|
|
Post by TsarSamuil on Jul 16, 2009 23:59:45 GMT -5
Japan drools over Russia's vast territory.
13.07.2009
Pravda.Ru
Sergey Balmasov
Vadim Trukhachev
The relations between Russia and Japan worsened in July after the Japanese parliament passed the law asserting sovereignty over four islands and declaring them an integral part of Japan.
Official spokespeople for Russia’s Foreign Affairs Ministry and the State Duma (the parliament) urged the Japanese law-makers to cancel the law. The Russian official said that the law would only complicate the bilateral ties between the countries.
Russia’s Medvedev touched upon the subject on July 9 during his meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso in Italy, within the scope of the G8 Summit.
“President Medvedev said that discussing such complicated issues as the signing of the peace agreement and the territorial dispute must take place under the conditions of the adequate atmosphere, which had not changed for the better during the recent times,” Russian presidential aide Sergei Prikhodko said.
The Federation Council addressed to Dmitry Medvedev on July 7 with a request to set a moratorium on the visa-free travel between Japan and Southern Kuril Islands (the non-visa regime was introduced in 1992).
About 750 residents of the Far Eastern city of Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk protested on Friday against Japan's claim to four disputed Pacific islands, RIA Novosti reports. Organizers said no political party was behind the gathering. Among those who addressed the crowd were World War II veterans and members of the city's nongovernmental organizations.
"The islands were, are and will be ours," said Yuri Andreyev, acting chairman of the city's council of WWII veterans, the news agency said.
Japan has been persistently claiming its rights on Russia’s four Kuril Islands for over 50 years already. Russia insists that the islands were annexed to the USSR after Japan’s defeat in WWII. Japan claims that it will not sign the peace treaty with Russia, whereas Russia claims that it will not give the islands away in return for the treaty.
Viktor Pavlyatenko, a senior scientist of Russia’s Institute for Far East, told Pravda.Ru that the dispute did not have any economic influence on the relations between the two countries.
“The ties between Russia and Japan get stronger every year. However, the Kuril issue is like a fly in the ointment. Japan sets territorial claims to Russia, but it is Japan that creates more problems for itself. Russia, for instance, may veto Japan’s bid to obtain the status of a permanent member of the UN Security Council. However, I do not think that there will be too much drama out of this situation,” the expert said.
“However, Japan can go too far with its territorial claims to Russia. Let’s take a look at the Atlantic Charter of 1941 (the charter was passed by the USA and Britain, the USSR joined the document; Japan was the enemy of these three nations). The document stipulated that the allied states could not enlarge their territories with the help of the territories, which Japan conquered.
“This is the corner stone of the entire dispute. Japan did not have to wage war to win the Kuril Islands. They got the Southern Kurils without any combat action in 1855 and received the rest of the territory in 1875 in return for the promise to renounce claims to the island of Sakhalin. Japan unleashed the war in 1905 and won the southern part of Sakhalin. Soviet troops occupied that part in 1945 - solved.
“Japan’s Foreign Ministry said during Taro Aso’s visit to Sakhalin this year that the status of the South of Sakhalin had not been finalized. That remark is extremely important because it outlines the future politics of Japan. This nation may not be interested in obtaining only four little rocky islands,” the scientist said.
|
|
|
|
Post by TsarSamuil on Jul 18, 2009 8:52:25 GMT -5
WHAT DO U GUYS THINK ABOUT A GLOBAL CURRENCY??? ----------------------------------- Medvedev Unveils “World Currency” Coin At G8 Russian President shows reporters example of “united future world currency Bloomberg.com Friday, July 10, 2009 In a highly symbolic moment at the G8 summit in Italy today, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev unveiled to reporters a coin representing a “united future world currency”. “We are discussing both the use of other national currencies, including the ruble, as a reserve currency, as well as supranational currencies,” the Russian leader said at a news conference. However, those who have downplayed the formulation of a world currency by dismissing it as merely a progression of SDR’s (Special Drawing Rights) and not something that would physically be used by citizens in a system of world government, were contradicted when Medvedev clearly outlined that the new currency would be “used for payment” by citizens as a “united future world currency”. “This is a symbol of our unity and our desire to settle such issues jointly,” Medvedev said. “Here it is,” Medvedev told reporters today in L’Aquila, Italy, after a summit of the Group of Eight nations. “You can see it and touch it,” reports Bloomberg. The question of a supranational currency “concerns everyone now, even the mints,” Medvedev said. The test coin “means they’re getting ready. I think it’s a good sign that we understand how interdependent we are.” Medvedev explained that the coin had been minted in Belgium and bears the words “unity in diversity”. An RIA Novosti report noted that the coin represented an example of a “possible global currency”. China and Russia have repeatedly called for a new global currency to replace the dollar. When confronted about plans to supplant the dollar with a new global currency, both Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner denied that such an agenda existed. However, just days after he told a Congressional hearing that there were no plans to move towards a global currency, Geithner sought to please the elitist CFR by assuring them that he was “open” to the notion of a new global currency system. The scandal-ridden and highly secretive Bank For International Settlements, considered to be the world’s top central banking power hub, released a policy paper in 2006 that called for the end of national currencies in favor of a global model of currency formats. The global currency would be a key central plank of a future system of world government. Earlier this week, Pope Benedict called for a “world political authority” to manage the global economy.   |
|
|
|
Post by pastir on Jul 18, 2009 13:24:48 GMT -5
WHAT DO U GUYS THINK ABOUT A GLOBAL CURRENCY??? NWO |
|
|
|
Post by TsarSamuil on Jul 18, 2009 13:44:00 GMT -5
mm...don't know how it would look like, but at least it would take away the american version with their dollar that finance their warmachine. Even if america bounces back in some way, they'd never be as strong as they used to be I'm guessing. What do u think?
I have been thinking about it for some time n thought that its impossible for the world to be without some sort of world order. Since things like economy, the enviromental damages, are global problems, we cannot have some countries say they don't care while others try to fix problems. How they should be fixed, I don't know, economy is tricky...
|
|
|
|
Post by pastir on Jul 18, 2009 14:16:24 GMT -5
You want some non-Bulgarians to boss around Bulgaria and tell her what to do? You want Bulgaria to be a protectorate of the NWO? You want Bulgaria to be like Bosnia and Kosovo?
NWO is evil. A global currency is bullshit. It would be heavily dollar based and would so ensure the US had the most say longer than with the dollar as it would take more time for it to fail like the dollar will.
There already is a global currency. It`s called gold. Its what we always had for money. But the globalists don`t like it because they cant manipulate it.
|
|
|
|
Post by TsarSamuil on Jul 18, 2009 14:49:36 GMT -5
America wouldn't be able to control this currency, that is the whole point and reason for bringing it up in the first place, emerging big powerful countries don't want to be controlled with dollar/america. Usa forces their dollar on the world to give it appearance of value, which helps their military being funded...basically the world pays for being occupied...n have to keep the us economy afloat so they aren't dragged down with it (china has to do this, america begs them for more loans, n they are sick of it)...gaah who wants this..
I don't belive in absolute freedom, that is just idealism, there should be a lot of it ofc. There has to be rules that apply to everyone for basics, global currency makes economies safer from currency speculators (this is why I for exampled have long supported the €uro, look how strong it is).
As for the enviroment, once there is proper, not bs, proper energy that can replace todays oil/gasoline driven economies, everyone should adopt it, or be given a timetable to adopt it, otherwise they should be forced, even beaten into submission by war if necessary. I cannot accept that any country in the world should be able to say that they should pollute the air n make me breathe that shit, if there is an alternative.
So yes, there should be basic rules for how the world should work. That doesn't mean there should be x number of other laws n regulations, there should never be any super-government for earth, that would just cost an enormous amount of money, too complex, and the world for it would be far more complex. But there should be basic standards (there is already so many for trading n other rules that everyone agrees on already, without most people even noticing them).
Call it "socialism" if you want, but I believe it is impossible for sustainability not to have a mix of socialism, capitalism n enviromental responsibility.
The world cannot go on like it has been doing since day 1, pure capitalism is like when an animal species gets into a new area, has no natural predator, n starts to consume everything until everything is destroyed n then it itself starts to starve. It is not possible to maintain capitalism in its current form, there isn't enough resources in the world if everyone would take part in rampant consumerism. Only way it could work, is if the richer part of the world on purpose went on to supress development from the rest of the world (the eu does this to africa...)
As for gold...yeah that's fine for central banks to have...but its very impractical for everyone else.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dominik on Jul 19, 2009 15:55:41 GMT -5
Yeah, territory of Republic of China. I agree! |
|
|
|
Post by pastir on Jul 19, 2009 17:16:10 GMT -5
What ever cosmopolitan freak. You ain`t no nationalist. Go serve your Zhid overlords.
|
|
|
|
Post by TsarSamuil on Jul 19, 2009 20:46:28 GMT -5
What ever cosmopolitan freak. You ain`t no nationalist. Go serve your Zhid overlords. Lol? I want a slavic version of EU, with a common currency to protect those economies. Is that not the very definition of Slavija?? A common currency would protect those countries from jewish currency speculators. Did you know that before the EU came around, that Hitler wanted a common european currency to protect europe (but prob mostly germany) from the jews in london n new york? It has nationalist roots to say the least (I'm using that as a reference only)  This jew scum, soros, speculated against the swe krona n it fell in 1992, ever since then the economy has not been great. That and many other countries have been victims of these jews, that's why there is a €uro, as protection. Britain/Jews are against the €uro, they want the pound, because their so-called central bank is private owned by jews. All that wealth would slide out of jewish hands if uk adopted the €uro. Also the enviroment, excuse me isn't very nationalist to care about the condition of ones land? Did you know that pre-nazi the organisations were green, that cared about the land n the health of the people? (again, just as reference). What IS cosmopolitian, is to breathe in some city air full with fumes and think that's the right progress...
"Blood And Soil"
By the time of the Nazi period, "blood and soil" had become hardened into a romantic nationalistic green ideology where the German master race would purify itself by returning back to the simplicity of the German landscape away from the alienating asphalt culture of the big cities and free market capitalism. Nazi ideologues used the slogan for many practical purposes, everything from getting Germans back to the farm, to calls for environmental sustainability and nature preservation, to emphasizing a buy-local self-sufficient agricultural economics scheme, and including the upholding of traditional German values. Not to be outdone, but the slogan was also used to complain about capitalism, industrialization, internationalism, Judaism and Christianity as well.
when the Nazis seized power, environmentalism was surprisingly given a premier role in 1933-35. In fact, the Nazis passed the most progressive environmental laws found anywhere in the world at the time. The first was a law for the protection of animals called Tierschutzrecht, which forbid cruel experiments on animals, not to mention Jewish ritual slaughter. That Hitler, Hess and Himmler were all vegetarians also fits in perfectly with their animal loving tendencies. The second was a law for limiting hunting called the Das Reichsjagdgesetz which forbade hunting with painful traps. However, the high water mark for nature conservationism in Nazi Germany came in June-July of 1935 with the passing of the RNG, the Reich Nature Protection Law called the Reichnaturschutzgesetz, chock full of social-engineering ecological holistic schemes, called organic in those days. The RNG required comprehensive land use planning called "environmental effects reports" before new construction projects could be built. This of course created a huge bureaucratic paper chase since the Nazi environmental slogan on this was all-encompassing, "it shall be the whole landscape!"
Indeed, Nazi environmentalist Hans Schwenkel pointed out that the Mosaic Law contained no provisions for nature protection, "since the first book of Moses, the Jews do not know nature protection, since God has given to the children of Israel all plants and animals for their enjoyment." In other words, the Nazis claimed that the Jews do not protect nature but exploit it as a divine right of personal selfish enjoyment.
|
|
|
|
Post by TsarSamuil on Jul 24, 2009 2:09:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by TsarSamuil on Aug 3, 2009 15:39:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by boris on Aug 4, 2009 15:50:16 GMT -5
What ever cosmopolitan freak. You ain`t no nationalist. Go serve your Zhid overlords. Do you really believe that the Zhids play a big role in the NWO, or was that just sarcasm? |
|
|
|
Post by TsarSamuil on Oct 22, 2009 19:26:17 GMT -5
U.S. pressures Japan on military package
Washington concerned as new leaders in Tokyo look to redefine alliance
By John Pomfret and Blaine Harden
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Worried about a new direction in Japan's foreign policy, the Obama administration warned the Tokyo government Wednesday of serious consequences if it reneges on a military realignment plan formulated to deal with a rising China.
The comments from Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates underscored increasing concern among U.S. officials as Japan moves to redefine its alliance with the United States and its place in Asia. In August, the opposition Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) won an overwhelming victory in elections, ending more than 50 years of one-party rule.
For a U.S. administration burdened with challenges in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea and China, troubles with its closest ally in Asia constitute a new complication.
A senior State Department official said the United States had "grown comfortable" thinking about Japan as a constant in U.S. relations in Asia. It no longer is, he said, adding that "the hardest thing right now is not China, it's Japan."
The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said the new ruling party lacks experience in government and came to power wanting politicians to be in charge, not the bureaucrats who traditionally ran the country from behind the scenes. Added to that is a deep malaise in a society that has been politically and economically adrift for two decades.
In the past week, officials from the DPJ have announced that Japan would withdraw from an eight-year-old mission in the Indian Ocean to refuel warships supporting U.S.-led coalition forces in Afghanistan. They have also pledged to reopen negotiations over a $26 billion military package that involves relocating a U.S. Marine Corps helicopter base in Japan and moving 8,000 U.S. Marines from Japan to Guam. After more than a decade of talks, the United States and Japan agreed on the deal in 2006.
The atmospherics of the relationship have also morphed, with Japanese politicians now publicly contradicting U.S. officials.
U.S. discomfort was on display Wednesday in Tokyo as Gates pressured the government, after meetings with Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, to keep its commitment to the military agreement.
"It is time to move on," Gates said, warning that if Japan pulls apart the troop "realignment road map," it would be "immensely complicated and counterproductive."
In a relationship in which protocol can be imbued with significance, Gates let his schedule do the talking, declining invitations to dine with Defense Ministry officials and to attend a welcome ceremony at the ministry.
Hatoyama said Gates's presence in Japan "doesn't mean we have to decide everything."
For decades, the alliance with the United States was a cornerstone of Japanese policy, but it was also a crutch. The ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) outsourced many foreign policy decisions to Washington. The base realignment plan, for example, was worked out as a way to confront China's expanding military by building up Guam as a counterweight to Beijing's growing navy and by improving missile defense capabilities to offset China and North Korea's increasingly formidable rocket forces.
The DPJ rode to power pledging to be more assertive in its relations with the United States and has seemed less committed to a robust military response to China's rise. On the campaign trail, Hatoyama vowed to reexamine what he called "secret" agreements between the LDP and the United States over the storage or transshipment of nuclear weapons in Japan -- a sensitive topic in the only country that has endured nuclear attacks.
He also pushed the idea of an East Asian Community, a sort of Asian version of the European Union, with China at its core.
Soon after the election, U.S. officials dismissed concerns that change was afoot, saying campaign rhetoric was to blame. Although most of those officials still say the alliance is strong, there is worry the DPJ is committed to transforming Japan's foreign policy -- but exactly how is unclear.
DPJ politicians have accused U.S. officials of not taking them seriously. Said Tadashi Inuzuka, a DPJ member of the upper house of Japan's parliament, the Diet: "They should realize that we are the governing party now."
Kent Calder, the director of the Edwin O. Reischauer Center for East Asian Studies at Johns Hopkins University and a longtime U.S. diplomat in Japan, said that if Hatoyama succeeds in delaying a decision on the military package until next year, U.S. officials fear it could unravel.
Other Asian nations have privately reacted with alarm to Hatoyama's call for the creation of the East Asian Community because they worry that the United States would be shut out.
"I think the U.S. has to be part of the Asia-Pacific and the overall architecture of cooperation within the Asia-Pacific," Singapore's prime minister, Lee Hsien Loong, said on a trip to Japan this month.
The theatrics of Japan's relationship with Washington are new as well. Take, for instance, the dust-up last month between Japan's ambassador to the United States, Ichiro Fujisaki, and Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell.
On Sept. 9, Morrell demanded that Japan continue its refueling operation in the Indian Ocean. The next day, Fujisaki responded that such a decision was "up to Japan" and then said that Japan and the United States were "not on such terms where we talk through spokespeople." The Hatoyama government has said that it will not extend the refueling mission when it expires in January.
Then, at a seminar in Washington on Oct. 14, Kuniko Tanioka, a DPJ member in the upper house, went head-to-head with Kevin Maher, director of the State Department's Office of Japan Affairs, over the Futenma Air Station deal. Maher said the deal concerning the Marine Corps base had been completed. Tanioka said the negotiations lacked transparency.
Maher noted that a senior DPJ official had agreed that the deal must go through, at which point Tanioka snapped back, "I'm smarter than he is."
"I have never seen this in 30 years," Calder said. "I haven't heard Japanese talking back to American diplomats that often, especially not publicly. The Americans usually say, 'We have a deal,' and the Japanese respond, 'Ah soo desu ka,' -- we have a deal -- and it's over. This is new."
Harden reported from Tokyo.
|
|
|
|
Post by TsarSamuil on Jan 14, 2010 10:46:40 GMT -5
China Nearly Doubles Security Budget for Xinjiang.
NYTimes.com
By EDWARD WONG
Published: January 13, 2010
BEIJING — The government of the vast western region of Xinjiang, which last July was rocked by China’s deadliest ethnic violence in decades, is almost doubling its security budget this year compared with 2009, according to a report on Wednesday in China Daily, an official English-language newspaper.
The move is an indication of how deeply worried Chinese officials are that members of the Uighur and Han ethnic groups could clash again in the cities and desert oasis towns of the oil-rich region, and of the extraordinary measures the officials are taking to clamp down on the area.
The Uighurs are a Turkic-speaking, primarily Muslim people who often say the ethnic Han, who make up the majority of China’s population, discriminate against them. The Uighurs are the largest ethnic group in Xinjiang but are concerned by the displacement of their culture as growing numbers of Han migrants settle in the area.
At least 197 people were killed and more than 1,700 injured, most of them Han, when Uighurs rampaged through parts of the regional capital of Urumqi on July 5, Chinese officials say. Han vigilantes sought revenge over the next few days. The Uighurs had rioted partly in reaction to government handling of an earlier ethnic brawl in southeast China.
This year, the regional government will spend $423 million on public security, up 88 percent over last year, China Daily reported, citing a budget proposal released Tuesday during an annual official conference.
“The government decided to increase the spending on public security this year to enhance social stability in Xinjiang,” said Wan Haichuan, director of the region’s finance department.
Speaking at the conference, Nur Bekri, chairman of the regional government, repeated the official assertion that the “three forces” of terrorism, separatism and religious extremism were responsible for the rioting. He added that the authorities foiled other “organized plots” after the July 5 violence in Urumqi, China Daily reported.
In the aftermath of the rioting, the Chinese government sent units of the People’s Armed Police, a paramilitary force, into cities and towns across Xinjiang and bolstered the presence of regular uniformed police officers. But the rioting had deeply shaken the faith of many Chinese in the abilities of the security forces. Han residents of Urumqi in particular criticized the police for not reacting quickly and forcefully to the outbreak of violence, and later called for the resignation of Wang Lequan, the senior Communist Party official in Xinjiang.
The announcement this week of the expanded security budget could help restore confidence among Han residents but could also raise fears among some Uighurs. Uighur families in Urumqi have said that security forces detained hundreds of Uighur men in the days and weeks after the rioting, and nearly two dozen prisoners have received death sentences, some of which have been suspended.
The government also blocked access to the wider Internet and text messaging for most residents of Xinjiang and set up internal Web sites heavy on political propaganda. The government began relaxing the blocks late last month, but residents still cannot freely access the Internet.
|
|
|
|
Post by TsarSamuil on Jan 31, 2010 11:07:12 GMT -5
|
|
