ruled over Siberian shamanists who are also nominally followers of Tibetan Lama Buddhism and Central Asian Muslims. In caucasus region they have Chechen and several other Muslim ethnic groups and in Ukraine and nearby Russian land, they have Tatar Muslims. During Russian empire they have had interesting relations with Muslims. Russian empire motto was:

S nami Bog!
Съ нами Богъ!
"God is with us!"

So, during Russian empire the state have patronized Islam for Muslims and Russian Orthodox Christianity for Christians and had few restriction on religion, but that changed with Bolshevik revolution. Now Russian federation is no more the former God-less atheist empire, religion is in fashion again. Many people are trying to go back to their old ancestral religion.

The question remains, whether they will utilize their geographic position, most of which is in Asia and become an Asian benevolent hegemon and lead Eurasian Union (former Soviet countries), as well as a Eurasia+, that includes countries further south, such as Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Mongolia. But this would mean that they may have to become one with a huge diverse population of Muslims and become a minority Christian people within this regional union, risking marginalization, although prospects of Muslims surpassing human development in comparison with Russians is still far off. The alternative of course is to go back to their European roots and join the EU, thus vastly expanding EU energy and other resources and “lebensraum”. With global warming some parts of Siberia may eventually open up to agriculture, so this will be a great resource as well.

For Russia, it may not be time yet to make a choice, it may sit on the fence for some more decades before making a decision about its future. As long as it stays undecided, it will be a source of weapons technology for countries like India which do not have a developed industrial base. But once it makes up its mind, then whether it joins EU or the Muslims down south, it will get increasingly entangled with geopolitics of those regions and may no longer need to or be in a position to supply weapons to whoever needs it, because of its large captive market within that region. This will be specially true if it decides to join the Muslims, and less so if it decides to join EU.

For US, EU and the West in general, it will be a matter of great relief if Russia move towards EU and a sort of setback if Russia decides to join the Muslims. For Muslims also it will be a matter of great luck, if Russia with its vast land and resources decide to join the Muslim region down south, although religious difference may remain a point of future concern for both, which is not the case for Christian Russians with EU.

The other consequence of this Russian decision will be that either EU will become closer to and more integrated with Asia, in case Russia joins EU. In case of Russia not joining EU, EU will remain far away in the periphery of Eurasian land mass.

But it is my projection, according to the theories/hypothesis I have mentioned in this thread (Historical Continuity and Large Systems), no country in the world, other than China or India, will have the luxury to wait too long and not take part in some regional union, to enhance its economic competitiveness as well as strategic security.

Just some random thoughts.

 

[Battle of Bach Dang River]

Why UNITE & SHARE is more important than DIVIDE & RULE

I have sort of touched on this issue before, I will explain this issue again with some detail, as it relates to ongoing discussions on some world affairs. I have noticed an interesting phenomenon in the South China Sea maritime conflict. India is supporting ASEAN states like Vietnam and Philippines in its dispute with China. And Bangladesh as an aspiring ASEAN member, if it wants to express solidarity with other ASEAN states it has to support future fellow states like Vietnam and Philippines, against its own friendly nation China and aligning its interest with ASEAN as well as India.

But when the US or Japan is expressing support towards ASEAN states, Bangladesh has no problem in those situations, as both US and Japan are friendly nations to Bangladesh.

What these examples show is that sometimes in certain regional situations a country’s interest may align with the interest of its own arch enemy or otherwise hostile nation. A funny situation but reality nonetheless. A temporary friend of a permanent friend is a temporary friend? Probably not, but at least it shows the necessity to accept the fact that one’s friend can have one’s enemy as a friend, under certain circumstances.

The main factor that contributes to this situation is the current fragmented status of the regional union in question. As long as the regional union has not integrated enough and the foreign policy has not been centralized and unified, these kind of contradictions will remain, as it happens in today’s EU and ASEAN, but in case of EU this difference is going down slowly as European Parliament takes over the functions of individual national govts. ASEAN is not at that stage yet, so its foreign policy differences become more acute, for example, the SCS dispute case divides ASEAN nations into pro and anti China groups.

The other interesting thing I noticed is that some Asian nations in Asia prefer their Western protector or balancer such as the US and are not afraid to antagonize fellow Asian powers such as China. While this is ok, considering the current situation, my feeling is that it is better for all Asians to help fellow Asians attain a better status than far away USA or EU, regardless of current conflicts and disagreements. In politics or international politics or geopolitics, there is no permanent friends, there is only permanent national interest. I would extend this concept from national to regional and even to continental. So I would say that in inter-regional geopolitics there is no permanent friends, only permanent regional interest. If some nations are members or potential new members of a certain regional union, then those nations are destined to be permanent friends. And for Inter-continental geopolitics, regional unions or states within a continent should naturally align against a far away nation from another continent and should favor a fellow regional player from the same continent instead.

So keeping the above in mind, although the US is used as a balancer, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam or Philippines should not burn their bridges with China and Bangladesh also should not burn its bridges with India. After all eventually entire Asian landmass may become parts of a giant economic union even if there are separate political entities, such as China, India, ASEAN+, Eurasia+, GCC+ etc. The collective goal of all these states should be to reduce influence of outside powers, such as US or EU and rely on each other and promote regional unity and harmony rather than conflicts, which is bad for the region and greater humanity as well.

Unfortunately some far away great powers, as their geopolitical strategy, have in the past and will in the future, try to subvert this unity and harmony and create dissension, so it can remain supreme in global stage. The challenge for China, India, ASEAN+, Eurasia+ and GCC+ is to avoid conflict among themselves in the Eurasian land mass, so they can continue to integrate their economies in their regional unions and also continent wide, improve their human resources and improve on their green sustainable economy. To attain a stable order in Asian continent and to reduce influence of external powers, it will become increasingly clear that nations have to think more about regionalism and regional unions to offset the size imbalance that currently exists between very large states like China or India and other smaller Asian states. After achieving some measure of stability with the set up of these unions, the next step will be the economic integration of all of Asia leveraging this stability, which will truly usher in an Asian dominance in world affairs for the foreseeable future.

As mentioned in the Eurasia+ thread, Russian geopolitics due to its geographic location and ethno-religious make up, has several dilemma. Ethnic Russians and related Ukrainians and Belorussians are essentially European people. But because of their history with Mongol Khanate Golden Horde, they extended their domains to not only in vast Siberia but also further South in Central Asia. If they join EU they would become subservient to Germany, France and England which is distasteful for Russians who have gotten used to their position as the dominant ethnic group in Romanov/Russian empire for several centuries. So because of this geographic expanse they find themselves spread from Eastern Europe to Asia all the way to pacific coast. They have ruled over Siberian shamanists who are also nominally followers of Tibetan Lama Buddhism and Central Asian Muslims. In caucasus region they have Chechen and several other Muslim ethnic groups and in Ukraine and nearby Russian land, they have Tatar Muslims. During Russian empire they have had interesting relations with Muslims. Russian empire motto was:

S nami Bog!
Съ нами Богъ!
"God is with us!"

So, during Russian empire the state have patronized Islam for Muslims and Russian Orthodox Christianity for Christians and had few restriction on religion, but that changed with Bolshevik revolution. Now Russian federation is no more the former God-less atheist empire, religion is in fashion again. Many people are trying to go back to their old ancestral religion.

The question remains, whether they will utilize their geographic position, most of which is in Asia and become an Asian benevolent hegemon and lead Eurasian Union (former Soviet countries), as well as a Eurasia+, that includes countries further south, such as Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Mongolia. But this would mean that they may have to become one with a huge diverse population of Muslims and become a minority Christian people within this regional union, risking marginalization, although prospects of Muslims surpassing human development in comparison with Russians is still far off. The alternative of course is to go back to their European roots and join the EU, thus vastly expanding EU energy and other resources and “lebensraum”. With global warming some parts of Siberia may eventually open up to agriculture, so this will be a great resource as well.

For Russia, it may not be time yet to make a choice, it may sit on the fence for some more decades before making a decision about its future. As long as it stays undecided, it will be a source of weapons technology for countries like India which do not have a developed industrial base. But once it makes up its mind, then whether it joins EU or the Muslims down south, it will get increasingly entangled with geopolitics of those regions and may no longer need to or be in a position to supply weapons to whoever needs it, because of its large captive market within that region. This will be specially true if it decides to join the Muslims, and less so if it decides to join EU.

For US, EU and the West in general, it will be a matter of great relief if Russia move towards EU and a sort of setback if Russia decides to join the Muslims. For Muslims also it will be a matter of great luck, if Russia with its vast land and resources decide to join the Muslim region down south, although religious difference may remain a point of future concern for both, which is not the case for Christian Russians with EU.

The other consequence of this Russian decision will be that either EU will become closer to and more integrated with Asia, in case Russia joins EU. In case of Russia not joining EU, EU will remain far away in the periphery of Eurasian land mass.

But it is my projection, according to the theories/hypothesis I have mentioned in this thread (Historical Continuity and Large Systems), no country in the world, other than China or India, will have the luxury to wait too long and not take part in some regional union, to enhance its economic competitiveness as well as strategic security.

Just some random thoughts.

My Friend, I dont present seamlessly, only offer some thoughts, hope you understand my point.

- The benefit of each country is always first before they can consider other things.

- Disputes over territory is always a disease of the countries in the same region but rarely between countries in different regions. Territorial disputes is always very difficult compromise between countries.

- Today, the dissenting countries usually struggle while cooperating each other, but rarely completely severed ties with each other, except when war broke out.

- In the developing regions, countries often mutual competitors, while cooperation among developed country - developing country typically complement each other. Of course that does not contradict the rest cooperation.

- In fact the countries tends to self-contained in one region often poorer than the countries with global cooperation.

- Balance power not to lead to war, on the contrary it avoids war.

..........

 

[kalu_miah]

My Friend, I dont present seamlessly, only offer some thoughts, hope you understand my point.

- The benefit of each country is always first before they can consider other things.
- Disputes over territory is always a disease of the countries in the same region but rarely between countries in different regions. Territorial disputes is always very difficult compromise between countries.
- Today, the dissenting countries usually struggle while cooperating each other, but rarely completely severed ties with each other, except when war broke out.
- In the developing regions, countries often mutual competitors, while cooperation among developed country - developing country typically complement each other. Of course that does not contradict the rest cooperation.
- In fact the countries tends to self-contained in one region often poorer than the countries with global cooperation.
- Balance power not to lead to war, on the contrary it avoids war.

..........

Profound and true words spoken my dear friend. Life and dealings of nations are very different than those of us mere human beings. Agree with all of above. From the SCS affair I think the following become crystal clear:

1. ASEAN since it does not have a single country with mature industrial base, it is fundamentally a weak entity that cannot stand on its own 2 legs, like any table with 2 legs
2. Only Japan or Korea or both (ASEAN+) can provide 3rd or 4th legs of the table, so ASEAN+ can stand on its own
3. Unless the above happens, Overseas Chinese and Singapore will continue to hold the highest influence in ASEAN despite their small number 30 million (5% of 600 million) and ASEAN will remain a Chinese vassal entity

Remaining a Chinese vassal entity may not be bad for the time being. While we ponder upon and get used to this reality, ASEAN diplomats and ambassadors should visit Japanese strategists and see if No. 2 above have any possibility. The key is in Japan's hand. If Japan fails to act, then Korea can be tried, but I do not have high hopes as it is much smaller and more under US control than Japan, because the main political party (Grand National Party, GNP, currently in power) is close to Christians, Chaebols, the Army and the US and they control most of the media and newspapers. The US will not want to let go of Japan or South Korea. But if Japan decides, they can move without consent of the US.

 

[Battle of Bach Dang River]

Profound and true words spoken my dear friend. Life and dealings of nations are very different than those of us mere human beings. Agree with all of above. From the SCS affair I think the following become crystal clear:

1. ASEAN since it does not have a single country with mature industrial base, it is fundamentally a weak entity that cannot stand on its own 2 legs, like any table with 2 legs
2. Only Japan or Korea or both (ASEAN+) can provide 3rd or 4th legs of the table, so ASEAN+ can stand on its own
3. Unless the above happens, Overseas Chinese and Singapore will continue to hold the highest influence in ASEAN despite their small number 30 million (5% of 600 million) and ASEAN will remain a Chinese vassal entity

Remaining a Chinese vassal entity may not be bad for the time being. While we ponder upon and get used to this reality, ASEAN diplomats and ambassadors should visit Japanese strategists and see if No. 2 above have any possibility. The key is in Japan's hand. If Japan fails to act, then Korea can be tried, but I do not have high hopes as it is much smaller and more under US control than Japan, because the main political party (Grand National Party, GNP, currently in power) is close to Christians, Chaebols, the Army and the US and they control most of the media and newspapers. The US will not want to let go of Japan or South Korea. But if Japan decides, they can move without consent of the US.

My dear,
I said before that China will seek to cause disunity and break the target closer links of Asean. So I'm not surprised with the issue occurred in Phnom Penh recently.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/180755-geopolitics-asean-region.html#post2954375

ASEAN operates on consensus, so there is no difference influence caused by richest countries as Singapore or poorest countries like Cambodia. The problem is the poor countries are more likely to be exploited by external powers.

I dont know now the relationship between Japan or Korea with each ASEAN country is what levels, but the relationship between the two countries with Vietnam now very close and trusted, especially the relations of Vietnam - Japan. We support for closer relations between ASEAN and Japan, South Korea.

When the world was in the period of misty, we had to fight against China to get out of "vassal state". Currently in the civilized world, there is no reason why we accepted back to a "vassal" of China. And I think most of the other ASEAN countries also think so. They do not want to break relations with China because of their mutual benefits. That is understandable and acceptable.

However, should never expect that China will support the solidarity ASEAN to unify. It was a huge mistake.

 

[kalu_miah]

Cross posted from another thread:

You may want to look at this hour long video in this post by Chinese Century:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/197331-when-china-rules-world-6.html#post3219322

Here is the link to the video:
Breaking the code of history
Breaking the Code of History

I would urge all PDF members to see this video in full. I think this is one of the best and interesting studies of history, present and future I have seen and it kind of matches with many of my own analysis of past and predictions for future.

David Murrin was talking about a 500 year European hegemony and how it is coming to an end with new 500 year Asian hegemony that is going to start in just 10-15 years and will take shape by 2025.

Like him I have discussed the critical importance of Russian choice, in world geopolitics. Russia may either join EU or it may remain with Asians and this choice will have tremendous implications for the future of the world. Since he is an European, he prefers to see Russia to go with EU, but for Asia, it will be better to have Russia with Asia.

He has discussed the importance of trying to reduce China's growth rate to keep China in check, so that the coming shift from US to China as the worlds no. 1 economic and military power, is delayed resulting in a more smooth transition process. In my world order thread, I have also discussed how the US have made strategic blunders by engaging with China while Nixon was president and how Kissinger was instrumental in bringing China out from isolation and giving Western market access to Chinese products.

About how the world works between core and periphery countries, Wallerstein's world system theory is a good starting point:
World-systems theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now a few words about David Murrin. Regardless of his wonderful and insightful vision, he seems like a very murky character involved in African land grab and commodity speculation, using his Emergent Asset Management Limited:
OpEdNews - Article: Speculating with our Food
https://www.emergentasset.com/

Corporatizing the Global Food Supply

A UK company started in 1997 called Emergent Asset Management claims to be the largest speculative fund investing in African industrial agriculture. See http://media.oaklandinstitute.org/sites/oaklandinstitute.org/files/OI_EAM_Brief_1.pdf. It uses private equity to take control of large tracts of African farm land for transformation into factory farms. Their prospectus attracts investors by predicting a armed conflict between the West and China will trigger mass food shortages -- accompanied by price spikes that guarantee a handsome return to investors. Emergent's founders, Susan Payne and David Murrin are former high level traders for Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan -- well-known as the architects of food derivative speculation. See http://www.wdm.org.uk/sites/default/files/hunger lottery report_6.10.pdf

Payne joined JP Morgan in 1986 and moved to Goldman Sachs International in 1993 as an Executive Director and Head of Sales and Trading. In the latter role, she was responsible for developing Goldman Sachs' emerging markets debt business in Europe. David Murrin joined JP Morgan 1986, where he traded (i.e. speculated) on the major bond, interest rate, bullion, foreign exchange and equity markets.

Emergent's direct control of large amounts of agricultural land -- combined with its ability to attract investors through its equity fund -- puts unprecedented control of the global food supply in private hands. It does so by creating a new type of vertical integration, in which a single company controls vast amounts of land, food production and processing -- while simultaneously inflating global food prices due to the speculative nature of the fund. Click here to see the video Emergent uses in their pitch to investors: Emergent video | oaklandinstitute.org

Here is a person who is more like an alter ego to corporate hacks like David Murrin and more of the hero's for tomorrows sustainable agriculture and the new geopolitics that support this kind of sustainable economic practices:
The Most Revolutionary Act

In brief, no country exists in vacuum, the world is intricately balanced with the varying powers of many nations of the planet. A change in one place automatically brings in a systemic change.

 

[LetsGetRowdy]

China will be the hegemon of Asia.
Russia will be the hegemon of Europe.
USA will be the hegemon of America.

This is how the new world order will look like.