Iran Civilian Nuclear Deal

.
.
.
.

Reports Emerge of Deals on Iran Arms Embargo, Site Access

Main Obstacles to Final Deal Apparently Resolved

.

by Jason Ditz of antiwar.com

For weeks, the two main obstacles to a final nuclear deal between Iran and the P5+1 have been access to conventional Iranian military sites and the question of lifting the arms embargo against Iran. Reports emerging today are that both have been resolved.
.
The deal on access to sites appears to include a planned IAEA visit to Parchin, a conventional military site, by year’s end.
.
Iran has objected to demands of unrestricted access going forward at all military sites, and US officials have conceded that the demands were unreasonable.
.
Sources also say that the deal will partially lift the arms embargo, giving Iran the right to supply defensive weapons to its regional allies. This is seen as likely to include shipments of arms to Syria(The moderate Secular elected popular Baathist regime in Damascus) and Iraq (Shia dominated religious party aligned with Iran since the days of the Iran/Iraq war)to fight against ISIS.
.

The exact terms of these deals, like the rest of the pact, have not been made public, and while it is expected we’ll get something of a public release of the pact after it is signed, something many believe could happen later this week, certain aspects may end up in secret addenda to the deal.

India Pakistan co-existence

.
.
.
.
If only greater trade could be facilitated directly between the countries rather than through the bizarre oddity transit of The UAE.

If only India accelerated a bi-lateral FTA with Pakistan, rather than every other country, but South Asia.

If only cross border INFRASTRUCTURE was accelerated between the two countries.

Rather than have photo ops about the same old stale agenda's.......Kashmir, ISI terrorism, counterfeit notes, human trafficking and Afghan heroin via Pakistan into India.

India perceptively needs to differentiate between the Pakistan military, and the nascent political class in that country....and modulate state policies once the difference is identified. There isn't one Pakistan, as much as there isn't one India.

India should engage and reward the 'progressive' elements in the Pakistani power structure.

Very naturally the failed Pudi Cunts (They exist in equal measure in both states)will carry out distraction exercises, but the Modi government must remain focused like a hawk and stead fast in their objectives. 

____________________________________________

Modi-Sharif talks: Top 10 highlights

.

By Times of India.

.

India and Pakistan took a step forward in bilateral ties as Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Pakistani counterpart Nawaz Sharif met on Friday in Ufa, Russia on the sidelines of SCO summit. Here are some of the major takeaways from the talks.

1. India, Pakistan agree to discuss all outstanding issues

2. Modi and Sharif condemn terrorism in all its forms.

3. India, Pak agree to cooperate to eliminate the menace of terrorism.

4. Both countries agree to find ways to expedite the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks trial

5. Pakistan agrees to India's demand to provide voice samples of the accused in 26/11 case

6. PM Modi accepts Sharif's invitation to visit Pakistan in 2016 for the SAARC summit

7. National security advisers of both countries to meet in New Delhi to discuss all issues related to terrorism.

8. Both countries decide to hold early meetings of DG BSF and DG Pakistan Rangers followed by that of DGMOs.

9. The two sides decide to release within 15 days fishermen in each other's custody and their boats.

10. Two countries agree to discuss mechanism for facilitating religious tourism. 

SCO and India

.
.
.
.

India on the verge of full membership of SCO, Putin tells Modi

.

Sachin Parashar of the Times of India.

UFA: Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday confirmed to Prime Minister Narendra Modi that India was on the verge of becoming a full member of Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), a security grouping of Russia, China and four Central Asian countries, which is seen as a potential provider of security and peace in war-torn Afghanistan.

In a bilateral meeting with Modi ahead of the BRICS summit here, Putin told Modi the process for India's promotion to full membership of the organisation had already begun.

Pakistan is also expected to be inducted as a full member of the group along with India, sources said. India has long wanted to become a full member of SCO but its attempts have been thwarted by resistance from China. During Chinese President Xi Jinping's visit to India last year though, Beijing? promised to support India's candidature for full membership. Beijing, however, has also ensured that Pakistan too becomes a full member. Along with Iran, Afghanistan and Mongolia, India and Pakistan currently have 'observer' status in the organisation.

"We are beginning the process of full-fledged inclusion of India into the Shanghai Cooperation Organization," ?Putin told Modi.

"Under your (Putin's) leadership in BRICS, India has become a member of SCO. I am very grateful," Modi responded.

Foreign secretary S Jaishankar said there was a fair amount of discussion over economic issues between the two countries, including the possibility of visa liberalization. He added that the two leaders also paid a lot of attention to civil nuclear cooperation, especially in the context of climate change. "The issue of connectivity and North-South regional transport corridor was also discussed," said Jaishankar.

In a lighter vein, Putin also told Modi that he found it difficult to do yoga after Modi thanked him for Russia's support to India's initiative for the UN to declare an International Day of Yoga.

"Yoga is one of the few things I haven't done yet, though it's hard to resist the attraction," Putin told Modi.

"I will see what I can do, given my level of sports fitness. When you look at real practitioners of yoga, they just seem to achieve an impossible level of perfection," he said.

Iran steel

.
.
.
.

Massive steel plan to transform east Iran

.

Sangan is estimated to hold 1.2 billion metric tons of iron ore.

By Presstv.com

.

Iran is advancing a massive steelmaking project being promoted as the country’s “South Pars” of the steel industry.
.
Sangan, the biggest industrial project in Iran’s east, will produce 17.5 million metric tons of iron ore concentrates and 15 million tons of pellets a year.
.
An initial investment of $2 billion is planned in Sangan which is estimated to hold 1.2 billion metric tons of iron ore.
.
Deputy Minister of Industry, Mine and Trade Mehdi Karbasian says further discoveries are expected to increase its reserves by 50-100% given “many promising signs which we have seen”.

For both concentration and pelletizing, nine production units have been designed which will lead to a transformational change in the regional economy and bring about development and employment to the local residents, he said.
.
Sangan, near the border with Afghanistan in Iran’s Khorasan Razavi province, is an underdeveloped backcountry. It is already seeing development rolling on its way, as new roads are being paved, a rail track is laid and water brought to its doorsteps.
.
Karbasian said the project will create a robust downstream chain in Sangan where “the soil will find added value and turn into the dollar”.

Deputy Minister of Industry, Mine and Trade Mehdi Karbasian says Sangan is Iran's "South Pars" in the steel industry.

.

Some of the purchases for the plants have been made from Italian foundry equipment maker Danieli SpA before the Europeans intensified sanctions on Iran.
.
For now, five domestic consortiums and another consortium comprised of two Chinese and four Iranian firms have undertaken to provide investment.
.
Iran’s biggest mill, also the Middle East’s largest, is currently Mobarakeh Steel Company which produces 7.2 million metric tons of steel per year.
.
There are also several private steel plants, each under 100,000-ton capacity, scattered around the country.
.
Iran plans to quadruple steel production to 55 million tons a year by 2025 to keep pace with demand in its industry and an economy being billed as one of the emerging Next Eleven.
.
Steel is a strategic commodity for the country of about 80 million. It is crucial to Iran’s massive oil and gas industry, automotive sector which is the Middle East’s largest as well as transportation and water supply networks, urban centers and a mammoth construction sector and its employment.
.
Karbasian said Iran is currently the world’s 10th country in terms of mineral deposits but the country can improve its ranking on the table with more discoveries as many fields have never been examined.
.
“To put it into perspective, discoveries have been made only on 100,000 km of the country’s 1.6 million km mineral fields,” he said.
.  
“Iran’s is among the world's top countries in terms of gas and oil reserves; while those reserves are running out, the Sangan iron ore mine is being described as the second Assaluyeh which contains many job opportunities and unique potentials for foreign exchange earning and development,” Karbasian added. 
.
South Pars is the world’s largest gas field near the Iranian city of Assaluyeh which the country develops in over two dozen phases. 

Civilian nuclear agreement finally settled

.
.
.
.

Breakthrough Reported in Iran Talks, But Differences Remain

.

Officials Express Hope for Deal This Week

by Jason Ditz at antiwar.com

.

The P5+1 nuclear negotiations with Iran continue apace this weekend, with officials describing Saturday’s talks in Vienna as a “breakthrough,” and one which now has the two sides sitting on an unofficial draft agreement which could end up serving as the basis for a final pact.
.
Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif conceding that despite the progress, the final deal still isn’t necessarily clear, and that some difference remain and will require significant effort to move past. Exactly what remains to resolve is unclear.
.
The IAEA has also appeared more optimistic about the final deal in recent comments, saying they believe that questions about Iran’s past nuclear work, an issue which they’ve sat of for many years, can be resolved fairly simply by year’s end.
.
Even if there are still i’s to dot and t’s to cross, the breakthrough suggests that the deal is closer than ever, and many officials are openly talking about the final pact being reached within the week, putting an end to the disputes over Iran’s civilian nuclear program once and for all.

Iran Civilian nuclear agreement.

.
.
.
.

Overwhelming Expert Consensus Favors Agreement with Iran

.

by Joe Cirincione at lobe.com and antiwar.com
.
.
There is an overwhelming consensus among non-proliferation, nuclear policy, and national security experts that a negotiated accord is the best, and likely the only, way to ensure that Iran never builds a nuclear weapon. But you would not know that if you relied on congressional hearings or most media coverage of the negotiations.
.
No sooner had the ink dried on the April framework agreement to freeze and roll back Iran’s nuclear program than critics began decrying its supposed shortcomings.
.
It would “lead to a cascade of proliferation in the most unstable region in the world,” said Senator Marco Rubio (R.-FL) because it would only eliminate two-thirds of Iran’s 19,000 centrifuges. The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol claimed that leaving Iran with any enrichment capability would make “nuclear proliferation in an unbelievably unstable region of the world​…more likely and more imminent.”
.
As we have gotten closer to a final agreement, the torrent of criticism has grown, but very little of it comes from actual nuclear policy experts. In truth, the expert opinion is decisively in favor of the negotiating effort.
.
A Gathering Consensus
.
For example, a bipartisan group of more than 50 former national security and military leaders signed a letter in April applauding the negotiators and urging Congress to refrain from impeding ongoing talks. Although withholding judgment until the final deal is reached, these policy heavyweights found that “the framework represents important progress toward our goal of blocking an Iranian nuclear weapon.”
.
They warned further that “undermining the negotiations or blocking the chances of reaching a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” could have grave consequences. Among these are “creating the perception that the U.S. is responsible for the collapse of the agreement; unraveling international cooperation on sanctions; and triggering the unfreezing of Iran’s nuclear program the rapid ramping of Iranian nuclear capacity.” This, they said, “could enhance the possibility of war.”
.
Signers included former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright; former National Security Advisors Samuel Berger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Brent Scowcroft; retired Generals Anthony Zinni and Frank Kearney; retired Admirals William Fallon, Eric Olsen, and Joe Sestak; former Ambassadors Thomas Pickering, Nicolas Burns, Chester Crocker, James Dobbins, Michael Armacost, Daniel Kurtzer, and Frank Wisner; and issue experts such as George Perkovich, Graham Allison, Robert Einhorn, Michèle Flournoy, and Gary Sick, among others.
.
Reflecting this consensus view, both Brzezinski and Scowcroft warned Congress earlier this year in a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee to “not take steps which would destroy the negotiations. “
.
Similarly, the Atlantic Council released a statement signed by 16 experts on its Iran Task Force—including Stuart Eizenstat, Jim Moody, William Reinsch, Greg Thielmann, Harlan Ullman, and retired Marine General James Cartwright— commending “the herculean efforts of the United States, the other four permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany (P5+1) and Iran in achieving a framework for a Comprehensive Joint Plan of Action (CJPOA) limiting Iran’s nuclear program and shutting off its principal pathways to developing nuclear weapons.”
.
Agreement Strengthens Non-Proliferation
.
The vast majority of experts reject the claim that a deal with Iran would trigger a cascade of proliferation. They believe exactly the opposite is true.
.
Thirty non-proliferation experts wrote in early April that “the agreement reduces the likelihood of destabilizing nuclear weapons competition in the Middle East, and strengthens global efforts to prevent proliferation, including the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.”
.
Collectively, these experts have hundreds of years of experience monitoring the spread of nuclear weapons around the world—and working to reverse and halt this trend. The letter signers included internationally recognized leaders in the field such as Brooke Anderson, Bruce Blair, Barry Blechman, Matthew Bunn, Sidney Drell, Robert Einhorn, Steve Fetter, Robert Gallucci, R. Scott Kemp, Michael Krepon, Scott Sagan, Sharon Squassoni, Tariq Rauf, and Frank von Hippel.
.
They concluded that the agreed framework was “a vitally important step forward” for non-proliferation and global security, and that “when implemented, it will put in place an effective, verifiable, enforceable, long-term plan to guard against the possibility of a new nuclear-armed state in the Middle East.”
.
Ilan Goldenberg, one of the letter’s signers and director of the Middle East Security Program at the Center for a New American Security, wrote separately in a recent report that, “if the deal is achieved, in 10–15 years the world could see a more moderate Iran, reduced instability in the Middle East, a stronger global non-proliferation regime, and an environment in which America’s prestige and influence has increased as a result of the nuclear agreement.”
.
Former national security advisor Sandy Berger summarized the consensus view of nuclear security experts when he said that “the absence of a deal will more likely drive them [Iran’s neighbors] to buy or acquire nuclear weapons, because they’ll have an unconstrained Iranian nuclear program.”
.
Further validation of the proposed agreement has come from Anthony Cordesman, the Arleigh A. Burke Chair of Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, who wrote that:

The devil in any arms control agreement lies both in the details and how they are enforced over time… That said, the proposed parameters and framework in the Proposed Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action has the potential to meet every test in creating a valid agreement… It can block both an Iranian nuclear threat and a nuclear arms race in the region, and it is a powerful beginning to creating a full agreement, and creating the prospect for broader stability in other areas.

Media Blind Spot
.
The media rarely portrays this expert consensus in the coverage of the Iran negotiations. This is not to say that the nuclear policy experts are uniform in their views. There are nuances and shades of agreement. And several genuine non-proliferation experts have strong, principled disagreements with the proposed Iran deal. Some outright oppose it. They, however, represent a minority faction in the field. The overwhelming majority of experts favor the deal.
.
The media portrayal of expert opinion is driven partially by the custom to “balance” expert views in stories, so that pro and con are evenly represented—even if this gives a false depiction of the overall expert opinion.
.
It is also driven by the desire to make news. Conflict grabs attention; agreement is boring. “If it bleeds, it leads” guides not just the local nightly news but often the front page of The New York Times.
.
Some reporters, for instance, used a recent letter from a bipartisan group of experts to generate headlines that former top officials of the Obama administration were condemning the Iran deal. This, even though several of these former officials, including Bob Einhorn, Gary Samore, and Gen. James Cartwright, had already signed letters in support of the agreement.
.
Einhorn felt compelled to write a rebuttal of this media misrepresentation, explaining that the signers, including several former Republican security officials such as Bush national security advisor Stephen Hadley, were not challenging the administration’s negotiating positions or asking them to adopt new and more demanding postures. Rather, he wrote,

The significance of the statement is that this diverse, bipartisan group was able to come together on a number of reasonable and achievable recommendations for concluding an agreement that would serve U.S. interests and the interests of U.S. friends in the Middle East. Unlike some recommendations made by other groups and individuals, these contained no “poison pills” designed to complicate or even sabotage the negotiations.

Aggressive Tactics from Deal Foes
.
The mistaken impression of where the experts stand also stems from the aggressive tactics of the opposition forces. Though light on nuclear policy experts, the groups working to kill a deal with Iran are exceptionally well funded, heavily staffed, and relentless in their bombardment of the media and the Congress with “fact sheets,” reports, letters, visits, and tweets. As several Senate staffers told me recently, “We feel under siege.” With a few exceptions, pro-deal experts are, to put it politely, more restrained in offering their opinion.
.
Nor do liberals have the massive propaganda machine that conservatives enjoy.
The distorted impression that nuclear policy experts are evenly divided or that most are critical of the deal also stems from the imbalance of witnesses on congressional panels. It is difficult to find an expert in favor of the Iran agreement on any witness list in the Republican-controlled Congress.
.
In the past 18 months, Congress has staged 21 public hearings on the Iran agreement, calling 41 witnesses.  Of these, four have been witnesses from the administration while 36 came from non-governmental organizations. Of the outside witnesses, an overwhelming 28 were clear critics of the Iran agreement and only 7 could be called supportive. That is a ratio of four to one, critics to supporters.
.
Moreover, several of the most critical witnesses testified multiple times, appearing in three, four, or even six different hearings. None of the supportive non-government witnesses testified more than once. This totals an astonishing 45 appearances from deal critics versus seven appearances from deal supporters outside the government. When a supportive witness is allowed to testify, he or she is usually outnumbered two to one at the witness table. They invariably speak last and are asked only a few questions.
.
These hearings generate considerable media coverage, and the organizations involved often trumpet their testimonies in press releases, email blasts, and social media. Any reporter covering such hearings is left with a stacked deck of negative testimony, buttressed by the torrents of criticism that pour forth from the members themselves.
.
These show hearings do not serve the congressional interest. During the more than nine years that I served on congressional staff, we always sought to present members with a healthy debate. This made for a more informed and more interesting hearing. But these staged Iran productions have likely left members with the view that the large majority of experts are skeptical of an agreement or oppose it outright.  This could not be further from the truth.
.
Perfect Should Not Be Enemy of Good
.
This is not to say that all experts are ecstatic with the coming deal. On the contrary, most know that it will not be perfect. It will certainly have flaws. But the relentless effort to condemn the deal, to jettison the entire operation because some part of the agreement may not meet arbitrary red lines drawn by critics far from the negotiating table, is foolish and dangerous.
.
James Walsh of MIT, one of the few supportive witnesses invited to testify, cautioned Congress in June against “making the perfect the enemy of the good.” Providing some historical context largely absent from congressional hearings, he said:

If perfect were the standard, we would have no NPT [Non-Proliferation Treaty], no arms control agreements with the Soviet Union, no nuclear deal with Libya, no Proliferation Security Initiative, and the like—all of which have advanced American national security…
The NPT, like all nonproliferation and arms control agreements, was not perfect and did not eliminate all risk, but it was spectacularly successful. It helped prevent the cascade of proliferation that virtually every government and academic analyst had predicted in the years prior to its passage.

Jessica Mathews, one of the nation’s leading policy authorities who led the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace for almost 20 years, summarized the view of many experts on the relative merits of this particular agreement in her article for The New York Review of Books:

Those who worry that a deal with Iran will entail some risk should remember that preventing nuclear proliferation almost never happens in a single leap. Countries change direction slowly. International rules and norms are built up brick by brick over years. Technical capacities to monitor and political expectations are gradually but steadily strengthened. The agreement with Iran, if one is finally reached, will not be the end, but a beginning. It must be strong and carefully framed and minutely monitored, but it need not be watertight in order for it to ultimately open the way to a permanently nonnuclear Iran.

Similarly, on the critical issue of our ability to verify the agreement, Thomas Shea, a 24-year veteran of the IAEA Department of Safeguards, wrote recently that the Iran deal “marks the first time that the five Security Council members have acted collectively to prevent a state from acquiring a nuclear arsenal.” Moreover, “if the IAEA receives the support it needs, which is likely, it will be able to verify Iran’s commitments effectively. Even the skeptics should have confidence that if Iran changes course, IAEA verification will work in time for intervention to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.”
.
That is where most nuclear policy experts stand. They are cognizant of the shortcomings and aware of the advances. Scores of experts hold these views. In fact, there are too many to list in this article.
.
If you are one of these experts, listed herein or not, please consider making your views more widely known. If you are a journalist, please consider including some of these neglected experts in your next report.
.
If you are neither an expert nor a journalist, please don’t be confused by the loudest or the best funded. Look at all the facts, assess the overwhelming consensus, and don’t be bullied. Make up you own mind.
________________________________________
Joe Cirincione is president of Ploughshares Fund. He served previously as vice president for national security at the Center for American Progress, director for non-proliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, senior associate on nuclear policy at the Stimson Center and on the professional staff of the House Armed Services Committee and the House Government Operations Committee.

Follow LobeLog on Twitter and like us on Facebook

 

Final nuclear agreement almost there

.
.
.
.

Diplomats: Tentative agreement reached on Iran sanctions relief

Experts from both sides have agreed on document outlining removal of sanctions, diplomats say

By al-Jazeera and antiwar.com

.

Diplomats said Saturday that Iran and six world powers have reached tentative agreement on sanctions relief for Tehran, among the most contentious issues in a long-term nuclear agreement that negotiators hope to clinch over the next several days.
.
Experts have hammered out an annex, one of five meant to accompany the agreement, outlining which U.S. and international sanctions will be lifted and how quickly.
.
The diplomats told The Associated Press on Saturday that the document has been agreed on by experts for both sides, who have been working on details of the outline to implement the preliminary agreement reached in November 2013.
.
The senior officials in the talks, which include U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, still had to sign off on the package, a senior administration official said.
.
"Even if and when issues get resolved at an experts level, there will remain some open issues that can only be decided by ministers,” said the official, who asked not to be named.
.
Still, the word of significant progress indicated that the sides were moving closer to a comprehensive accord that would set a decade of restrictions on Tehran's nuclear program in exchange for tens of billions of dollars' in economic benefits for the Iranians.
.
Officials had described sanctions relief as one of the thorniest disagreements between Iran and the United States, which has led the international pressure campaign against Iran's economy. The U.S. and much of the world fears Iran's enrichment of uranium and other activity could be designed to make nuclear weapons; Iran says its program is meant only to generate power and for other peaceful purposes.
.
The diplomats, who weren't authorized to speak publicly on this past week's confidential negotiations in Vienna, said the sanctions annex was completed this week by experts from Iran and the six world powers with whom it is negotiating: the United States, Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia. They did not provide details of the agreement.
.
A senior U.S. official did not dispute the diplomats' account, but said work remained to be done on "Annex II" before the issue could be described as finalized.
.
Negotiators are striving to wrap up the deal by July 7.
.
Along with inspection guidelines and rules governing Iran's research and development of advanced nuclear technology, the sanctions annex of the agreement had been among the toughest issues remaining to be resolved.
.
Iranian officials, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, have made repeated demands for economic penalties to be lifted shortly after a deal is reached. Washington and its partners have said they would take action after Iran verifiably complies with restrictions on enrichment and other elements of the nuclear program.
.
Much of the negotiation on the matter has concerned sequencing, so that both sides can legitimately claim to have gotten their way.
.
Several other matters related to sanctions also had posed problems.
.
The Obama administration cannot move too quickly to remove economic penalties because of Congress, which will have a 30-day review period for any agreement during which no sanctions can be waived.
.
U.S. officials also had been struggling to separate the "nuclear-related" sanctions they are prepared to suspend from those they wish to keep, including measures designed to counteract Iranian ballistic missile efforts, human rights violations and support for U.S.-designated terrorist organizations.
.
And to keep pressure on Iran, world powers had been hoping to finalize a system for snapping suspended sanctions back into force if Iran cheats on the accord. Russia has traditionally opposed any plan that would see it lose its U.N. veto power, and a senior Russian negotiator said this week that his government rejected any automatic "snapback" of sanctions.

Democracy doesn't always work

.
.
.
.

Rejection of Western-Style Democracy Has Been Key to Russia's Success

.

Singapore was on the right track. Fractitious western-style democracy where numerous special interests can realistically vie for power isn’t conductive to stability and growth
.

By Rakesh Krishnan Simha (Russia & India Report) and Russia Insider

This article originally appeared at Russia & India Report

---

Is democracy a dead cat the West wants to sell for good money? According to one of the greatest strategists of the 20th century, that would be more or less correct. In the words of Lee Kuan Yew, the late Singapore strongman, “The exuberance of democracy leads to undisciplined and disorderly conditions which are inimical to development.”
.
The West treats democracy as religion – a form of government so sacred that it will bomb countries into the stone age in order to sow the seeds of democracy in those places. But in Lee’s view, “Democratic procedures have no intrinsic value. What matters is good government.” The Singapore strongman believed the government’s primary duty is to create a “stable and orderly society” where “people are well cared for, their food, housing, employment, health”.
.
Lee concluded: “Democracy is one way of getting the job done, but if non-electoral procedures are more conducive to the attainment of valued ends, then I’m against democracy. Nothing is morally at stake in the choice of procedures.”
.
Nation building: no easy task.
.
During a rally in 1980, Lee described what it took to transform a small, dirty colonial trading post into one of the wealthiest nations in the world: “Whoever governs Singapore must have that iron in him, or give it up! This is not a game of cards! This is your life and mine! I spent a whole life-time building this, and as long as I am in charge, nobody is going to knock it down.”
.
Lee walked his talk. Under him, Singapore became a de facto one-party state. He disallowed dissent, curbed free speech, introduced corporal punishment, and even banned chewing gum. Was he a tyrant? Benevolent dictator would be a better description. Indeed, Singaporeans loved him for raising their living standards and, more importantly, their prestige.
.
Lee served in office from 1959 to 1990, during which time he led his country through a period of remarkable economic growth and diversification. When he took over as Prime Minister, Singapore’s annual per capital income was $400; today it is estimated at $56,000.
.
That democracy can drag down nations is best exemplified in India’s case. ‘Lee Kuan Yew: The Grand Master’s Insights on China, the United States, and the World’ by Graham Allison, Robert Blackwill and Ali Wyne, includes a chapter on India. In this book, Lee says in his no-nonsense style: “India has wasted decades in state planning and controls that have bogged it down in bureaucracy and corruption. A decentralised system would have allowed more centres like Bangalore and Bombay to grow and prosper….India is a nation of unfulfilled greatness. Its potential has lain fallow, underused.”
.
In Lee’s view, there are limitations in India’s constitutional system and the political system that prevent it from going at high speed. “Whatever the political leadership may want to do, it must go through a very complex system at the centre, and then even a more complex system in the various states….Indians will go at a tempo which is decided by their constitution, by their ethnic mix, by their voting patterns, and the resulting coalition governments, which makes for very difficult decision-making.
.
“Furthermore, populist democracy makes Indian policies less consistent, with regular changes in ruling parties.”
.
Russia’s strongman
.
If Singapore had taken the democratic route, would it have been as chaotic as India? Would it have been less prosperous? For the answers let’s turn to Russia and how it experimented with unbridled democracy and then later with strong central rule under President Vladimir Putin.

When democracy arrived in Russia after the collapse of communism in 1991, it was pretty much free for all. The country was under the grip of criminal syndicates, oligarchs and sundry opportunists. The economy, remote controlled by the IMF, was in free fall, without the bottom in sight.
.
And yet in the western view, “God was in his heaven and everything was right with the world.” The suffering of the Russian people didn’t matter to them.
. 
Rather, the pictures of once proud pensioners now reduced to trading their World War II medals for a loaf of bread were gleefully published by TIME, Newsweek, and The Economist.
.
Had Moscow continued on that path, the country would have been destroyed. The heart of Russia’s industry would have been ripped apart; its navy would have rusted in ports; its mighty rocket forces would have degraded in silos.
.
But in stepped Putin. His entry was dramatic – the Russian stock market jumped 17 per cent the day he got the job in 1999.
.
During Putin’s first stint in power (from 1999-2008), the Russian economy recorded an average growth of 7 per cent annually. During this period, industry grew 75 per cent, while real incomes more than doubled. The monthly salary of the man in the street went from $80 to almost $600. The IMF, which worked overtime to destroy Russia’s state owned corporations and banks, admits that from 2000 to 2006, the Russian middle class grew from 8 million to 55 million. The number of families living below the poverty line decreased from 30 per cent in 2000 to 14 per cent in 2008.
.
How did Putin achieve that? First up, he rejected the notion that western democracy and values are universal. This is precisely what Lee had done in Singapore. As the Singapore Prime Minister was fond of saying, “I do not believe you can impose on other countries standards which are alien and totally disconnected with their past.” In his view, “to ask China to become a democracy, when in its 5,000 years of recorded history it never counted heads” was completely and utterly arrogant.
.
In western democracy the party or candidate that gets the most votes is the winner. Such a system may seem fair but in reality can create terrible outcomes. For instance, a large number of candidates can divide votes so that a totally unpopular candidate can squirm his way to power. This has happened most starkly in India where the Congress party ruled India for over six decades despite not getting the majority of the votes. In the US, western democracy could not prevent the theft of the 2000 Presidential elections where Al Gore got more votes than George W. Bush and still lost, leading to the 2003 Iraq War.
.
Putin has rejected such forms of kleptocracy – rule by thieves – the West has been exporting. “We certainly would not want to have the same kind of democracy as they have in Iraq, I will tell you quite honestly,” he said in St Petersburg, in 2006.
.
In 2012, after winning his third term, Putin pursued a tough course on unruly dissent. For instance, members of Pussy Riot who performed a lewd dance in a church were jailed. NGOs that got money from foreign sources were legally required to be registered as foreign agents. “Direct or indirect foreign interference in our internal political processes is inadmissible,” he said. “Those who receive money from abroad for their political activities and serve alien interests shouldn’t engage in the politics in Russia.”
.
Both Putin and Lee have similar views on how much democracy is enough, and how much is the tipping point where democracy delivers chaos. Like Lee, Putin is unapologetic about his actions. In a speech at the Kremlin, Putin said Russia would follow its own view on democracy and shrug off any “standards enforced on us from outside”.
.
Lee spoke against the imperfect democratic political system during an interview in 1999: “My view is that people’s preferences matter, but I don’t define the people’s preferences as merely the views of existing majorities. ‘The people’, as I see it, includes future generations, and governments have a special responsibility to resist popular pressure for tax breaks and welfare measures that undermine the prospects of future generations. So perhaps we should define democracy as a government chosen by the people, including contemporary and future generations.”
.
In contrast to Putin and Lee’s strong sense of nationalism, India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was completely delusional. Instead of rebuilding industry and raising living standards, Nehru spent his time and energy on the chimera of world peace. He is nowadays known as the “breaker of modern India”. Unlike Lee, Nehru lapped up what his former colonial patrons dished out to him. He imposed western democracy on a poor and divided country, causing chaos that slowed economic growth and caused numerous caste and religious conflicts.
.
A leader who protects his country’s interests is not necessarily a tyrant. Gen Augusto Pinochet, a western stooge who killed thousands of Chileans, was a tyrant. Lee and Putin, on the other hand are nation builders. Indeed, because of the dramatic economic growth of Russia, Chinese, Singapore and other South East Asian economies, authoritarian prosperity rather than democracy is now a viable governing option for developing countries. It is yet another example of the rejection of western ideas by the emerging world.
.
Around 2300 years ago, Chanakya, the original master of statecraft and policy in India, said in the Arthashastra (Economics): “The foremost duty of a ruler is to keep his people happy and contented. The people are his biggest asset as well as the source of peril. They will not support a weak administration.”
On that, Lee and Putin are on the same page.

Indian economy reaches $2 trillion

.
.
.
.
India's PPP GDP will reach $5.5 trillion this year 2015. The third largest economy on earth.

India's PPP GDP will reach $50 trillion by 2050.

China's PPP GDP will reach $85 trillion by 2050.

By that time China will lead the world, and India will play a passive second fiddle to China. This is not undesirable. 

The Jew in the West and their bizarre policies will become irrelevant by that time....and for that we must thank the Chinese. India is developing due to the role model of China. Asia is developing because of the role model of China.

China leads the world without fighting.

_________________________________________________

India is now a $2-trillion economy: World Bank report

.

By Times of India

.

India has become a $2 trillion economy now.

According to a World Bank report, India's GDP crossed the $2-trillion mark in 2014 and at present stands at $2 trillion.

 In just seven years, India has added one trillion to its economy.

Going by income, India is still in the lower middle income category.

India's gross national income per person has risen to $1,610, which converts to Rs 1,01,430 by present exchange rate.

India is among the world the fastest growing economies this year.


  READ ALSO: India a bright spot in troubled global economy, Jaitley says


Reserve Bank of India governor Raghuram Rajan said on Thursday that the Indian economy was in a recovery phase.

  "There are signs of pick up in capital investments," Rajan said.




Rajan also said that India's exposure to Greece was very, very limited. "The direct exposure is very limited for India. But there is some indirect exposure like how the Euro would react to the Greece situation." He added after the initial burst of volatility, investors will start differentiating. "Our growth prospects are good and the buffers that we have are reasonable, including foreign exchange," Rajan said.

He added that exports remained an area of relative concern but they have been weak across all Asian economies, barring China. On monsoon, the governor said the news on the rain front has so far been good. "The monsoon thus far has been above normal. Of course, there are varying predictions moving forward," he said.

Iran Steel output at 18 million tons 2015

.
.
.
.

Iran mulls 40% steel tariff amid ‘crisis’

Iranian steelmakers are demanding an import tariff of up to 40% for certain steel products.

By Presstv.com

.

Iran’s steelmakers are calling on the government to raise import tariffs on certain steel products amid a “crisis” in the industry due to a number of factors, including dumping by China and other exporters. 
.
The government has already increased import duties by 20% but steelmakers are calling for a raise of up to 40% for flat steel products in order to protect the industry.
.
“The situation is critical and tariff protection is the only device which could positively affect the steel sector,” Secretary of the Iranian Steel Manufacturers Association Rasoul Khalifeh-Soltani said.
.
The Ministry of Industry, Mine and Trade has been presented with a proposal to raise duties for hot-rolled, cold-rolled, coated and color coated steel sheets by 25%, 30%, 35% and 40% respectively, he said. 
.  
Khalifeh-Soltan said the prices of the finished imported steel are currently cheaper than the raw material used by Iranian producers.
. 
“Certain countries have put a prize on steel exports, leading to dumping of their products in Iran. Our government must raise the duty barrier for imports from China similar to other countries such as the US.” 
.
Iran is the Middle East’s biggest steel producer with 16.6 million tonnes a year which puts it at 14th on the world’s steel production table. Iran’s steel imports are put around 10 million tonnes a year in some reports which dwarf exports of around 2.5 million tonnes.

Technicians work at a control room in Isfahan's Mobarakeh Steel Company.

.

Iran's steel production is expected to rise to 18 million tonnes this year, according to Minister of Industry, Mine and Trade Mohammad Reza Nematzadeh. 
.

The country plans to quadruple production to 55 million tonnes a year by 2025 to keep pace with demand in its industry and an economy being billed as one of the emerging Next Eleven. 
.
Steel is a strategic commodity for the country of about 80 million. It is crucial to Iran’s massive oil and gas industry, transportation and water supply networks, urban centers and a mammoth construction sector as well as its employment.
.
Iran’s biggest mill, also the Middle East’s largest, is Mobarakeh Steel Company which produces 7.2 million tonnes of steel per year.
.
There are also several private steel plants, each under 100,000-tonne capacity, scattered around the country.
.
The cost of iron ore production, however, is high in Iran compared with other countries, which makes the industry vulnerable to dumping.
. 
The sector is further under pressure from the slump in global steel prices which are currently at their lowest levels in nearly six years.