New Multipolar World

A State Duma deputy, the head of the Committee on Economic Policy and Entrepreneurship of the Russian State Duma, Yevgeny Fyodorov, told Pravda.Ru of his impressions from visiting the APEC summit in Vladivostok. According to him, the meeting showed that the U.S. gradually loses absolute power in the world economy and politics. The power and influence of other countries, such as Russia and China, grows against such a background.

State Duma deputy, the head of the Committee on Economic Policy and Entrepreneurship of the Russian State Duma Yevgeny Fyodorov:

"APEC is a very interesting and important event, although it seems to be an ordinary one. The leaders get together and discuss important issues, but in reality it is the key event in today's global scenario. With the onset of the global economic crisis,with political and economic turbulence, the APEC is a key event in terms of the demonstration of new vectors of unity of the international community outside the United States.


It is clear that it is not a split - everyone still plays by American rules, but the countries already demonstrate their independence in economic policy. I was there and saw how angry Mrs. Hillary Clinton was when she came from China, where several Chinese leaders - especially those who are to become top officials of China next year - did not even want to meet her. In China, Clinton was told no when she wanted to take on mediator's functions in resolving China's territorial disputes with Asian countries.

She also heard no in response to her requirement to set the yuan rate. It is an annual requirement of the United States to China to set the yuan rate for political reasons to pump resources and opportunities from China to the U.S. It is an additional form of tribute from China, which China had to deal with every year for political motives. Nowadays, the U.S. was refused. The world is changing.

Russian President Vladimir Putin clearly expressed his attitude to the dollar as the world reserve currency. In fact, he offered the countries of the world to start building a large number of regional currencies as an alternative to the reserve system of the dollar. This is a strong step and a strong move, including the initiative to switch to mutual payments. He also said that Russia and China had already switched to the system and he urged other countries to follow the example. This shows that the world begins to change fundamentally, and Russia's role at this point is to become the leader in changing the world. I would say that Putin as the leader of the national liberation movement in Russia, demonstrated himself at the event as a leader and provider of ideas for the world national liberation movement against the system of occupation, which was formed after 1991 not only about Russia but also China and many other countries.

From this point of view, it is the key and turning meeting of the leaders of world's largest economies, which creates conditions to reformat the entire economic system of the world - moving away from the U.S. Do not forget that the U.S. consumes a half the world's GDP, despite the fact that there is only 4.5 percent of the population living there. In other words, they eat ten times as much as compared to the citizens of all other countries. And they eat at the expense of China, Russia, India, Brazil - all other countries.

Today, the world begins to unite against the colonizer - USA. For the time being, it is a conceptual and preparatory process, but it takes place. In this regard, I would call the preliminary results of the meeting in the Far East the meeting of the future members of the world national liberation movement to free the world from the U.S. occupation.

Intrigado wrote:Here's an interesting view provided by an American historian named Edward Luttwak as regards a possibility to contain China's ambitions:
http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/voices/salute-the-rising-sun

Neocon Edward wrote:With Russia already suffering from capital flight amid economic sanctions and rising tensions over the Ukraine conflict, the U.S. has another option for ratcheting up financial pressure on the Putin regime: Start a brain drain too.

Call it an "anti-sanctions" approach. Blacklisting individuals and companies closely tied to Vladimir Putin is fine, but let's also open America's doors to Russia's best and brightest. The instruments to do so are a pair of special U.S. visas that already exist—the O-1A and the EB-5.

The O-1A is a special visa for individuals of "extraordinary ability" in the sciences, education and business. It entitles them to reside and work for three years, can be followed by an unlimited number of one-year extensions, and often leads to citizenship. There is a parallel O-3 visa routinely issued to the spouses and children of O-1A holders, as well as O-1B visas for artists and entertainers. But these visas are now issued slowly, grudgingly, with only 22,080 O-visas of all types issued in 2013, and they usually require heaps of testimonials to prove extraordinary ability.

Neocon Edward wrote: Putin's plan is to separate all the territory east of the Dnieper River into a new state, "Novy Russia," that could become the Russian Federation's 22nd republic. This territory on the east bank of the Dnieper is many times larger than the Transnistria ministate Russia seized from the Republic of Moldova. Transnistria is also separated from Russia proper, while Novy Russia would seamlessly extend Russian territory down to the Black Sea, including Crimea.

    Given the advance warning -- all the detailed planning, down to the design of a Novy Russia flag, could not be kept secret -- the failure to anticipate Putin's move or at least react effectively is very disappointing. First came the empty words: European prime ministers all seemed to use the same speechwriter, because they all said the seizure of Crimea was "unacceptable." Then, by ruling out any counter-move, they made it clear they would, in fact, accept it.

Neocon CV wrote:Edward Luttwak is a CSIS senior associate and has served as a consultant to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the National Security Council, the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force, and a number of allied governments as well as international corporations and financial institutions. He is a frequent lecturer at universities and military colleges in the United States and abroad and has testified before several congressional committees and presidential commissions. In 2004, he was awarded an honorary degree by the University of Bath (United Kingdom).

Intrigado wrote: That is important because even as they quarrel over Ukraine, both Russia and the United States can only welcome a new Asian coalition that would redress each country’s own imbalance with China. That is why the US has joined others around the world in hoping for a Modi victory and its promise of transformational leadership.[/size]

http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/voices/salute-the-rising-sun

Luttwalk wrote:The US State Department’s deepest regret is its long-revoked denial of a visitor visa to Narendra Modi.
That is not just because of Modi’s ascent, but much more because Washington knows that he might transform the entire Asian balance of power.

Checks and balances and limits of a parliamentary democracy ... only limit what a Prime Minister can do.
They cannot stop a Prime Minister who can bring about vast change by simply letting the Balance of Power do its work.

If Modi does respond positively to Abe’s offer of broad ‘strategic’ cooperation (what is there to refuse?)

that would be enough to allow the emergence of a much broader coalition that has been waiting to happen ever since 2009. That was the year that China’s leaders over-interpreted the West’s financial crisis as a sign that they had become all-powerful, and loudly started demanding territory; reefs, shoals, islands and 3 million sq km of plain ocean waters from India, Japan and Vietnam as well as Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia and the Sultanate of Brunei.

Modi need not double defence spending nor start a war with Pakistan to respond to Abe’s offer and start building the winning coalition that might yet persuade the Chinese to go back to peaceful ways. What he does have to do is equip himself, as Abe has done, with a team of officials as dynamic as himself who can in turn energise both India’s defence establishment and its diplomacy.

Now that ASEAN has lost all strategic relevance—because neither India nor Japan belong to it while China is present through its influence over one or more member-states—everything is set for Modi to join Abe in forging its much-needed replacement.

As always, real leadership requires courage, which works via a self-reinforcing process: the leader who acts courageously today thereby gains the ability to do more tomorrow. Modi’s act of courage might be to elevate relations with Israel through a prime-ministerial visit; not so much to enhance relations already thriving across the board, but to affirm the independence of India’s foreign policy from any sectarian pressures. Just as no anti-Muslim sentiment should limit coalition-building with mostly-Muslim Indonesia, Indian Muslim sentiment should in no way condition India’s relations with Israel.

The Japanese Diet is preparing to change the country’s constitution to allow participation in ‘collective defense’, which may be read as the proposed coalition’s charter. As for the US government, it need not participate directly in this vast project; it can support coalition members individually.

That is important because even as they quarrel over Ukraine, both Russia and the United States can only welcome a new Asian coalition that would redress each country’s own imbalance with China. That is why the US has joined others around the world in hoping for a Modi victory and its promise of transformational leadership.

macedonian wrote:Thanks Intrigado for that detailed opinion.
Seems many of us eastern Europeans are in a same mess (ruled by easily bought, spineless, corrupted politicians who bow to Brussels and bend-over for Washington, completely forgetting national interests). I read a comment yesterday by a Chinese guy who basically said: Europeans have no real sovereignty, they are governed by their elites, but the real ruler in almost all European countries is the American ambassador. It's very sad, but very true.

I guess that's why many here (yours truly included) can't wait for the 'Empire' to fall...oh that 'll be the day...

BlackArrow wrote:

macedonian wrote:Thanks Intrigado for that detailed opinion.
Seems many of us eastern Europeans are in a same mess (ruled by easily bought, spineless, corrupted politicians who bow to Brussels and bend-over for Washington, completely forgetting national interests). I read a comment yesterday by a Chinese guy who basically said: Europeans have no real sovereignty, they are governed by their elites, but the real ruler in almost all European countries is the American ambassador. It's very sad, but very true.

I guess that's why many here (yours truly included) can't wait for the 'Empire' to fall...oh that 'll be the day...

All European countries are ruled by the American ambassador? The stupidest thing I have read this week. It is also the most offensive one.

BlackArrow wrote:All European countries are ruled by the American ambassador? The stupidest thing I have read this week. It is also the most offensive one.

Hannibal Barca wrote:So true! Most of them are so pathetic that it doesn't take an ambassador, the damn usher or the bloody telephonist are more than enough.

macedonian wrote:

BlackArrow wrote:All European countries are ruled by the American ambassador? The stupidest thing I have read this week. It is also the most offensive one.

You're right, Russia isn't. So technically not ALL

mutantsushi wrote:Similar with Malaysia, who while in the thick of the Spratley dispute, seems happy to pursue it's resolution diplomatically, just like Norway and Russia did after similar US hysterics predicting inevitable conflict and aggression, and unlike ASEAN members like the Philippines who only seem to be able to play the role of "desperate victim posterchild".  (I recall reading that the Shah of Iran once conveyed to the Philippines that some cheap oil deal for post-colonial brothers might be possible except the Americans wouldn't like the idea of it, so tough luck)

Hannibal Barca wrote:

Intrigado wrote:

Hannibal Barca wrote:I have my interpretation but I am very much interested to hear from as many Romanians as possible before saying mine.

Well, I was hoping to be spared the humiliation but.....  Our hare-brained and spineless politicians are so pathetically grateful for America's decision to place this part of the ABM shield in Romania that this business is entirely an American one; if they decide to bring here missiles with nuclear capacity or whatever else would suit their needs, those idiots wouldn't do anything else but nod and smile. Now, of course, people endowed with a bit of sense aren't happy with this development and ask why would we need such defense system as we don't have anything to do with either Iran or North Korea, the rogue states against which it was said that is necessary to build this kind of shield. But these people are quickly silenced with a "Would you want to happen again as it did in 1940?". We have a kind of "besieged fortress" mentality and, whatever this shield means to the US, from our point of view, it means that the Americans have reasons to defend a land we cannot defend by ourselves, just as, if you allow me to say this, just as Hitler was interested to defend us because he was really defending his main source of oil. As, due to three centuries of long and ugly common history, Russia is pinpointed as the main source of danger to Romania, considering the story with the Republic of Moldova as well, many of my co-nationals and, of course, the government think that in case of something, the US would want to defend their precious shield, just as Nazi Germany guarded its precious petroleum with the utmost care. That's all.   Only that, as I heard, the systems seem to be designed to be mobile; if things run amok, the US soldiers can simply load them in trucks or whatever and hit the road, leaving us mired in whatever sticky situation they brought upon our heads.   But that's not official, you can imagine.

As for the Joe Biden thing....people here were commenting that he must have come to find his other son a well-paid job, as the caring father he is.   Officially, he was asked to pass on the request for a permanent American base in the port of Constanta and probably assured that the deals with Chevron keep running smoothly. Instead, he wiped the floor with us for being corrupted oligarchs, praised some judicial institutions that are keeping alive the holy NKVD tradition and assured us the US are going to comply with the provisions of Article 5 of the NATO Treaty. I never felt so ashamed in my life.

Thank you very much for the detailed insight!

collegeboy16 wrote:how bout germany and france then? if the muricans have their way the germans and french would cancel all their deals with russia.
A more accurate statement would be "all small/weak/irrelevant euro countries are under murica".

macedonian wrote:Thanks Intrigado for that detailed opinion.
Seems many of us eastern Europeans are in a same mess (ruled by easily bought, spineless, corrupted politicians who bow to Brussels and bend-over for Washington, completely forgetting national interests). I read a comment yesterday by a Chinese guy who basically said: Europeans have no real sovereignty, they are governed by their elites, but the real ruler in almost all European countries is the American ambassador. It's very sad, but very true.

I guess that's why many here (yours truly included) can't wait for the 'Empire' to fall...oh that 'll be the day...

Intrigado wrote:I was under the impression that, apart from Poland, Romania, the Baltics, Moldova or Georgia who have their own historical anxieties and fears to bear, the rest of Europe should be far less sensitive to America's siren song. For example, the US wanted first to instal parts of the ABM shield in the Czech Republic but the Czechs rejected it. Moreover, most of Central and East European countries, not to mention the Western countries, have extensive trade with Russia and, as for many of them it's practically impossible to penetrate the EU market with their own products, the Russian or the ex-Soviet markets are very attractive. So why would they want to put themselves under the American jackboot? They cannot be so easily scared with the boogeyman from the East and I don't think US investments would compensate the loss of economic gains resulted from the trade with Russia.

Intrigado wrote:

Hannibal Barca wrote:I have my interpretation but I am very much interested to hear from as many Romanians as possible before saying mine.

Well, I was hoping to be spared the humiliation but.....  Our hare-brained and spineless politicians are so pathetically grateful for America's decision to place this part of the ABM shield in Romania that this business is entirely an American one; if they decide to bring here missiles with nuclear capacity or whatever else would suit their needs, those idiots wouldn't do anything else but nod and smile. Now, of course, people endowed with a bit of sense aren't happy with this development and ask why would we need such defense system as we don't have anything to do with either Iran or North Korea, the rogue states against which it was said that is necessary to build this kind of shield. But these people are quickly silenced with a "Would you want to happen again as it did in 1940?". We have a kind of "besieged fortress" mentality and, whatever this shield means to the US, from our point of view, it means that the Americans have reasons to defend a land we cannot defend by ourselves, just as, if you allow me to say this, just as Hitler was interested to defend us because he was really defending his main source of oil. As, due to three centuries of long and ugly common history, Russia is pinpointed as the main source of danger to Romania, considering the story with the Republic of Moldova as well, many of my co-nationals and, of course, the government think that in case of something, the US would want to defend their precious shield, just as Nazi Germany guarded its precious petroleum with the utmost care. That's all.   Only that, as I heard, the systems seem to be designed to be mobile; if things run amok, the US soldiers can simply load them in trucks or whatever and hit the road, leaving us mired in whatever sticky situation they brought upon our heads.   But that's not official, you can imagine.

As for the Joe Biden thing....people here were commenting that he must have come to find his other son a well-paid job, as the caring father he is.   Officially, he was asked to pass on the request for a permanent American base in the port of Constanta and probably assured that the deals with Chevron keep running smoothly. Instead, he wiped the floor with us for being corrupted oligarchs, praised some judicial institutions that are keeping alive the holy NKVD tradition and assured us the US are going to comply with the provisions of Article 5 of the NATO Treaty. I never felt so ashamed in my life.

mack8 wrote:

Intrigado wrote:

Hannibal Barca wrote:I have my interpretation but I am very much interested to hear from as many Romanians as possible before saying mine.

Well, I was hoping to be spared the humiliation but.....  Our hare-brained and spineless politicians are so pathetically grateful for America's decision to place this part of the ABM shield in Romania that this business is entirely an American one; if they decide to bring here missiles with nuclear capacity or whatever else would suit their needs, those idiots wouldn't do anything else but nod and smile. Now, of course, people endowed with a bit of sense aren't happy with this development and ask why would we need such defense system as we don't have anything to do with either Iran or North Korea, the rogue states against which it was said that is necessary to build this kind of shield. But these people are quickly silenced with a "Would you want to happen again as it did in 1940?". We have a kind of "besieged fortress" mentality and, whatever this shield means to the US, from our point of view, it means that the Americans have reasons to defend a land we cannot defend by ourselves, just as, if you allow me to say this, just as Hitler was interested to defend us because he was really defending his main source of oil. As, due to three centuries of long and ugly common history, Russia is pinpointed as the main source of danger to Romania, considering the story with the Republic of Moldova as well, many of my co-nationals and, of course, the government think that in case of something, the US would want to defend their precious shield, just as Nazi Germany guarded its precious petroleum with the utmost care. That's all.   Only that, as I heard, the systems seem to be designed to be mobile; if things run amok, the US soldiers can simply load them in trucks or whatever and hit the road, leaving us mired in whatever sticky situation they brought upon our heads.   But that's not official, you can imagine.

As for the Joe Biden thing....people here were commenting that he must have come to find his other son a well-paid job, as the caring father he is.   Officially, he was asked to pass on the request for a permanent American base in the port of Constanta and probably assured that the deals with Chevron keep running smoothly. Instead, he wiped the floor with us for being corrupted oligarchs, praised some judicial institutions that are keeping alive the holy NKVD tradition and assured us the US are going to comply with the provisions of Article 5 of the NATO Treaty. I never felt so ashamed in my life.

And you were jumping all over me when i was saying something not far from the gist what you just said, few weeks ago. Anyway, that's a good resume of the situation  our "lovely" country finds itself in nowadays (and a sad one too), thanks. Personally i'm now trying to avoid any romanian media/fora  as it only serves to fill me up with blood-boiling anger.

Write-down of two-thirds of US shale oil explodes fracking myth
Industry's over-inflated reserve estimates are unravelling, and with it the 'American dream' of oil independence



Next month, the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) will publish a new estimate of US shale deposits set to deal a death-blow to industry hype about a new golden era of US energy independence by fracking unconventional oil and gas.

EIA officials told the Los Angeles Times that previous estimates of recoverable oil in the Monterey shale reserves in California of about 15.4 billion barrels were vastly overstated. The revised estimate, they said, will slash this amount by 96% to a puny 600 million barrels of oil.

The Monterey formation, previously believed to contain more than double the amount of oil estimated at the Bakken shale in North Dakota, and five times larger than the Eagle Ford shale in South Texas, was slated to add up to 2.8 million jobs by 2020 and boost government tax revenues by $24.6 billion a year.

Industry lobbyists have for long highlighted the Monterey shale reserves as the big game-changer for US oil and gas production. Nick Grealy, who runs the consultancy No Hot Air which is funded by "gas and associated companies", and includes the UK's most high-profile shale gas fracker Cuadrilla among its clients, predicted last year that:

   "... the star of the North American show is barely on most people's radar screens. California shale will... reinvigorate the Golden State's economy over the next two to three years."

This sort of hype triggered "a speculation boom among oil companies" according to the LA Times. The EIA's original survey for the US Department of Energy published in 2011 had been contracted out to Intek Inc. That report found that the Monterey shale constituted "64 percent of the total shale oil resources" in the US.

The EIA's revised estimate was based partly on analysis of actual output from wells where new fracking techniques had been applied. According to EIA petroleum analyst John Staub:

   "From the information we've been able to gather, we've not seen evidence that oil extraction in this area is very productive using techniques like fracking... Our oil production estimates combined with a dearth of knowledge about geological differences among the oil fields led to erroneous predictions and estimates."

The Intek Inc study for the EIA had relied largely on oil industry claims, rather than proper data. Hitesh Mohan, who authored the Intek study for the EIA, reportedly conceded that "his figures were derived from technical reports and presentations from oil companies, including Occidental Petroleum, which owns the lion's share of oil leases in the Monterey Shale, at 1.6 million acres." Mohan had even lifted his original estimate for the EIA to 17 billion barrels.

Geoscientist David Hughes, who worked for the Geological Survey of Canada for 32 years, said:

   "The oil had always been a statistical fantasy. Left out of all the hoopla was the fact that the EIA's estimate was little more than a back-of-the-envelope calculation."

Last year, the Post Carbon Institute (PCI) published Hughes' study, Drilling California: A Reality Check on the Monterey Shale, which conducted an empirical analysis of oil production data using a widely used industry database also relied on by the EIA. The report concluded that the original EIA estimate was "highly overstated," and unlikely to lead to a "statewide economic boom.... California should consider its economic and energy future in the absence of an oil production boom."

A spokesman for the Institute, Tod Brilliant, told me:

   "Given the incredible difference between initial projections of 15 billion barrels and revisions to 600 million, does this not call into account all such global projections for tight oil?"

As I'd reported earlier in June last year, a wider PCI study by Hughes had come to similar conclusions about bullish estimates of US shale oil and gas potential, concluding that "light tight oil production in the USA will peak between 2015 and 2017, followed by a steep decline", while shale gas production would likely peak next year. In that post, I'd pointed out previous well-documented, and alarmingly common, cases of industry over-estimates of reserve sizes which later had been questioned.

Analysts like Jeremy Leggett have said, citing exaggerated oil industry estimates, that if reserve and production reality are indeed significantly lower than industry forecasts, we could be at risk of an oil shock as early as within the next five years.

The latest revelations follow a spate of bad news for industry reassurances about the fracking boom. New research published this month has found that measured methane leaks from fracking operations were three times larger than forecasted. The US Environment Protection Agency therefore "significantly underestimates" methane emissions from fracking, by as much as a 100 to a 1,000 times according to a new Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study published in April.

The Associated Press also reported, citing a Government Accountability Office investigation, that the US Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management had failed to adequately inspect thousands of oil and gas wells that are potentially high risk for water and environmental damage.

Despite the mounting evidence that the shale gas boom is heading for a bust, both economically and environmentally, both governments and industry are together pouring their eggs into a rather flimsy basket.

According to a secret trade memo obtained by the Huffington Post, the Obama administration and the European Union are pushing ahead with efforts to "expand US fracking, offshore oil drilling and natural gas exploration", as well as exports to the EU, under the prospective Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) agreement.

Dr. Nafeez Ahmed is an international security journalist and academic. He is the author of A User's Guide to the Crisis of Civilization: And How to Save It, and the forthcoming science fiction thriller, Zero Point. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter @nafeezahmed.

Yesterday we reported that with the Russia-China axis firmly secured, the scramble was on to assure the alliance of that last, and critical, Eurasian powerhouse: India. It was here that Russia had taken the first symbolic step when earlier in the week its central bank announced it had started negotiations to use national currencies in settlements, a process which would culminate with the elimination of the US currency from bilateral settlements.

Russia was not the first nation to assess the key significance of India in concluding perhaps the most important geopolitical axis of the 21st century - we reported that Japan, scrambling to find a natural counterbalance to China with which its relations have regressed back to World War II levels, was also hot and heavy in courting India. “The Japanese are facing huge political problems in China,” said Kondapalli in a phone interview. “So Japanese companies are now looking to shift to other countries. They’re looking at India.”

Of course, for India the problem with a Japanese alliance is that it would also by implication involve the US, the country which has become insolvent and demographically imploding Japan's backer of last and only resort, and thus burn its bridges with both Russia and China. A question emerged: would India embrace the US/Japan axis while foregoing its natural Developing Market, and BRICS, allies, Russia and China.

We now have a clear answer and it is a resounding no, because in what was the latest slap on the face of now crashing on all sides US global hegemony, earlier today India refused to sign a critical global trade dea. Specifically, India's unresolved demands led to the collapse of the first major global trade reform pact in two decades. WTO ministers had already agreed the global reform of customs procedures known as "trade facilitation" in Bali, Indonesia, last December, but were unable to overcome last minute Indian objections and get it into the WTO rule book by a July 31 deadline.

WTO Director-General Roberto Azevedo told trade diplomats in Geneva, just two hours before the final deadline for a deal lapsed at midnight that "we have not been able to find a solution that would allow us to bridge that gap."

Reuters reports that most diplomats had expected the pact to be rubber-stamped this week, marking a unique success in the WTO's 19-year history which, according to some estimates, would add $1 trillion and 21 million jobs to the world economy.

Turns out India was happy to disappoint the globalists: the diplomats were shocked when India unveiled its veto and the eleventh-hour failure drew strong criticism, as well as rumblings about the future of the organisation and the multilateral system it underpins.

"Australia is deeply disappointed that it has not been possible to meet the deadline. This failure is a great blow to the confidence revived in Bali that the WTO can deliver negotiated outcomes," Australian Trade Minister Andrew Robb said on Friday. "There are no winners from this outcome – least of all those in developing countries which would see the biggest gains."
Shockingly, and without any warning, India's stubborn refusal to comply with US demands, may have crushed the WTO as a conduit for international trade, and landed a knockout punch when it comes to future relentless globallization which as is well known over the past 50 or so years, has benefited the US first and foremost.

Broke, debt-monetizing Japan, which as noted previously, was eager to become BFFs with India was amazed by the rebuttal: "A Japanese official familiar with the situation said that while Tokyo reaffirmed its commitment to maintaining and strengthening the multilateral trade system, it was frustrated that such a small group of countries had stymied the overwhelming consensus. "The future of the Doha Round including the Bali package is unclear at this stage," he said."

Others went as far as suggesting the expulsion of India:

Some nations, including the United States, the European Union, Australia, Japan and Norway, have already discussed a plan to exclude India from the agreement and push ahead, officials involved in the talks said.
However, such a move would clearly be an indication that the great globalization experiment is coming to an end: "New Zealand Minister of Overseas Trade, Tim Groser, told Reuters there had been "too much drama" surrounding the negotiations and added that any talk of excluding India was "naive" and counterproductive. "India is the second biggest country by population, a vital part of the world economy and will become even more important. The idea of excluding India is ridiculous." ... "I don't want to be too critical of the Indians. We have to try and pull this together and at the end of the day putting India into a box would not be productive," he added.

And yes, the death of the WTO is already being casually tossed around as a distinct possibility:

Still, the failure of the agreement should signal a move away from monolithic single undertaking agreements that have defined the body for decades, Peter Gallagher, an expert on free trade and the WTO at the University of Adelaide, told Reuters.

"I think it's certainly premature to speak about the death of the WTO. I hope we've got to the point where a little bit more realism is going to enter into the negotiating procedures," he said.
But the one country that was most traumatized, was the one that has never before been used to getting a no answer by some "dingy developing world backwater": the United States, and the person most humiliated, who else but John Kerry.

"U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry told Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Friday that India's refusal to sign a global trade deal sent the wrong signal, and he urged New Delhi to work to resolve the row as soon as possible." "Failure to sign the Trade Facilitation Agreement sent a confusing signal and undermined the very image Prime Minister Modi is trying to send about India," a U.S. State Department official told reporters after Kerry's meeting with Modi.

Wrong signal for John Kerry perhaps, who is now beyond the world's "diplomatic" laughing stock and the man who together with Hillary Clinton (and the US president) has made a complete mockery of US global influence in the past 5 years. But just the right signal for China and of course, Russia.

sepheronx wrote:India Slams US Global Hegemony By Scuttling Global Trade Deal, Puts Future Of WTO In Doubt

Yesterday we reported that with the Russia-China axis firmly secured, the scramble was on to assure the alliance of that last, and critical, Eurasian powerhouse: India. It was here that Russia had taken the first symbolic step when earlier in the week its central bank announced it had started negotiations to use national currencies in settlements, a process which would culminate with the elimination of the US currency from bilateral settlements.

Russia was not the first nation to assess the key significance of India in concluding perhaps the most important geopolitical axis of the 21st century - we reported that Japan, scrambling to find a natural counterbalance to China with which its relations have regressed back to World War II levels, was also hot and heavy in courting India. “The Japanese are facing huge political problems in China,” said Kondapalli in a phone interview. “So Japanese companies are now looking to shift to other countries. They’re looking at India.”

Of course, for India the problem with a Japanese alliance is that it would also by implication involve the US, the country which has become insolvent and demographically imploding Japan's backer of last and only resort, and thus burn its bridges with both Russia and China. A question emerged: would India embrace the US/Japan axis while foregoing its natural Developing Market, and BRICS, allies, Russia and China.

We now have a clear answer and it is a resounding no, because in what was the latest slap on the face of now crashing on all sides US global hegemony, earlier today India refused to sign a critical global trade dea. Specifically, India's unresolved demands led to the collapse of the first major global trade reform pact in two decades. WTO ministers had already agreed the global reform of customs procedures known as "trade facilitation" in Bali, Indonesia, last December, but were unable to overcome last minute Indian objections and get it into the WTO rule book by a July 31 deadline.

WTO Director-General Roberto Azevedo told trade diplomats in Geneva, just two hours before the final deadline for a deal lapsed at midnight that "we have not been able to find a solution that would allow us to bridge that gap."

Reuters reports that most diplomats had expected the pact to be rubber-stamped this week, marking a unique success in the WTO's 19-year history which, according to some estimates, would add $1 trillion and 21 million jobs to the world economy.

Turns out India was happy to disappoint the globalists: the diplomats were shocked when India unveiled its veto and the eleventh-hour failure drew strong criticism, as well as rumblings about the future of the organisation and the multilateral system it underpins.

"Australia is deeply disappointed that it has not been possible to meet the deadline. This failure is a great blow to the confidence revived in Bali that the WTO can deliver negotiated outcomes," Australian Trade Minister Andrew Robb said on Friday. "There are no winners from this outcome – least of all those in developing countries which would see the biggest gains."
Shockingly, and without any warning, India's stubborn refusal to comply with US demands, may have crushed the WTO as a conduit for international trade, and landed a knockout punch when it comes to future relentless globallization which as is well known over the past 50 or so years, has benefited the US first and foremost.

Broke, debt-monetizing Japan, which as noted previously, was eager to become BFFs with India was amazed by the rebuttal: "A Japanese official familiar with the situation said that while Tokyo reaffirmed its commitment to maintaining and strengthening the multilateral trade system, it was frustrated that such a small group of countries had stymied the overwhelming consensus. "The future of the Doha Round including the Bali package is unclear at this stage," he said."

Others went as far as suggesting the expulsion of India:

Some nations, including the United States, the European Union, Australia, Japan and Norway, have already discussed a plan to exclude India from the agreement and push ahead, officials involved in the talks said.
However, such a move would clearly be an indication that the great globalization experiment is coming to an end: "New Zealand Minister of Overseas Trade, Tim Groser, told Reuters there had been "too much drama" surrounding the negotiations and added that any talk of excluding India was "naive" and counterproductive. "India is the second biggest country by population, a vital part of the world economy and will become even more important. The idea of excluding India is ridiculous." ... "I don't want to be too critical of the Indians. We have to try and pull this together and at the end of the day putting India into a box would not be productive," he added.

And yes, the death of the WTO is already being casually tossed around as a distinct possibility:

Still, the failure of the agreement should signal a move away from monolithic single undertaking agreements that have defined the body for decades, Peter Gallagher, an expert on free trade and the WTO at the University of Adelaide, told Reuters.

"I think it's certainly premature to speak about the death of the WTO. I hope we've got to the point where a little bit more realism is going to enter into the negotiating procedures," he said.
But the one country that was most traumatized, was the one that has never before been used to getting a no answer by some "dingy developing world backwater": the United States, and the person most humiliated, who else but John Kerry.

"U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry told Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Friday that India's refusal to sign a global trade deal sent the wrong signal, and he urged New Delhi to work to resolve the row as soon as possible." "Failure to sign the Trade Facilitation Agreement sent a confusing signal and undermined the very image Prime Minister Modi is trying to send about India," a U.S. State Department official told reporters after Kerry's meeting with Modi.

Wrong signal for John Kerry perhaps, who is now beyond the world's "diplomatic" laughing stock and the man who together with Hillary Clinton (and the US president) has made a complete mockery of US global influence in the past 5 years. But just the right signal for China and of course, Russia.

This is very interesting news.  China was originally not gonna sign it and so WTO headed by US was expecting India to sign it, but India has now refused to.  To add fuel to the fire, US is now looking to bypass India in the WTO and hope to push the agreement anyway and thus undermining India's position in the WTO making the whole thing pointless (was pointless for Russia).

US is sure making a whole lot of friends...  Go figure, only friends they can actually make are failed post soviet nations who rely on US for military purposes.