Life Term for Social Activist Vinayak Sen

The voices against the life term awarded to a human rights activist, Vinayak Sen, by a Chhattisgarh court are multiplying by the day. It is a reflection on the weakening of the judiciary, as the tradition of not speaking one's mind on a decision and ruling of the court is weakening it. Intellectuals as well as the common man have begun to feel that if a ruling does not come up to the basic needs of justice and fails to pass the criteria of fairness, one should raise one's voice against such a ruling and decision.

Allegation Against Sen
Vinayak Sen was arrested on the allegation of sedition and waging war against the state in 2007. He has been active in the Naxal infested areas in Chhattisgarh. While arresting him, the police alleged that he has been patronizing, harboring and helping Maoists. He was further accused of acting as an intermediary between a Maoist leader and a businessman.

A Chhattisgarh court awarded him life imprisonment for helping Maoists and waging a war against the state. Ever since he was awarded the punishment, criticism continues at both the national and international levels against it. After criticism by important persons in the United States and the Amnesty International, a human rights organization, voices began to be stronger against the decision of the court.

The statement made by former chief justice of the Delhi High Court, Justice Rajinder Sachar, assumes greater significance in this regard. He maintains that there can be no other such decision that lacks total sagacity. I feel ashamed, after the pronouncement of the ridiculous verdict, that I have been associated with the judiciary? In addition to justice Sachar, others, including Romila Thapar, Prabhat Patnaik, Ashok Mitra, and Mushirul Hasan, have demanded Sen's release. A leading social worker, Swami Agnivesh, has gone on a dharna (sit-in protest) at the Jantar Mantar, against the pronouncement of the court verdict against Vinayak Sen.

Criticism Against Ruling
All these reactions go to prove that the tendency of testing a court verdict by the people is on the rise. Justice Sachar has specifically reacted to it sharply. The criticism that he has made against the ruling of a Chhattisgarh court amounts to a sarcastic comment on unjudicial and nonsagacious mentality, a mentality that remains confined to the surface and lacks understanding of the true spirit of law to reach a decision. It also reflects lack of spirit of providing true justice to an accused. Understanding the true spirit of law, while hearing and considering such cases is imperative. The objective of the judiciary is not just to respect laws and regulations, but to provide justice in the true sense.

As far as the case of Vinayak Sen is concerned, the allegations against him, firstly, are very weak and should one take all these allegations for granted that Vinayak had indeed worked as an intermediary between Maoists and a business man and that he did carry the message of the Naxalite ideologue, Narayan Sanyal to fellow Maoists, the crime is not such a serious one that he should be awarded life imprisonment by the court.

Faith in Judiciary
In a country where those responsible for the gas leak in Bhopal, which killed thousands of people, get the term of imprisonment for only two years each, that too after prolonged hearing spanning over twenty five years, how it is justified that a person accused of carrying a message to Maoists be awarded such a stringent punishment to languish behind the bars for his entire life?Such a verdict, naturally, raises eyebrows against the judiciary. That is why Justice Sachar is feeling ashamed for his association with such a judiciary. His remarks are not mere activism or a strong reaction. Instead, it is the expression of the pain that a person who loves justice, feels.

It is an expression of sympathy for those who fell victim to the strong handedness of law, and is a reminder to those at the helm of the affairs, to think and act wisely. It calls upon those in power to strive seriously to bring about a change in such a scenario before the people lose faith in the judiciary.

Tension Rises in Korean Peninsula

The South Korean military has recently conducted a live-fire drill on Yeonpyeong Island in the Yellow Sea, several kilometers from North Korea. The reclusive state did not respond militarily, despite initial concern that its possible retaliation could cause a new explosion in the tinderbox region. For now, the crisis appears to have passed.

However, there is no assurance North Korea will stop its acts of armed provocation against the South. Future prospects for the Korean Peninsula still look uncertain. Nations around the world, including Japan, cannot afford to let their guard down regarding that regime.

About a month ago, the North Korean military launched an artillery attack on Yeonpyeong, killing four South Koreans, including two civilians. Pyongyang defended its action, insisting the shelling was a response to what it said was a South Korean artillery strike on North Korean territorial waters.

The two Koreas still disagree over the military demarcation lines drawn by each nation in the waters near the frontline island, a situation that has given rise to frequent armed skirmishes between them.South Korea's latest firing exercise was the continuation of military activity that it had been forced to suspend because of the North's artillery attack last month. In explaining why it did not respond to the live-fire drill, the North's Supreme Command of the Korean People's Army said it 'did not feel the need to retaliate against every despicable military provocation.

Did the statement mean no artillery shell fired from the island reached North Korean waters? Was Pyongyang influenced by Seoul's avowed readiness to take strong action -- even conduct an air raid--if North Korea struck the South during the firing exercise?

Examine Actual Motives

Whatever the case, the true aim of any North Korean action must be calmly analyzed. That country's recent conduct appeared to be a calculated attempt to upset South Korea. The unpredictable nation first made a military provocation, and then issued a threat that proved to be an unloaded gun.

Bill Richardson--a former US ambassador to the United Nations and a diplomatic troubleshooter--has said Pyongyang agreed to allow inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect its uranium enrichment facilities. He also quoted Pyongyang as saying it would start negotiations over the sale of unspent plutonium fuel rods that could be used to build nuclear bombs.

Furthermore, the North has agreed to implement confidence-building measures aimed at averting military conflicts in the Yellow Sea. If North Korea honors these pledges, it would appear to mean that country had taken concrete steps to demonstrate a genuine commitment to denuclearization. Japan and other participants in the six-party talks over the North's nuclear weapons program have demanded such measures be implemented in exchange for returning to the negotiation table.Northern Promises UnreliableHowever, it should be remembered that Pyongyang has repeatedly broken its promises, reducing those pledges to waste paper. Given this, the details of the latest accord need to be closely examined while also trying to determine the true motive behind North Korea's agreement to the aforementioned measures.

The UN Security Council had to abandon efforts to issue a statement on the increasing tensions on the peninsula caused by North Korea's shelling. This was because China opposed wording the statement in a manner that denounced the North for its artillery assault on the South, despite most council members -- including Japan and the United States -- demanding the use of such language.As circumstances stand today, no progress can be expected in resolving the North Korean problem even if the six-nation talks are restarted.Japan, the United States and South Korea should further increase their cooperation in dealing with the North -- through both dialogue and deterrence.

Another important task for Japan will be to reconsider the Guidelines for Japan-US Defense Cooperation in preparation for any military contingency.

Inter-Korean Trade Falls Sharply
Inter-Korean trade has fallen about 30 percent this year, largely affected by South Korea's move to cut almost all business relations with North Korea after the North sank one of its naval ships in a torpedo attack in March. According to data provided by the Korea Customs Service (KCS), trade between the two Koreas amounted to $464 million during the January-November period, down from $649 million recorded a year earlier.

In May, a multinational team of investigators released a report saying that North Korea torpedoed the South Korean warship on March 26 near their disputed western maritime border, killing 46 sailors. The North has denied any involvement.In response, the Seoul government suspended almost all business relations with Pyongyang on May 24 with the exception of the industrial complex in the border town of Kaesong, where South Korean firms are doing business in cooperation with workers from the North.

South Korea's exports to the North came to $130 million during the cited period, down 28 percent a year earlier, while imports dropped 29 percent on-year to $334 million. Despite such a sharp shrinkage, trade through the Kaesong industrial complex, tallied in a separate statistic, remained robust. Trade amounted to $1.31 billion during the 11-month period, up 62 percent from a year earlier.

Seoul Should Regain Initiative in Fight and Talk

After a month of live-fire artillery drills and life-taking real attacks, the West Sea has calmed down -- for now. But the brief relief among South Koreans has quickly been replaced by a constant sense of apprehension about North Korea's next provocations.

The pseudo-peace cannot and should not last long. Seoul must relieve this uneasy calmness through its own initiatives.As some North Korea experts predicted, the reclusive regime returned to the dialogue phase of its two-track diplomacy just now. It was a vintage Pyongyang move when it proposed UN monitors' inspection and the sale of spent nuclear fuel rods following a deadly shelling on a populated island.

Seoul is right to doubt the sincerity of the North Korean proposal. Unless the communist regime allows the UN officials to inspect its uranium-enrichment facilities, the visit would end up as much ado about nothing. Nor has the belated fuel sale much meaning for the same reason.But these are no reasons for the Lee Myung-bak administration to spurn them as just political gestures, but to seize them as opportunities for a diplomatic counterattack.

Seoul, instead of adhering to the five preconditions it has set for resuming the six-party talks, will need to be bolder by accepting the dialogue offer and including the inspection of uranium power plants in inspection targets, to send the ball back to the North's court.The key lies in Seoul returning to the center of the diplomatic stage instead of shying away from it and only calling for the change in Pyongyang's attitude.

However, South Korea has maintained its own version of the 'strategic patience'-- waiting for either the North's voluntary denuclearization or implosion -- Pyongyang has gone even more wayward to insult Seoul with unprovoked violence, while the two Northern partners of China and Russia have come to admonish the South on self-restraint, unreasonably treating the villain and victim as the same. There is no reason whatsoever for South Korea to endure this insult and humiliation by remaining as a passive player.

The time has long passed for the South to drastically enhance both its defense and diplomatic capabilities. In any all-out war, the South is certain to win over the North, as there is more than 40 times' the gap in the economic powers of two Koreas. But an eventual reunification of the Korean Peninsula should be through cooperation and reconciliation, not through violence and war.

To persuade China and Russia that the Koreas' reunification under Seoul's control will not be harmful to them, the South needs a far more active and skillful diplomacy with the two northern powers. And such efforts should begin now by more flexibly responding to their proposals for regional dialogue. Seoul should of course maintain and even enhance military alliances with the United States and Japan, but that should be no reason to alienate Russia and China at least diplomatically.

Russian President Visits India

After the successful back-to-back visit to India by US President Barack Obama and Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's visit can be termed significant in view of the fact that the two countries have renewed their relations in the light of the global situation. India has specifically conveyed to Russia that its increasing closeness with the United States and China would, in no way hamper or affect India-Russia relations. India further conveyed that it is seriously determined to strengthen and expand their mutual relations.

Important and Significant Agreements
During the Russian president's visit, several important and significant agreements were inked between the two countries. These agreements reflect the deep desire to further strengthen the relations. The statement made by the Russian president on terrorism endorses the Indian stand on the menace and gives a hint of closer ties on this particular issue.

The two countries have set a target to increase bilateral trade up to $20 billion by 2015. It is the manifestation of Russia's acknowledgement that India is a fast emerging economy in the world. It, further, reveals Russia's desire to maintain closer cooperation with India in the economic sector. The two countries have recognized the need of a more inclusive and expansive agreement to carry their economic ties to new heights. The useful discussions the two leaders had on investment in the private sector promise better outcome and greater possibilities in the near future.

Strategic Partnership
The way the two countries have recognized that cooperation in the nuclear energy sector is the significant part of a strategic partnership, reveals that despite having entered into a civil nuclear deal with the United States, India attaches great significance to its trusted and old friend in this sector. India, in fact, wants to keep all options open as far as nuclear energy is concerned and is viewing the nuclear sector as greatly significant in renewing old relations with Russia. Russian expertise in the nuclear sector is globally acknowledged. Though some doubts and apprehensions were being cast prior to the visit by the Russian president but it has become absolutely clear after his visit that the two countries would progress in the field of nuclear cooperation as well.

During Medvedev's visit, India and Russia signed 30 agreements, which include, defense, nuclear cooperation, technology, strengthening diplomatic relations and improved relations in trade and commerce. In view of the increasing defense and security needs of India, an agreement on fighter planes, worth over $30 billion, was also signed. It makes it abundantly clear that Russia continues to be an important and trusted ally of India in the field of defense. The two have also expressed unanimity on development and research on peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

UN Role Against Terrorist
The two countries have also agreed to simplify the procedures for grant of visas so as to further cement their diplomatic relations and bringing the peoples of the two countries closer. Yet another significant agreement was reached on hydrocarbons, pharmaceuticals and gas under which both intend to extend their cooperation in these fields. Though the Russian president did not comment on the issue of India's inclusion in the UN Security Council, Russia had already extended support to India on the issue.

The harsh stand that the Russian president has adopted against terrorism in indeed sweet to ears of Indian leadership. The most significant aspect of it is that the Russian president clearly gave an indication to make UN role against terrorist organizations more effective, imposing stringent sanctions and bans by international organization on terrorist outfits. He even stressed the need of simplifying international procedure on the issue of extradition.

In short, the visit by the Russian president can be easily called an attempt to give a new direction to the mutual friendship, and a positive progress in their relations.

Wise, Brave Initiative of Congress

Communalism, corruption, terrorism and Naxalite (Maoist) violence are issues, which have not only hampered development and prosperity but have also vitiated national integration and unity. A country can be prosperous after passing through the process of development and burning issues like unemployment, poverty and backwardness can be solved when there is peace and fraternity and national unity. We can, in simple terms, call it our utter misfortune that despite the best efforts of the government some corrupt, vested interests and communal elements, are taking advantage of the weaknesses of laws and privileges of democratic rights, and spreading the venom of communalism in the country, which led to anarchy, civil war and disintegration.

Growing Problems
The country, at present, is passing though difficult times. New scandals, corruption, spreading violence and terrorism in the name of religion are coming to light almost every day. All this has not only brought Parliamentary system to an impasse, but has left the people are greatly frustrated and anxious. It is the bounden duty of the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government to salvage the country from this perilous situation and bring back on the right track, which has brought India a place of pride in the comity of the nations.

Since the present leadership, including the party president, Sonia Gandhi and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, is extremely worried over the current situation, it had accepted the resignations of some ministers and chief ministers. It had even issued orders to get the 2G-spectrum allotment case investigated by the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament under the supervision of the apex court. Yet, the opposition continued to insist on nothing short of a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) to investigate the issue and continued to create uproar so that Parliament could not transact any business for days.

All this demanded of the ruling party to take major measures. Going by the need of the hour, the ruling party did exactly the same thing. The party at its 83rd plenary session held at Delhi, not only sounded the bugle of war against corruption but accusing the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Sangh Parivar, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and its allies of striving to disintegrate the country, appealed to party activists and senior officials to be extra cautious about these forces and take them head on with al the might at their command. Calling for imposing a war on RSS activities, AICC General Secretary Digvijay Singh, likened it with Nazis, alleging that it is indulging in massacre of Muslims. A political resolution was also approved at the plenary, which calls upon the government to deal with religious fundamentalism with a strong hand. It also demanded that the likes and relations between the RSS and its affiliated organizations with terrorists, be investigated thoroughly. Digvijay Singh alleged that the Rath yatra (chariot journey) undertaken by a senior BJP leader, L.K. Advani, was the bases of terrorism and accused both the BJP and the RSS that they "hate Muslims as much as Nazis, hates Jews."

Referring to the argument put up by the BJP that all the Muslims are not terrorists, but all the terrorist are Muslims, the AICC general secretary said that this logic can be advanced that all Hindus are not terrorists but all those persons arrested in the case of bomb explosions at various places are activists of the RSS. On Gujarat, the party has called on the government to get exemplary punishments announced in all perpetrators of irreparable genocide during Gujarat riots in 2002. The resolution maintains that the ruling of the high court does not condone those who brought down the Babari mosque in any way. They must be punished by all means.

2G Spectrum Scandals
Congress General Secretary Rahul Gandhi alluding to the Commonwealth Games, Adarsh Housing Society and the 2G Spectrum scandals, said that Congress President Sonia Gandhi, has motivated us to fight against corruption. He added that any progress becomes meaningless sin, which the person standing at the last end of the queue does not get an opportunity to progress.

Describing the activists of the party as an important bridge between the Congress and the common man, Sonia Gandhi said that whether we are in power at the centre or in the states we must not forget that the government comes into existence through the party. Hence it devolves in the government and the officials in the government to pay greater attention to addressing the complaints of the workers. She maintained that corruption in such a menace, which is eating into the vitals of every section of our society it, is the common man who pays a heavy price for it.

Sonia Gandhi stressed that fast track courts must be set up to get the cases of corruption against politicians and bureaucrats. To bring transparency in contracts, she wanted that effective legislations and a clear line of action should be put in place. Complete security be provided to whistle-blowers in all such cases of corruption. She called on chief ministers and union ministers of the Congress to voluntarily surrender their right to allot land and. The government should fund elections.

Need of Common Man
Rahul Gandhi, general secretary of the party appealed that the party officials should give top priority to the need of the common man and added that the country's progress cannot be completed until we learn to respect the common man.

Though the top leadership of the Congress has strived to defuse the demand and the mood in the country on the demand of a JPC investigation it he case of recent corruption it remains a matter of conjecture as to how the union ministers, state ministers and others who are at the helm of affairs, succeed in implementing these directions and what stand does the opposition adopt in Parliament on the 2G Spectrum and other scandals.

Wen Jiabao's India Visit

Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh had recently said that one can change one's friends, but one cannot change one's neighbors. He had said this in relation to India's neighbors with common borders, which cannot be changed geographically. He had further said it in connection with strengthening India's relations and creation of an atmosphere of goodwill and friendship with neighboring countries.

Border Dispute
India attaches great importance to its relations with all its neighbors; yet having cordial relations with Pakistan and China, with which we have had wars also, assumes greater significance. It needs sheer grit and wisdom to have cordial relations with these neighbors.

Reports of bitter relations between India and China have appeared during recent couple of years because of the border dispute, violation of India's borders by Chinese troops, China's claim on Tawang District and other places in Arunachal Pradesh, issuance of stapled visas to residents of Indian Kashmir, refusal to issue visas to Indian Army generals and commanders posted in Jammu and Kashmir, construction of dam on Brahmaputra River, presence of Chinese workers and officers in occupied Kashmir, and supply of nuclear reactors to Pakistan. These are issues that have been souring relations at almost regular intervals. At the same time, immediate measures to get these issues addressed through mutual dialogues continued. Leaders of the two countries have also visited each other's country to augment bilateral trade and commerce, and expand their sphere.

Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao's India visit is indication of the efforts in this direction by leadership of the two countries. Fourteen rounds of talks have so far taken place between the sides to resolve all these issues. It is hoped that the two prime ministers would discuss almost all issues, including the Chinese claim on northeastern states.

Fresh Avenues of Trade
The Chinese prime minister is accompanied by a 400-strong group of Chinese traders, which reflects that the main aim of his visit is to explore fresh avenues of trade, and expand and extend existing deals. It was for this purpose that Indian and Chinese companies have inked 48 fresh agreements worth $16 billion. Leading companies of both India and China dealing in electricity, telecommunication, steel, wind energy, food and seafood sectors finalized these deals.

Wen Jiabao has asserted that he did not believe the theory that India-China relations are akin to a competition between a dragon and an elephant. Addressing a meeting of traders, he asserted that China-India relations are not based on business rivalry but on collaboration and cooperative partnership. Wen added that he takes the trade imbalance between the countries seriously, and desires that India's IT and pharmaceuticals sectors have access to Chinese markets.

Creating for Investment
Addressing a meeting of corporate organizations, the Chinese prime minister stressed the need of speeding up approval of investments and easing norms of visits by people, so that a conducive atmosphere may be created for investment. It is expected that current trade between the countries would touch $ 60 billion. During 2009, India's export to China was 2.46 percent of its total exports.

During the current year, Indian imports from China remained at 1.37 percent. China imports consist more of precious stones, jewelry, and machinery and metals, while India imports electronic goods, organic chemicals, iron and steel, coke and fertilizers. The Chinese economy is said to be worth $4.98 trillion while that of India is a mere $1.31 trillion.Meanwhile, no sooner than the Chinese prime minister reached India on a three-day visit, a report appeared that Chinese engineers have succeeded in blowing a hillock with dynamite near Arunachal Pradesh border at a place called Metok located in the autonomous area in Tibet. The hillock has been blown to dig a tunnel to join Metok with the rest of China.

It may be mentioned that Metok is not only the last end of the border, but is also the same place fro m where Brahmaputra River enters India. The Indian Government has already expressed its grave concern at the proposal of construction of a dam by China in this area. China has already spent a huge amount of $20 billion on construction of infrastructure in Tibet. India is worried over this because China can deploy its armed forces in a short time at India's borders. It is yet to be seen how India protects its interest along with strengthening its relations with this neighbor.

Restoration of Democracy in Myanmar

The multiparty democracy general elections in Myanmar have successfully been held. Voters in the secretive military-ruled nation of Myanmar cast their first ballots in two decades, as slim hopes for democratic reform faced an electoral system engineered to ensure that most power will remain in the hands of the junta and its political proxies. Approximately 29 million people contributed their votes in the elections in Myanmar on 7 November. But the question here has been raised whether it would really get democracy. Many believed that by holding the election in the country, Myanmar stepped towards change in the nation which has been under military dictatorships since 1962.

The voters have elected their representatives freely of their own accord. The election commission and subcommissions at various levels have carried out election processes in line with the election laws, rules and procedures and are announcing the number of votes got by an individual Hluttaw representative.

It is, however, learned that some political parties and foreign media are releasing their statements leveling accusations that there has been disagreement among the public over the election results due to the advance votes.

Landslide Victory for USDP
The pro-junta Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) has won Myanmar's elections after gaining 76.5 percent of seats across the three parliaments, according to the country's supreme election authority.

The results arrived 11 days after Burmese went to the polls for the first time in two decades, but come as little surprise: the USDP was the strongest contender by a stretch, and received the tacit support of the ruling junta, who choreographed election conditions that appeared to favor the party.

Trailing the USDP, which won 883 of the total 1,154 seats, is the National Unity Party (NUP), which came runner-up in the last polls. Also holding close ties to the ruling junta, the NUP won only 63 seats, the China-based People's Daily quoted the Election Commission (EC) as saying.
The next four parties all fall within the 'opposition' bracket, despite fears before the polls that any pro-democracy candidates would be altogether sidelined. However, the total amount of seats won by these parties makes up only nine percent of the total.

They are, in order: the Shan Nationalities Democratic Party (SNDP), with 57 seats; the Rakhine Nationalities Development Party (RNDP) with 35 seats, and the National Democratic Force (NDF) and All Mon Region Democracy Party (AMRDP), each with 16 seats.

The presence of three ethnic-based parties in the top five are a symbolic victory for Myanmar's long-marginalised ethnic groups, although their potential clout in a post-election will likely be very limited.

The three parliaments -- the People's Parliament, the Nationalities Parliament and the Regions and States Parliament -- are set to convene within 90 days of the vote. A quarter of the seats for each had already been reserved for the military prior to the vote.

It is the winner, the USDP, which has been the target of much of the controversy that dogged the polls. A number of parties are weighing up the possibility of making a formal complaint to the EC about the USDP, but that is both expensive and dangerous, with complainants risking jail terms if unsuccessful.

However, Western countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Australia, along with the administrations of the European Union and the United Nations, have joined in saying the junta's elections held on November 7 were neither free nor fair and had failed to meet even the lowest standards outlined by the international community for convening a national vote.

Aung San Suu Kyi Released
Myanmar's democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi, freed from seven years of house arrest, told thousands of wildly cheering supporters on Sunday that she would continue to fight for human rights and the rule of law in the military-ruled nation. It was feared that her detention could be extended in view of the pending declaration of the full results of the elections held on November 7 under the new constitution drafted by the military regime. Suu Kyi has completed 15 years of her detention by the military regime since 1989, when she returned from the United Kingdom and won Myanmar’s (then Burma) first democratic elections.

India has broken its deafening silence on Myanmar and welcomed pro-democracy icon and Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi’s release.

Relations With India
The Indian policy in Myanmar has swung from one extreme to another. Initially, India supported the pro-democracy forces led by Aung San Suu Kyi. Subsequently, alarmed by the Chinese inroads into Myanmar, India swung to the other extreme of total support to the military Junta. This meant maintaining a silence on the Junta's suppression of the pro-democracy forces and its arrest and detention of Suu Kyi and its machinations to ensure that she can never come to power.

The time has come for India to adopt a more nuanced political approach while continuing the present policy of economic support to the regime. The objective of the nuanced political approach should be to nudge the Junta to respond positively to Suu Kyi's moves for a national reconciliation and enter into a dialogue with the pro-democracy forces. Another objective should be to persuade the pro-democracy forces to avoid a confrontational situation which could add to the fears of the Junta regarding internal security and stability.

16th Asian Games: India Gives Best-Ever Performance

The largest-ever 16th Asian Games concludes in the Chinese city of Guangzhou on 27 November. The closing ceremony too was a colorful one. The opening ceremony had been held on the banks of the Pearl River in Guangzhou on 12 November. The skies lit up with dazzling fireworks as an emotional China brought the curtains down on the biggest Asian Games in a riot of color, foot-tapping music and a cultural extravaganza at the Haixinsha Island on the Pearl River. If the opening ceremony held at the same riverside venue on 12 November was high on technical wizardry, the closing was a heart-touching display of warmth by the people of this South China city whose infrastructure has improved remendously as a result of hosting the Games.

With the theme of "Thrilling Games, Harmonious Asia, the Guangzhou Games had the most sports ever contested in the games' 59-year history, as it included 28 Olympic sports and 14 non-Olympic which featured 476 events. The games witnessed the debuts of cricket, dance sport, dragon boat, roller sport and go chess.

On a continent inhabited by nearly two thirds of the world's population, the Asian Games have become Asia's largest sports event and a symbol of unity between different cultures, politics and religions. Guangdong built and renovated 70 stadiums and gymnasiums, including 53 competition and 17 training venues. Twelve of the 70 were built from scratch.

Over two-plus weeks of the 16th Asian Games, South Korea discovered a new rival in the field of continental athletic competition -- itself. South Korea accomplished both of its much-publicized goals. It won 76 gold medals, more than the projected total of 65, and it out dueled Japan's 48 in the gold medal count.

With China expected to run away on home soil, South Korea had from the beginning set out to be the second-best by edging its rival Japan for the fourth straight Asian Games. Four years ago at Doha, South Korea beat Japan 58-50 in gold medals, but Japan actually won more medals overall, 198-193.

But it was a different story in Guangzhou. South Korea nearly doubled up Japan in gold medals, and only the last-minute spurt by Japan in athletics, kayak and karate kept the margin respectable.

Overwhelming Performance by China
The host China showed its overwhelming prowess by sweeping 199 gold medals followed by South Korea and Japan. China, which also won 119 silver and 98 bronze, topped the table for the eighth straight time, smashing its best gold tally of 183, set in the 1990 Beijing Games.
The Chinese women accounted for 112 of the 199 gold medals, 67 of the 119 silver medals and 41 of the 98 bronze medals in the overall tally. No wonder China outclassed Korea (75) and Japan (48) in the gold hunt.

China won most of its gold medals in swimming (24), shooting (21), artistic gymnastics (13), athletics (12), diving (10), rowing (10), dance sport (10), wushu (9), canoeing and kayaking (9), cycling (8), table tennis (7), badminton (5), boxing (5), billiard sports (4), bowling (4), fencing (4), sailing (4), taekwondo (4), and some of them in games like chess (3), synchronized swimming (3), dragon boat (3), basketball (2), tennis (2), beach volleyball (2), judo (2), karate (2), modern pentathlon (2), trampoline gymnastics (2), xiangqi (2), handball (1), hockey (1), roller sports (1), soft tennis (1), water polo (1), volleyball (1).

It showed how China not only focused on the 28 Olympic disciplines, but on every gold medal that was on offer, in the 42 sports.

High Time for South Korea
Thirty-six out of the 45 participating teams medaled in the 16-day games, in which South Korea garnered 232 medals, including 76 gold, beating Japan into a distant third with 48 gold among 216 medals. Taiwan took home 13 gold, 16 silver and 38 bronze medals as the Asian Games concluded in Guangzhou, China, finishing with its second biggest gold medal haul and its best performance in 12 years at the games.

Taiwan recorded its best performance in the Asian Games in Bangkok, Thailand in 1998, when it bagged 19 gold, 17 silver and 41 bronze medals. It only won nine gold medals at the quadrennial games in Doha, Qatar, four years ago.

Compared to other countries, Taiwan came seventh in terms of the number of gold medals won, and fifth in terms of the total number of medals its athletes clinched.

India created history by recording their best-ever medal tally in the Asian Games -- 14 gold, 17 silver and 33 bronze to finish in sixth position. Of the 14 gold medals, India achieved five of them from athletics.

Beauty and Charm
The games gathered dozens of world-level champions, and their performances inspired much applause and cheering. The most charming of the Chinese male athletes might be badminton player Lin Dan and hurdler Liu Xiang. Lin is nicknamed “Super Dan” and has won championship titles in the Olympics, the World Championships, the All-England Championships, the Thomas Cup, Sudirman Cup and now the ASIAD. Liu Xiang, another world-level athlete, competed in the men’s 110m hurdles. His debut attracted over 60,000 spectators.

Swimmers Park Tae-hwan from South Korea and Kosuke Kitajima from Japan shone in the swimming pool. Park ended the ASIAD with 7 medals, including 2 golds, 3 silvers and 3 bronzes. He has a strong chance of winning his second Asian Games Most Valuable Player award this year.

With their lovely faces, some particularly attractive athletes have also come under the spotlight, including the women’s nine ball players Pan Xiaoting from China and Cha Yu-Ram from South Korea, as well as the synchronized swimming twins the Jiang’s and Ping Pong player Ai Fukuhara.

India’s Biggest Asiad Haul
India created history by recording their best-ever performance in the Asian Games with 64 medals, including a record 14 gold. With the addition of 11 more medals, India’s tally climbed to a record 14 gold, 17 silver and 33 bronze (total 64), the biggest ever haul in the Asian Games so far, to jump to the sixth place.

India’s best medal haul was recorded in the 1982 Games in New Delhi when they had won 13 gold, 19 silver and 25 bronze for an overall tally of 57. India had finished 10th in the last edition of the Games in Doha with a tally of 10-17-26. The sixth spot on the medal rostrum by India is the best it has attained since 1986 at Seoul, where the country ended fifth with a more modest haul of 5-9-23.

Historic Boxing Gold: World number one Vijender Singh (75kg) clinched an unprecedented second boxing gold for India at the ongoing Asian Games while two others settled for silver to round off the best ever campaign by the country’s pugilists at the quadrennial mega-event.

It was sweet revenge for Olympic and World Championship bronze-medallist Vijender when he blanked reigning world champion Abbos Atoev of Uzbekistan 7-0 at the Foshan Gymnasium. Atoev had beaten the 25-year-old Indian at the World Championship semifinals last year but this time Vijender plugged the loopholes which led to that loss and emerged a clear winner.
However, V. Santhosh Kumar (64kg) and Manpreet Singh (91kg) settled for silver medals after losing in the finals. While Santhosh lost 1-16 to Kazakhstan's Daniyar Yeleussinov in finals, Manpreet went down 1-8 to Mohammad Ghossoun of Syria to take India's silver tally to three in boxing after Dinesh Kumar (81kg) had finished second.

Indian boxers thus ended their campaign with two gold — the first coming through Vikas Krishan (60kg), three silver and two bronze medals — Suranjoy Singh (52kg) and Paramjeet Samota (+91kg). Santhosh opened the proceedings for India and found himself on the backfoot from the very start. Too defensive and somewhat intimidated, the Indian could neither prevent his rival from connecting punches nor create any noteworthy attacking chance.

Dominance in Kabaddi: Barely hours after Indian women’s kabaddi team made a memorable Asian Games debut by clinching the gold, their male counterparts recorded their sixth consecutive yellow metal in the quadrennial event with a comfortable victory over Iran.

The Indian men’s team, who clinched the gold in every edition of the quadrennial event since the game’s introduction in 1990, managed to prevail over Iran 37-20 at the Nansha Gymnasium.
India led 24-3 at half-time after Iran failed to secure a single lona against India’s four. The Indians also got a couple of bonus points in the opening half.

However, after the crossover, Iran was the better side on display and managed to dominate the proceedings, bagging 17 points as against India’s 13.

But it was not enough to earn them a gold as overall India proved to be a better side with six lonas against two of their opponents and 28 outs to stamp their supremacy in the sport.

Golden Track: India ended their athletics campaign in the Asian Games with a bagful of medals with the women's 4x400m relay quartet winning the gold to bring down curtains with a bang on the penultimate day of the competitions.

India emerged from the track and field events with five gold, two silver and four bronze medals, one of their best efforts in Asian Games history, though below their performance in 2002 Busan Asian Games where they had a 7-6-5 medal haul. Having started their campaign with a golden double in the women's 10,000m and 3,000m steeplechase through Preeja Sreedharan and Sudha Singh on the first day, the 4x400m relay team of Manjeet Kaur, Sini Jose, AC Ashwini and Mandeep Kaur ended the campaign by clinching the gold in 3 minutes, 29.02 secs at the Aoti Main Stadium.

Mandeep staved off a determined challenge from Kazakhstan's last runner Olga Tereshkova, the individual 400m gold medalist, to finish strongly after her teammates Sini and Ashwini, the 400m hurdles gold medalist, had given India a sizeable lead from the second stage of the race. Kazakhstan, with two 40m individual medalists running for them, were edged out to the second spot despite clocking a national best time of 3:30.03 while hosts China took the bronze in 3:30.89.

Preeja, however, could only get a silver despite making a great effort to catch Bahrain's eventual gold winner Mimi Belete in the women's 5000m while compatriot Kavita Raut got the bronze as India won one gold, a silver and a bronze from the last day action for the country.No Indian is competing in the men's and women's marathon, the last athletics event to be held tomorrow. Preeja who led a 1-2 of Indians with Kavita in the women's 10,000m on day one, was in the lead bunch of six runners led by Japan's Kayoko Furushi, silver medalist in 2006 Doha Games, along with her teammate as the two kept up the challenge with easy strides.

ASEAN's Role in Democratization of Myanmar

In an atmosphere filled with fear and unrest, military-controlled Myanmar finally completed its purported 'multiparty democratic elections' after more than two decades. Although almost the entire world has been criticizing the elections as unfair, the Myanmar military government is expected to proclaim to the entire world that Myanmar had accomplished its democratic elections with a high voter turnout.

Myanmar is a member of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). However, it is sad to point out that as a regional organization, ASEAN could only play an onlooker role in Myanmar's elections. Prior to the elections, ASEAN had proposed to send its observers to oversee the electoral process. Yet, the Myanmar military government, which obviously knew nothing about basic courtesy, flatly rejected the good intention of ASEAN with the reason that Myanmar had adequate experience about elections. In addition, the military government claimed that it would allow each of the embassies and UN agencies in Myanmar to send up to five representatives to observe the voting process at the polling stations. But at the end of the day, these representatives were blocked from visiting to the polling stations for security reason.

Treaty of Amity and Cooperation
ASEAN approved the membership of Myanmar in 1997. The decision was made out of the concern that in the face of the plight of being isolated by the Western countries, Myanmar might turn more and more to China. Furthermore, the Burmese military government had also announced earlier that it was ready to accept ASEAN's Treaty of Amity and Cooperation, demonstrating its wish to be on good terms with its neighboring countries.

After Myanmar officially became a member of ASEAN, the organization has consistently called on the country to conform to the rules and regulations of ASEAN and preserve the reputation of the organization. However, the Myanmar military government continues to go its own way and simply disregard the calls from ASEAN. For example, ASEAN has repeatedly urged the military regime to give proper treatment to the democratic icon of Myanmar, Aung San Suu Kyi, and hoped that the military regime would release her. But until today, Suu Kyi is still placed under house arrest. This is because the military regime has assumed that ASEAN needs Myanmar, which is abundant in natural resources, more than Myanmar needs ASEAN.

Fair Elections
For the elections this time, as usual, ASEAN released a statement to express its hope that the elections would be conducted in a fair and transparent manner. But what else can ASEAN do in addition to expressing its hope? Elections are part of the internal affairs of a country. At present, there is an unwritten rule among the 10-member states of ASEAN, namely the member states are not allowed to interfere into the internal affairs of other countries. Therefore, as long as ASEAN persists to 'abide by' this 'sacred' rule, it can do nothing even though it knows well that the elections were unfair.

While the entire world is condemning the elections held by the military regime, eventually ASEAN will still release a statement to welcome the accomplishment of the elections and express its hope that this will be the first step of the democratization of Myanmar.

Fourth China-Indonesia Energy Forum

The fourth China-Indonesia Energy Forum was successfully held in Nanning, Guangxi province in China. China's National Energy Administration (NEA) and Indonesia's Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources (MEMR) jointly held the fourth China-Indonesia Energy Forum in Nanning, Guangxi. More than 200 government officials and energy industry representatives from China and Indonesia participated in this Forum. Zhang Guobao, China's Minister of NEA and Mustafa Abubakar, Vice Chairman of the Indonesia's National Development and Reform Commission attended the opening ceremony and delivered their respective address.

Consensus and Common Interests
In his speech, Zhang Guobao remarked that as two important countries in Asia, China and Indonesia shared broad consensus and common interests. He added that the energy cooperation between China and Indonesia has continued to be deepened and moved toward a more pragmatic approach in recent years.

With joint efforts coming from both countries' governments and private enterprises, China and Indonesia have proactively explored new cooperation method in the fields of infrastructure investment, equipment purchase and integration in trade and energy. Zhang Guobao said that with mutual cooperation between the two countries in the fields such as oil, natural gas, coal and electricity power generation, both countries have obtained new and fruitful breakthrough to enable energy cooperation between China and Indonesia to present a good momentum.

Energy Security and Climate Changes
Zhang added that in order to meet the dual challenges of energy security and climate changes, enterprises from both nations are also seeking cooperative opportunities in the fields of clean energy and recycled energy.

In his speech, Zhang Guobao suggested the two nations to broaden energy cooperative field, deepen cooperation in energy investment, expand bilateral energy trade, and strengthen cooperation in natural resources so as to enhance energy cooperation between China and Indonesia.

Malaysia's New National Defense Policy

Malaysian Defense Minister Ahmed Zahid Hamidi said that the Ministry of Defense would review the newly launched National Defense Policy in 2012. He said that the Defense Ministry would follow through the existing national defense policies and review them progressively in order to attain defense policy objectives that have been formulated.

National Defense Policy Covers Four Main Tasks
He said that currently the National Defense Policy covers four main tasks:

First: To educate citizens "all-citizen national defense" concept that combines the power of the government, NGOs, private sector, and people in a total effort to defense the country.

Second: To enhance and develop the capacity of the Armed Forces, while making effort to increase citizens' awareness of this national defense concept and a sense of patriotism.

Third: To cooperate with regional countries and to establish closer military diplomacy with them. Malaysia must consolidate bilateral defense cooperation with countries, which have already established strategic partnership ties with Malaysia.

Fourth: To set up a defense policy committee to oversee the task of defense policy formulation progress and to review the current National Defense Policy in 2012.

In delivering his address at the official launch of the National Defense Policy held on 9 November, Minister Ahmed Zahid stressed on the importance for the nation to develop a defense awareness mindset. He said that even if Malaysia processed top-notch weaponries, if Malaysia failed to develop a defense prevention awareness mind-set all the best weapon equipment would be of no use to the defense ministry.

He added: "I have visited a Middle East country in 1987. This Middle East country processed the most advanced military aircrafts. However, when internal war occurred in that country, the bed room of the national leader of this country was invaded by the rival army. It was only four hours after the attack on the national leader's residence that its most advanced fighter aircraft took off to defense the country."

Malaysia To Enhance Power of Modern Warfare
In addition to Defense Minister Ahmed Zahid, other officials who attended the launch of the National Defense Policy included Datuk Ismail Ahmed, secretary general of the Ministry of Defense, and General Tan Sri Azizan Ariffin, chief of the Armed Forces Staff.

Ahmed Zahid said that the main task of National Defense Policy must definitely be on achieving the goal to promote the modernization of the Armed Forces and to improve armed forces' combat capability. This was because the challenges of today's armed forces did not come from the traditional battlefield. On the contrary, the challenge of today's armed forces came from non-traditional emergency incidents such as on how to tackle and fight against the Somali pirates or how to carry out rescue missions to overcome natural disasters, and so on.

Minister Ahmed Zahid also pointed out the fact that Malaysia was located at the center of Southeast Asia. Malaysia's security would easily be affected by troubles or unrest that happened within this Southeast Asian region. As such every year, the Ministry of Defense would allocate $10million to establish a world food distribution and planning hub at the Subang Air Force Base, so that Malaysia could assume the responsibility as a regional disaster emergency relief center to distribute foods and goods to disaster victims.

China-Taiwan Issue To Be Resolved Peacefully

The newly released National Defense Policy points out that as long as the Taiwan Strait issue cannot be resolved completely, cross-straits tension can affect the stability of the Southeast Asian region. Malaysia hopes that mainland China and the Taiwan authorities can continue to make effort in finding a peaceful resolution to the conflict between them.

The National Defense Policy also states that no country in the 21st century can be immune from external conflict. The Policy says that in addition to issues relating to traditional national defense, countries also have to face the unlimited and borderless violence and crime.

US Remains Strongest Country in Asia Pacific Region
The National Defense Policy also states that to Malaysia, although China, Japan and the United States are the three major actors in the Asia-Pacific region, the United States remains the strongest country that can exert influence in the Southeast Asian region. As such, the bilateral defense cooperation ties between Malaysia and the United States is a measure that can protect Malaysia's security and economic growth.

The National Defense Policy says that through engaging intimate cooperation relations with Japan, South Korea, Thailand, the Philippines, Australia, and Singapore, the United States has indirectly enhanced the defense capability of countries surrounding the Southeast Asian region.
As far as China is concerned, the National Defense Policy says that, although holds the view that China does not consider ASEAN as a threat, however, China is also unwilling to see unstable situation developing in countries in the ASEAN region.

China is actively emerging as an economically and militarily strong power. China can play a balancing role in this region. This country (China) and Japan have very different defense operation mode. Malaysia must pay attention to the role that the economically strong Japan can play to stabilize the Southeast Asian region.

So far as Russia is concerned, although there are still many internal problems awaiting Russia to resolve, the National Defense Policy believes that Russia is now actively developing and increasingly its active role in the international community. The National Defense Policy believes that Russia is also one of the key nations that can affect the stability in the Southeast Asian region.

Resolving Nansha Islands Sovereignty Dispute Through Friendly Consultation
The new Malaysian National Defense Policy also points out that as it stands now; the sovereignty dispute among some countries over the Nansha Islands (Spratly Islands) is still unresolved. In the South China Sea, the Sulawesi Sea, Malacca Strait, and in other international waterway, Malaysia still has territorial disputes with neighboring countries. Among them the sovereignty disputes over the Nansha islands have involved Brunei, China, the Philippines Malaysia, Vietnam, and Taiwan. Fortunately, in November 2002, China and ASEAN have signed the "Declaration on Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea" that stressed the need for all countries involved in the maritime sovereignty dispute along South China Sea to resolve the pending disputes through friendly consultations and peaceful negotiations.

The National Defense Policy also states that as for territorial controversies in the South China Sea, Sulawesi Sea, Straits of Malacca, Malaysia will resolve any such disputes or conflicts through diplomatic channel. Malaysia will act in accordance with the spirit of ASEAN.

Political Instability To Threaten Racial Harmony
The National Defense Policy further points out that Malaysia's domestic political situation is full of uncertain factors. It says that political instability in the country can pose threat to social issues and to inter-ethnic harmony.

The National Defense Policy feels that, although the government has signed the "Hat Yai Agreement" with the Malaysian Communist Party in 1989, although there is no major and serious security problem in the country, the government authority cannot feel complacent and relax over internal security issues. Malaysia must guard against the widening racial divide in today's political climate.

However, some politicians have continued to play with unbridled incitement to stir up sensitive issues to the degree of causing threat to the general public and affecting racial harmony and peace to the society.

The National Defense Policy points out that coupled with the above mentioned factors, the security situation in Malaysia can even turn worse if some NGOs seize the opportunity to stir up trouble.

Moreover, this newly launched the National Defense Policy also mentions the need for Malaysia to face the huge immigrant population seriously and squarely. This is because regardless whether the immigrants are legal or illegal, they will all exert a certain degree of influence on the Malaysian society.

According to the immigration records, Malaysia has 1.85 million foreign workers. Malaysia has become one of the top 10 countries in the world that depend heavily on foreign work force to grow.

The National Defense Policy points out that having a massive foreign worker community can bring threats, crimes, diseases, and cultural conflicts to the Malaysian society.

US Midterm Elections

Midterm elections have been held in the US for all seats of the House of Representatives, 32 seats of the Senate and offices of the state governors on 2 November 2010. Dozens of candidates who tested their luck following the tall shadow of the election campaign run by President Barack Obama faced humiliation of defeat at the hands of Republicans. In the US House of Representatives having 435 members, the Democrats lost in 240 constituencies. In the elections to the upper house i.e. the US Senate, the Republicans improved their position.

Advantage Republicans
Various tops guns of the Democrats lost in the recent elections. The candidates ruthlessly used wealth for their victory. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who got much fame in the field of acting and later became state governor, lost the office of the governor. Whereas a look as to who contested election from where and on ticket of which party ads to one's knowledge and wisdom, it also widens one's political and social awareness.

Democrat Senator from Florida Michael Bennet celebrated second consecutive victory after defeating Republican Cain Huke. In other tough contests, Republic leader John Reid was defeated by Democrat Joe McCain for a Senate seat from Western Virginia. Marko Rubio gave tough time to Obama's colleague Charlie Crist in Florida and also gifted him defeat. In Kentucky, the Republicans emerged victorious while the Democrats were the runners up as Rand Paul shattered hopes of Jack Convoy of Obama lobby.

Setback for Obama
Obama had to suffer the shock of historic Republic victory on his ancestral seat of Illinois. Obama had got elected as senator from the same seat. The Republicans won on two most important Senate seats of Northern Dakota and Arkansas. John Thune defeated Terry Porter while in Arkansas John Bosman delighted Bush Junior by emerging victorious.

In Missouri, former head of Armed Services Committee Scouts was badly defeated on the ticket of Democrats as Wiki Mart of Republican knocked him out. In the House of Representatives, the strength of Republican has increased. If the Obama ministers failed to show interest in the ending military inventions in other countries during the rest of the presidential tenure for the sake of poverty, unemployment and colonialist desires in light of the public feelings and aspirations, their hopes of winning the next presidential will fade forever.

Human Massacre and Barbarism
Muslims are to be reminded here that the Publican party is a frightening group of conservatives and jingoists who achieve such successes in human massacre and barbarism under the patronization of former President Bush following the 9/11 that the human spirit sheds tears of blood. The victory of the Republican is a food for thought for the Muslim community. There were many smugglers and businessmen from oil industry in the Bush cabinet who have been busy in promotion of the Zionism and paving the way for Greater Israel.

The Zionist lobbies of Bush era wrote the script of the tragic drama of 9/11 to plunder the natural resources and energy deposits of the Middle East and the US forces imposed on Kabul and Baghdad the terrifying war on the earth and occupied the two countries after thrusting the responsibility of the destruction of the Twin Towers on Al-Qaeda, Muslim fighters, jihadist organizations and Saddam Hussein. The US and allies spilled the blood of two million Muslims in Iraq and Kabul and this barbarism is still continuing. The wise intellectuals bragged that the victory of the Republican cannot affect Pakistan. Those expressing such opinions are devoid of wisdom because they are unaware of this threat that voices of selecting Pakistan for the next round of war are constantly appearing in the Western media. Under the banner of ISAF (International Security Assistance Force), 120,000 are busy in battles in Afghanistan. ISAF consists of the military power of the 50 advanced countries of the world.

Impact of Afghan War
The Afghan war is the longest and the most dangerous war of the history of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization). Taliban have stunned the occupation forces. The US has started dialogue with the rivals with key role of Pakistan to avert the ugly stain of defeat. Reports are appearing in the Western media that if the terrorism could not be confined to South Asia, Afghanistan and borders of FATA [Federally Administered Tribal Areas], the West would be crying because of its threat. Instead of Kabul, the global players have focused their sights on the border region of Pakistan. The Japan Times has reported that the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) and Mosad have planned bomb explosions, terrorism and suicide attacks in several areas of Europe for which Pakistan will be accused and then a war will start in Pakistan on the pattern of Afghanistan.

The US think tanks and military analysts say that achievement of the Western interests in the Afghan war is not possible until the military power of Pakistan is not overcome. The Pentagon has given target to the US agencies to swiftly use the effective prescription of propaganda and to stuff the minds of the people of West that Pakistan is a threat for the West. The Western newspapers, TheWall Street Journal, Sky News and BBC are crying that drill for Mumbai-type attacks in Europe is going on in Pakistan. Renowned intellectual Van Madson says he has found secret documents in Washington containing details about destruction of Pakistani nuclear arms by Mosad in 1982.

India-China Cooperation

The twists and turns in China-India relationship show no signs of disappearing in the near future. It is, however, equally necessary not to let these complications exceed a certain limit. Some progress might be made in this direction with the meeting between Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh and his Chinese counterpart Wen Jiabao on the sidelines of the ASEAN Summit in Hanoi on 29 October.

Dr Singh and Jiabao have met 10 times in the last six years, as the Chinese leader observed when the two met. That is a high metric even for top leaders of neighboring countries. On each occasion there has been a degree of feel-good, considering that relations between Asia’s two biggest countries and fastest rising economies -- which also leave a mark on the world stage -- are not wrinkle-free. And yet, it is apparent to all that the frequency of contact hasn’t lent itself to the two countries moving to a stage of easy give-and-take in ties.

Common Interests
The Chinese prime minister will visit India in December. In order to make this visit a success, it is important to reduce the misgivings of the two countries. India and China are neighbors. Both are members of alliances like BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China). They have common interests in matters like environment and world trade. They also work together in these fields. At the same time, it is also true that the two countries compete in economic and several foreign affairs, especially in spreading their influence in areas like East Asia and Africa. The old border dispute between India and China is yet to be solved. This often creates bitterness.

Dr Singh went ahead and raised all the troubling questions in the bilateral relationship that have surfaced of late -- China’s adopting a forward position in respect of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), its questioning of India’s sovereignty in Kashmir suggested by stapling -- not stamping, which is the international norm -- of visas for Jammu and Kashmir residents, Beijing’s offer of a stapled visa for a general who commands India’s Northern Army, (which had the effect of scuttling the military officer’s visit to China on a goodwill defense visit earlier this year), and the revival by Beijing of its claims over Arunachal Pradesh (after the Indian state had been officially shown as being part of India during the term of Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee).

Exploring Possibilities
India intends to explore these possibilities as much as it can. Such joint efforts will help all countries to overcome poverty and backwardness quickly. Distrust and suspicion between India and China obstruct any progress in this direction. Even the dispute between India and Pakistan has been kept alive to a large extent on China's support.

China certainly completes with India in the economic field, but it also has problems with Indian democracy. Modern China has had a dictatorial form of government for more than 60 years. Having adopted a liberal economy, it is now going through difficulties of introducing a liberal political system. Prime Minister Jiabao had to face severe criticism from conservative forces for advocating such a system.

Lack of Equilibrium
Chinese are afraid that a close friendship with a big democratic country like India might create an urge for democracy in the country. Suppressed dissatisfaction and lack of equilibrium might come out in the open.

The other problem faced by China is that democratic Western countries and Japan pin hopes on India rather than on China's monopolistic economic strength. India is trying not to let these issues come in the way of mutual relationship, but China has its own reasons for being apprehensive.

Fifth East Asia Summit

The fifth East Asia Summit (EAS), held on 30 October at the Vietnamese capital Hanoi, was chaired by Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung and attended by Leaders of ASEAN countries, China, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, and India. Also in presence were Russian Foreign Minister and US Secretary of State who represented their respective Presidents as special guests of the chair and participated at the last session of the Summit.

Hanoi Declaration
The Leaders reaffirmed the agreed principles, objectives and modalities of the EAS and adopted the Hanoi Declaration on the Commemoration of the Fifth Anniversary of East Asia Summit, in which they reiterated their commitment for continued efforts to enhance dialogue and cooperation and set out direction and priority of development for the next period.

The Leaders agreed to intensify cooperation in five priority areas, namely education, finance, energy, disaster management and avian flu prevention, while exploring the possibilities of cooperation in some new areas like post-crisis recovery, sustainable development, climate change etc. The Leaders of EAS participating countries expressed support for the ASEAN Leaders' Statement on Human Resources and Skills Development for Economic Recovery and Sustainable Growth, which was adopted at the 17th ASEAN Summit, and affirmed their close coordination with ASEAN toward sustainable economic growth in the region. The EAS countries agreed to conduct further study on the possibility of establishing the East Asia Free Trade Area (EAFTA), in parallel with the Comprehensive Economic Partnership in East Asia (CEPEA) and tasked senior officials to work on the issue and submit concrete recommendations to the Leaders.

Regional and International Issues
The EAS Leaders exchanged views on regional and international issues of mutual interest, including closer coordination and consultation to prepare for the participation and contribution of the ASEAN Chair at the upcoming G20 Summit in Seoul, Korea, the situation on the Korean Peninsula, the global nuclear issue etc.

Recognizing the growing importance of the EAS in promoting dialogue and cooperation in the region, the EAS Leaders committed to further promote dialogue and cooperation on broad strategic political and economic issues for peace, stability and prosperity in East Asia, including dealing with traditional and non-traditional challenges, at the same time, support and assist the peaceful settlement of disputes on the basis of international laws.

The Leaders tasked the Ministers and senior officials to explore ways and means for the improvement of proper mechanism to effectively implement the Leaders' decisions towards an action-oriented EAS process.

The Leaders discussed the expansion of the East Asia Summit and the evolving regional architecture. The EAS Leaders supported ASEAN's view on the formation of a regional architecture, based on the existing regional cooperation processes and ensuring ASEAN centrality. The Leaders welcomed the pro-active participation and constructive contribution of external partners in dealing with emerging challenges facing the region. Taking into account the desire and the potential of contribution by Russia and the United States to this open and inclusive forum, the fifth EAS decided to officially invite Russia and the United States to participate in the EAS from 2011.

Judicial Accountability

The judiciary as an institution needs to preserve its independence, and to do this it must strive to maintain the confidence of the public in the established courts. Independence of judges is best safeguarded by the judges themselves — through institutions and organizations that the law empowers them to set up, to preserve the image of an incorruptible higher judiciary that would command the respect of all right-thinking people.

The reach of India’s highest court is all-pervasive. The Supreme Court sits in final judgment over the decisions not only of the high courts in the states, but also tribunals, (Central and State) functioning throughout India; there are literally hundreds of them. And the law declared by the Supreme Court, including its pronouncements on the validity of enacted law, is binding (under the Constitution) on all other courts and authorities in the country.

There is virtually no area of legislative or executive activity which is beyond the highest court’s scrutiny. Its writ extends to all two million square miles of Indian territory, and more than its now 1.3 billion inhabitants. Empowering itself with the trappings of modern technology, India’s Supreme Court has been performing a stupendous task with considerable distinction.

There is no reason for the judiciary to be perturbed by the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill 2010, cleared by the Union Cabinet, because the proposed legislation seeks to neither curb its independence nor impose the will of the executive on its functioning. In fact, the draft Bill is in keeping with the growing popular demand for transparency and accountability in public institutions — something that our courts themselves have emphasized on several occasions. The need for a fresh legislation arose after it became clear that the Judges Inquiry Act of 1968 — now lapsed — had failed to adequately address issues related to perceived acts of impropriety committed by judges. Even if such incidents have been more an exception than the rule, the guilty have gone virtually unpunished.

Salient Features of Bill
The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010 aims at laying down judicial standards and establishing a mechanism to deal with complaints of 'misbehavior' or 'incapacity' of a judge of the Supreme Court or high court. The approval for the Bill came after it was deferred by the Union Cabinet in March last. It was introduced in Parliament during the 14th Lok Sabha, but lapsed after the House was dissolved. It seeks to lay down judicial standards and establish a mechanism to deal with complaints of misconduct of judges of the Supreme Court and high courts.

The Bill proposes that a judge can be warned, taken off work, censured or admonished, depending upon the misconduct. It seeks to lay down judicial standards and establish a mechanism to deal with complaints of misconduct of the Supreme Court and high courts judges It also proposes to make provision for declaration of assets and liabilities by judges.

The Bill also proposes to make provisions for declaration of assets and liabilities of judges. At present, there is no legal provision for dealing with complaints filed by the public against the judges of the Supreme Court and the high courts.

At present, there is no legal provision for dealing with complaints filed by the public against the judges of the Supreme Court and the high courts. Also, the judiciary has adopted resolutions for declaration of assets by judges and 'restatement of values of judicial life'. However, there is no law that requires judges of the Supreme Court and the high courts to declare their assets and liabilities and also there is no statutory sanction for judicial standards.

The Bill had been approved with an amendment. It provided for a five-member oversight committee, headed by a former Chief Justice of India (CJI) and having Attorney General as a member, which would look into complaints of misconduct by judges.

New Mechanism
The amendment brought forward was for the setting up of the National Judicial Oversight Committee that would also include a sitting judge of the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice of a high court to be appointed by the CJI and an eminent personality. Complaints received by the oversight committee would be referred to a scrutiny committee. The scrutiny committee would have a time limit of three months to get to the oversight committee with its report after which the case would be referred to the President for action.

The new Bill envisages a mechanism for enquiring into complaints against the judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts and lays down judicial standards. In that sense, it empowers the citizens to punish judges for corruption and misconduct. Of course, as a safeguard against frivolous complaints, a scrutiny committee will examine the petition and then forward it, within three months, to the judicial oversight committee for action if a prima facie case is made out. A former Chief Justice of India will head the five-member panel. The process of impeachment will start once this committee comes up with adverse findings.

Bad Phase of Judiciary
The higher judiciary is passing through a bad phase. Its image has been eroded following allegations of corruption against Chief Justice P.D. Dinakaran of the Sikkim High Court, Justice Nirmal Yadav of the Uttarakhand High Court and Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court.

The Supreme Court collegium’s current policy of transferring judges who are under a cloud is flawed because if Justice Nirmal Yadav, for example, is unfit to serve the Punjab and Haryana High Court, she doesn’t become a perfect judge to serve the Uttarakhand High Court at Nainital. Clearly, the Manmohan Singh government has greater stakes on the new legislation because its commitment to cleansing up the higher judiciary is now on test.

Public Interest Litigation
One outstanding failing in our system of judicial governance is that although mandated by law, costs hardly ever follow the event. The fear of costs is what the courts must instil into the dilatory and speculative litigant including, I would plead on the litigant who undertakes a PIL (Public Interest Litigation). Projects and programs devised by popularly elected governments are held up for years in the high courts (and in the Supreme Court) at the instance of persons who have no direct interest, but on some suspicion of corruption or the like — and when at the end of a tortuous judicial process such PILs are ultimately dismissed, the loss in economic terms to the community at large is never compensated. In India there is hardly any court decision where costs are made to follow the event.

Then, take the problem of vacancies of judges in the superior judiciary — they keep piling up. An action plan to prevent this is not one which requires a high degree of sophistication or planning. It requires only some elementary co-ordination between the Justice Ministry and chief justices: of high courts and of the Supreme Court. We all know that judges in high courts retire at 62 and in the Supreme Court at 65. So there need be no unfilled positions: dates of birth are recorded, and anticipated vacancies can always be filled in time; if there is the will to do so.

Need of the Hour
There may be some merit in the counter-argument that the earlier Judges Inquiry Act of 1968 failed not because of lacunae in the law but the failure of the executive to ensure the impeachment of errant judges. Either the parliamentarians failed to muster the requisite number of signatories to an appeal for impeachment or, when they did succeed, the treasury benches stalled the effort in Parliament. But that is precisely why a new law is needed to ensure misconduct does not go unpunished. Since the other solution -- a complete overhaul of the system of impeachment -- is an elaborate affair that will take time, why should anyone object if at least immediate concerns of ensuring accountability and transparency by the judiciary are met?

The judiciary of the 21st century needs to set an example in exemplary self-discipline: discipline in its approach to legal, and more often, political-cum-legal, problems that fall in its lap. There is also need for greater transparency in the lifestyle of the justices, and an abiding tolerance of public criticism. Litigants no longer accept judge’s decisions as they used to in the past. The mystique of the judiciary -- the 'awesome Majesty of the Law' as it used to be called -- is no longer a sufficient protection. The job has become harder. Judges are seen less as the impersonal agents of a system and regarded more as human beings responsible for the failure of the losing party; the attacks have shifted from the ball to the player! Hence the need for ethics -- and some guidelines from the top, which 'the top' too must scrupulously observe!In a country like India, and in times like these, it is not enough for the judiciary to be independent of the executive and of all other external influences.

The Judges, because of the high office they hold and the plenitude of powers they exercise, must be seen to have qualities of excellence -- of mind and of heart. Above all they must be men and women of courage. Nobility and courage in the highest court begets nobility and courage all down the line.

US-Pakistan Strategic Dialogue

The latest round of the US-Pakistan Strategic Dialogue confirmed the two countries' 'dedication to cultivating a strategic, comprehensive and long-term partnership,' according to a joint statement released at the conclusion of the three-day gathering. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Pakistan Foreign Minister Makhdoom Shah Mahmood Qureshi, accompanied by high-level delegations, held the third ministerial-level meeting of the dialogue, following meetings in March and July.

The dialogue was preceded by sectoral-track engagement on agriculture, communications and public diplomacy, defense, energy, finance and economic cooperation, health, law enforcement and counter-terrorism, water and women's empowerment. Qureshi conveyed the gratitude of Pakistan to the United States for humanitarian assistance given in the wake of the Pakistan floods, and for mobilizing international assistance for relief, recovery, and reconstruction. Clinton 'commended the tenacity of the Pakistani people as they recover from the catastrophic flooding,' and pledged constant US support as relief efforts transition into the long-term recovery phase.

Wide Range of Issues
Sectoral meetings covered a range of subjects 'with a clear focus on socioeconomic development and the establishment of a mutually beneficial partnership.

The United States committed to redouble its efforts to seek US congressional enactment of legislation to create Reconstruction Opportunity Zones and for the establishment of an Enterprise Fund. Both sides sought to work closely and collaboratively with the international donor community and international financial institutions to extend economic assistance to Pakistan.

The United States commended the 'steadfast resolve' of Pakistan to defeat terrorists. Pakistan expressed appreciation for the Secretarys announcement to seek US. Congressional authorization for a Multi-Year Security Assistance Commitment, a five-year pledge by the United States.

Both sides said that 'a democratic, progressive and prosperous Pakistan was in the interest of the United States, the region and the world.' The officials 'renewed their resolve to promoting peace, stability and transparency throughout the region and to eliminate the threats posed by terrorism and extremism.

During the Pakistani delegations visit to the White House, President Barack Obama announced his plans to visit Pakistan in 2011 and welcomed President Asif Ali Zardari to Washington. The next round of the Strategic Dialogue is planned to be held in 2011, and the sectoral working groups plan to meet prior to the next ministerial-level meeting.

Pakistan is an important player in the ongoing global effort for countering terrorism in the Afghan-Pakistan region, which has implications for Pakistan's security, and regional and global politics. It opted for this strategy in September 2001, signifying the abandonment of its policy of supporting the Taliban movement and its government in Kabul.

While sharing the goals and the general direction of countering terrorism with the US, Pakistan has demonstrated autonomy on the issues that the army and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) view as integral to Pakistan's internal political imperatives and external security with reference to Afghanistan and India.

The Pakistan-US Strategic Dialogue has more to do with discord than accord. It is more about distrust than trust. Way back in 2006, President George Walker Bush spent a few hours in Pakistan and spoke for an 'enduring' relationship between the two countries. This time we are told by Washington bigwigs that Americans will not walk away. They will continue to be good friends.

Positive indications given by Bush, however, have not yielded the desired results. Little headway has been made insofar as trade and investments are concerned. It is puzzling and, indeed, disappointing to find the US deliberately ignoring these vitals interests of a close ally. In addition to this, the promise to set up Reconstruction Opportunity Zones in the tribal areas has also not been fulfilled.

A major initiative, after the lapse of many years, has been the passing of the Kerry-Lugar Bill (KLB). But its conditions and the peculiar manner of its implementation have taken the sheen off an otherwise fairly attractive gesture. A clarification that part of the Friends of Democratic Pakistan funding and Flood Relief assistance will come from the KLB commitments has further affected the positive impression earlier created. The delay in disbursement of the coalition support installments too has downgraded the quality of relationship between the two countries.

The basic problem for any dialogue between the US and Pakistan is that the two countries remain as strategically far apart as they perhaps ever have been. A relationship of necessity based on fear of the other can never be the starting point for a true and meaningful partnership. Consider that beyond non-proliferation and counter-terrorism -- both 'negative' reasons to cooperate -- there is little that can be seen as long-term areas of cooperation in the strategic dialogue. Nevertheless, dialogue is always good. At least now the US and Pakistan have a regular forum to meet and discuss issues at a high level -- if nothing else, they may begin to understand each other's security concerns better.

$2 Billion Package for Islamabad
The new military aid plan or 'security assistance', as the US mandarins call it) was yet to be formally unveiled, but US media accounts suggest it is a done deal: That it would be a $2 billion package spread over five years, over and above the $7.5 billion non-military aid plan approved last year. The new security pact would have three parts: the sale of the US military equipment to Pakistan, a program to allow Pakistani military officers to study at American war colleges and counterinsurgency assistance to Pakistani troops.

Between 2001 and 2009, Pakistan had collected about $9 billion in US military assistance, in terms of aid and reimbursement for its operations in aid of the American-led war effort in Afghanistan. Another $3.6 billion funded economic and diplomatic initiatives. 'But US officials and journalists' accounts have raised concerns that such funds are not being used as intended, and not just because of the typical concerns about corruption,' a Newsweek investigative account said last year. 'Will any amount of money produce results?,' it posed, noting: 'A big part of that answer lies in determining how much bang the United States has gotten for its buck so far -- whether or not some of the money was siphoned off along the way to fund Army generals' new houses or the Taliban elements.'

That may have been about one kind of misuse, but the other misuse by diverting the money for beefing up Pakistan's military might against India has been confirmed by the Pentagon itself. Documents revealed last year how Pakistan had brazenly used billions of dollars meant to fight the war on terror for buying an array of conventional weaponry to develop its offensive capability against India.

Pakistan also used a large portion of funds provided under FMF (Foreign Military Financing) to purchase up to 60 mid-life update kits for F-16 A/B combat aircraft valued at $891 million. Of this, it paid $477 million from the FMF funds given by the United States.

Pakistan's Offerings
Pakistan agreed to the seven US demands but in reality, some of these demands were not fully complied with. For example, the US was not given 'blanket over flight and landing rights'. Instead Pakistan provided a corridor for US aircraft to fly over Pakistani territory on the way to Afghanistan. Similarly, Pakistan did not give unlimited use of its naval ports, air bases and strategic locations on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

Other facilities extended to the US included flyover and landing rights to American aircraft, support facilities, as well as transit of goods and personnel through Pakistan, the sharing of information between the intelligence agencies of the two countries and permission to the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to function in Pakistan in collaboration with its Pakistani counterparts.

Pakistan gave two airports -- Shamsi in Balochistan and Jacobabad in Sind -- for logistical, communication and emergency support to counter-terrorism operations in Afghanistan. Though the US was not authorized to use these air bases for launching air raids into Afghanistan, the US military authorities did not always honor this commitment. A third airport, Pasni, was made available to them temporarily. Shamsi is said to be still in American use in 2010.

Obama's Janus-Headed Policy Toward Pakistan
Is it intended to be a sop to Pakistan in lieu of being overlooked for a US presidential visit that takes Barack Obama to its neighbor and arch-rival, India? The fact that Washington chose to convene a third round of US-Pakistan Strategic Dialogue less than a fortnight before Obama's India visit in November 2010 and pledge a hefty $2 billion military aid package may be nothing short of a balancing act.

For all the talk of de-hyphenation of America's policy approach toward India and Pakistan, it may still be a zero-sum game that Washington plays in the subcontinent, no matter the delinking of the Presidential visit to the two countries. The stratagem in the US corridors of power may also be aimed at keeping Islamabad in check, just in case Obama decides to unveil some goodies while in New Delhi, such as endorsing or signaling support for India's bid for a permanent seat in UN Security Council and/or easing high-tech export controls. For that very reason, India, also, may mute for the time being its concerns over the substantial military aid to Islamabad.

Whatever the American calculations, Indian worries are set to mount, given the likelihood of Pakistan again diverting much of the new aid to bolster its military machine against India instead of using it to combat terrorism. Defence Minister AK Antony apparently had an inkling of what was coming, so he made it a major talking point when he visited Washington last month and held parleys with three of the big guns of the Obama administration -- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defence Secretary Robert Gates and National Security Adviser James Jones. But Antony's expression of concern appears to have fallen by the wayside.

ASEAN Defense Ministers' Meeting

At the first expanded Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Defense Ministers' Meeting, which came to a close in the Vietnam capital of Hanoi, the sense of caution toward China, which is striving to expand its maritime interests, once again surfaced. Japan, the United States, South Korea and other nations expressed concern about the territorial dispute in the South China Sea, while China, which is attempting to strengthen its encirclement, maintained the viewpoint that the dispute is 'a problem between two nations' and would not budge from its position of refusing to engage in multilateral deliberations.

The First ADMM-Plus drew officials from 10 ASEAN members -- Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam -- and their eight dialogue partners -- Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, Russia and the United States.

This was the first expanded Defense Ministers' Meeting for the ASEAN nations and also included officials from eight nations outside the ASEAN region including Japan, the United States, and China. The purpose of the meeting was to search for fields in which the nations can cooperate. Defense ministers from 18 countries clarified their opinions regarding security issues. During the meeting, at least seven nations, including Japan, the United States, South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Australia mentioned the problem in the South China Sea and urged China, which is claiming sovereignty over the Spratly Islands and Paracel Islands, to reach a peaceful resolution based on international rules.

Arguably, leaders responsible for defending their countries and fighting wars know better than most the cost of allowing tensions to become conflicts. The importance of communicating clearly to avoid misunderstandings and building relationships that could prevent confrontation is preeminent among such leaders. Accordingly, the theme of the meeting is 'Strategic Cooperation for Peace, Stability and Development in the Region.' ADMM+8 leaders sought to avoid divisiveness between the United States and China over the South China Sea and currency valuation; between China and Japan over the Senkaku Islands; between China and Korea over North Korea; and over other tensions.

Practical Defense-Security Cooperation
Four years of preparation resulted in the five-hour official meeting to found a regional security structure to deal with new challenges, especially the issue of maritime security. What is the difference between the previous mechanisms and the ones that have just been established? What can the ASEAN community in general as well as Vietnam in particular expect from the ADMM-Plus model?

Acting contrary to the well-known Latin saying 'Si vis pacem, para bellum' -- 'if you want peace, prepare for war'-- the first ASEAN Defense Ministers' Meeting Plus in Hanoi changed this advice to 'If you really want peace, be unanimous in keeping the peace!'

The world has rarely seen the heads of national security of 18 countries together, not to discuss wars, but to share views and to discuss the practical defense-security cooperation for peace, stability and development.

Joint Statement Avoids Mention of Maritime Problems
Defense ministers and representatives passed a joint declaration at the end of the meeting, showing their trust and determination towards a strategic cooperation for peace and stability in the region. They exchanged views on regional and international security and had voluntary briefing on their own national defense and security policies.

The participants focused their discussions on cooperation in five areas including humanitarian aid and disaster relief, military medicine, maritime security, counterterrorism, and peace-keeping operations. They also decided to assign defense senior officials to set up experts’ working groups to boost cooperation in the aforementioned prioritized areas.

The problems in the East China Sea and South China Sea, where tensions are increasing because of advancements by China, were the focal point at the expanded ASEAN Defense Ministers' Meeting. Each of the ASEAN nations made statements regarding the problems in the South China Sea, but those problems were not an official item on the agenda for the meeting and were not incorporated in the joint statement. This clearly leads to speculation that the ASEAN nations did not want to provoke China.

Vietnam is in a territorial dispute with China over the Paracel Islands, and a series of fishing boats have been seized in the ocean waters surrounding those islands. Even so, in talks between Japan and Vietnam, Japanese Defense Minister Toshimi Kitazawa appealed for cooperation between the two nations to deal with the problems in the South China Sea, but Vietnamese Defense Minister Phung Quang Thanh avoided making any direct reference to the problems.

At the overall meeting, each of the nations expressed their opinions in alphabetic order. Japan was the only nation to mention the problems in the East China Sea, but over half of the nations raised the issue of problems in the South China Sea. However, those statements were all limited to expressions such as 'it is important that we secure navigational freedom and the disputes should be peacefully resolved.

ADMM-Plus Starts Later, Arrives Sooner
ASEAN defense-security cooperation started after other fields of activity, but it has become a milestone on the race track to 'ASEAN community,' including the political-security community. From the preliminary ideas about ADMM-Plus at the first ADMM in 2006, with practical experience and strategic vision, with political determination and sense of solidarity for the past four years, ASEAN has been confident and active to create a new architecture for regional defense-security cooperation. In this process, ASEAN plays the lead role, and hopes to gather the capability and brain power to face all kinds of security challenges.

The meeting's joint communiqué has only eight concise points, but illustrates the entire strategic determination. The meeting concentrated on discussing the potential and orientation of the defense cooperation in the ADMM+ framework, and gained a consensus that the priority should be cooperation on non-traditional security challenges.

With the flexible structure of the ADMM, which is composed of the10 ASEAN member countries and eight dialogue partners, ADMM+8 is a promising cooperative mechanism. It is a strategic consultative forum aiming to create trust and general awareness and to define the fields suitable for defense-security cooperation.

What makes ADMM+8 different? It is the structure of the highest level of regional defense cooperation, with the power to orient and direct practical steps to resolve common security challenges, particularly the emerging non-traditional ones. It is a level playing field for all participants, and performs the function of harmonizing relations, building capabilities, and enhancing military cooperation among countries. It is a forum that is compatible with and complementary to the other current regional security structures, such as ASEAN+1, APT, ARF, EAS, and the Shangi-La Dialogue, to create a new security architecture in the region.

US Calls For Restraint
There were hopes for collaboration at this first meeting, but before the meeting, there were almost no expectations for anyone bringing up the problems in the South China Sea, which could easily provoke China. However, it was the United States that changed the casual atmosphere.

According to a source from the meeting, on the evening of 11 October, the US Government contacted each nation separately and urged each of the other nations to take measures to restrain China with regards to the problems in the South China Sea. During the meeting, Defense Secretary Robert Gates began by stating, 'Of particular importance is the problem of maritime safety,' and he then emphasized, 'Differences in opinions regarding territorial lands and territorial waters are becoming an issue for the safety and welfare of the region.'

The Obama administration, which is strengthening its participation in Southeast Asia, is emphasizing new deliberations on a security standpoint and stated just like the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum is important for the economy of Asia, the framework with ASEAN at the core is extremely important (in deliberations for the security field).

However, this does not mean that each of the ASEAN member nations, which are strengthening their relationships with China on an economic perspective, fully agree with the policies of the United States. Singapore and Malaysia, on their parts, voiced criticism of China's hard-line stance, Indonesia, which is a major nation in the region and other nations refrained from bringing up the problems in the South China Sea. The joint statement issued after the meeting did not mention the maritime problems and gave the impression that it would be extremely difficult to adopt policies against China.

Vietnam is the host nation this year for the ASEAN nations, and at a press conference after the defense ministers' meeting came to an end, Vietnamese Defense Minister Thanh applied the brakes to the territorial dispute issue so that criticism against China would not further increase. The problems in the South China Sea did not come up for discussion.

China Dodges Discussions
China did not openly oppose the action of the United States or other nations. China once again expressed its position that policy on territorial waters is outside the scope of multilateral talks and stated that this was explained at the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), held in Hanoi in July. The situation in the South China Sea is stable. Right before the meeting, China released the crew of a Vietnamese fishing boat that it had seized in the South China Sea, and by doing so, China sent a sign that it is trying to ease tensions.

The expanded Defense Ministers' Meeting will be held once every three years, and the next meeting will be held in 2013 in Brunei. However, according to ASEAN Secretary General Surin Pitsuwan, 'Some of the member nations are of the opinion that the meeting should be held at least once every two years.' The issue is finding a way to mitigate security related friction in the form of drawing in China.