[Oilguy]

SITUATION: China has directed a $13 million loan to Pakistan toward a joint communications satellite project, while space cooperation between America and India reaches new levels of sophistication.

ANALYSIS: Pakistan’s Ambassador to China, Masood Khan, signed a loan agreement with the government-owned Export-Import Bank of China on 9 October to finance the ground control apparatus for a new ‘Paksat-1R’ communications satellite, to be launched on 14 August 2011. This bilateral effort to ensure technical interchange illustrates space as a growing area of contestation in regional strategic developments.

Chinese Space Outreach: This satellite project builds upon a substantial history of China serving as a reliable supplier of sensitive military technology to Pakistan. China launched Pakistan’s first indigenous satellite, Badr-A, in 1990 from Xichang Launch Center in Sichuan. The operation of this satellite gave Pakistani scientists practical understanding of telemetry, orbital patterns, surveillance, and Chinese launch platforms.

The Asia-Pacific Space Cooperation Organization (APSCO), headquartered in Beijing, was established in 2005 to improve Chinese multilateral space collaboration. APSCO members include Bangladesh, Iran, Mongolia, Pakistan, Peru, and Thailand. International technical cooperation enables Beijing to encourage interoperability with Chinese rocket technology and obtain a greater share of the international commercial launch market.

Achievements in civilian space programs can have great relevance to military projects. Civilian and military rockets utilize similar propulsion, positioning, and control technologies. Space cooperation can therefore serve dual purposes, and support Chinese strategic as well as commercial aims in placing Chinese assistance at the heart of rocket programs of potential allies.

Chinese Strategic Developments: A core aim of Chinese strategic planning is to improve its utilization of space-borne assets. Chinese Air Force Commander General Xu Qilang commented in November 2009 that “as far as the revolution in military affairs is concerned, the competition between military forces is moving towards outer space…this is a historical inevitability and cannot be turned back”.

China’s determination to hold the option of denying the use of space-based capabilities to other states was illuminated in its successful test of an anti-satellite weapon in January 2007, eliminating an old Chinese weather satellite. Building upon this experience, Beijing conducted its first ballistic missile defense (BMD) test on 11 January 2010.

China is developing a geospatial positioning Compass Navigation Satellite System (CNSS), equivalent to the American GPS and Russian GLONASS systems. This will further improve military targeting and location abilities, while offering civilians a satellite positioning service that heralds Chinese technical acumen. Beijing also seeks to launch a manned space lab by 2020.

Indian Capabilities: New Delhi shares the recognition by Beijing of the importance of a wide range of space capabilities as an indispensable element of a robust defense. India’s ‘Phase 1’ BMD system incorporates the Prithvi Air Defense missile for high-altitude elimination of adversary missiles, and an Advanced Air Defense system for low-altitude interception. Supportive radar technology for this system has been sourced from Israel.

This system has been successfully tested and is moving toward active service. An improved ‘PDV’ interceptor is in development to replace the Prithvi Air Defense missile. The ‘Phase 1’ system is designed to target missiles with a maximum range of 2,000km, such as the Pakistani Shaheen-2 and Ghauri missiles. A ‘Phase 2’ system is planned for missiles with a range greater than 2,000km, implicitly those of Chinese origin.

Indian BMD development is a rare area of advantage in comparison with Chinese efforts. V.K. Saraswat, the head of missile development at the Indian Defence Research and Development Organisation, recently commented that “This (BMD) is one area where we are senior to China.”

Influenced by the space-denial technology of China’s 2007 anti-satellite test, India is also developing its own anti-satellite abilities. As with India’s nuclear platform development, a perceived China threat is acting as a principal driver of the shape of Indian military developments.

American Leverage: The Indian Space Research Organisation is working with NASA on lunar exploration tasks. Indian diplomats are seeking for Washington to lift remaining restrictions on cooperation with Indian space capability development. Technology gained through this collaboration could transfer to India’s ICBM program and other military purposes.

BOTTOM LINE: The Sino-Indian race to introduce anti-satellite and BMD assets represents an emerging area of their wider strategic competition. American diplomats should pressure both states to forgo testing of anti-satellite capabilities. These generate substantial amounts of debris that is difficult to eradicate and threaten the operation of other satellites, even potentially those launched by the state initiating the test.

In formulating responses to Indian pressure to expand space collaboration, Washington should avoid activities that could be directed toward Indian military projects. Valuable civilian projects that could be expanded include recent US-Indian work to examine the prospect of space-based solar power. Washington should also seek for Beijing and New Delhi to become full members of the Missile Technology Control Regime. This would signify a clear commitment by both to restrict commerce of dual-use rocket technology. Responding to this emerging space-based element of their global rise should become an integral part of American diplomacy in the region.

By Global Intelligence Report Analysts

Source: http://www.globalintelligencereport.com ... al-Level-1

The global Intelligence Report is a Private news & Intelligence service for sophisticated news consumers, investors and energy market participants. To find out more please visit: http://www.globalintelligencereport.com ... al-Level-1

[AdTheNad]

This should provide a disincentive to going around blowing up third world countries.

Of course the MIC still made a loooot of money, so they won't really care too much.

[Cog]

The US is hell-bent on enriching the MIC with another made-up war with Iran. Up until the point that we are bankrupt and then someone else will have to pick up the mantle of global military leadership.

[Loki]

You'd think bombing the s*** out a backwards Third World cesspool would give us the right to rape it for all it's worth, but guess not. There really is no justice in the world.

[rockdoc123]

This should put to sleep the idea that the US went to war for oil. It did not. It was very clear early on that in Iraq they were not going to get any preference in the bidding for the contracts and they did not. The Chinese and Indian companies have different business drivers than publically traded US companies. They also can ignore many of the laws such as Foreign Corrupt Practices Act that keep US companies from doing business in places where there is huge corruption (and rightfully so).
Most of us in the industry saw this as a consequence of the Iraq war, quite predictable for those of us who have worked with the Chinese and Indian companies.

[Sixstrings]

You'd think bombing the s*** out a backwards Third World cesspool would give us the right to rape it for all it's worth, but guess not. There really is no justice in the world.

Well.. historically.. it's never been a good idea to go to war when there's no profit to be had or, protecting access to a resource, or checking the power of a rival nation.

Iraq cost a FORTUNE. We got nothing out of it. I'm all for peace, but if we do go to war then as a concerned citizen I have to say we better profit off it somehow and come out the other side better than when we started. Otherwise we'll go bankrupt and just come home with more inflation if we keep this crap up.

What I suspect is.. we're just part of this globalist banking paradigm. We do the fighting. Then the spoils are outsourced to Chindia. Haliburton and Goldman Sachs are happy, we're supposed to not be thinking so much.

[rangerone314]

Great worldwide strategies going on between countries now.

At home, Chinese play go, Indians play chess, Americans watch NASCAR and "Dancing With the Stars".

[radon]

While there are some noises that China and others benefit from Iraqi contracts, there is not evidence that the Iraqi oil is not under the US control. Information is scarce, but there is nothing to suggest that some country other than the US and allies is benefiting massively from Iraq, and Iraqi resources are indeed huge.

Afghanistan appears to have never been a resource play. Looks like that article lobbies for the Chinese and others to finance the US military stay in Afghanistan.

We do the fighting. Then the spoils are outsourced to Chindia.

Indeed. It may well be the case that the Iraqi oil is being contracted by Chindian's companies controlled by whoever controls the US military activities in Iraq.

[americandream]

You'd think bombing the shit out a backwards Third World cesspool would give us the right to rape it for all it's worth, but guess not. There really is no justice in the world.

Well.. historically.. it's never been a good idea to go to war when there's no profit to be had or, protecting access to a resource, or checking the power of a rival nation. ...
What I suspect is.. we're just part of this globalist banking paradigm. We do the fighting. Then the spoils are outsourced to Chindia. Haliburton and Goldman Sachs are happy, we're supposed to not be thinking so much.

Bingo!

[Shaved Monkey]

Who makes the money from the heroin?

[Loki]

Iraq cost a FORTUNE. We got nothing out of it. I'm all for peace, but if we do go to war then as a concerned citizen I have to say we better profit off it somehow and come out the other side better than when we started.

The United States deserves bankruptcy and international ignominy for our war mongering, particularly in Iraq. We most certainly do not deserve a discount rate on the natural resources of the countries we invaded and occupied. The sooner the public understands that empire doesn't pay, the sooner we can give the damn enterprise up.

This should put to sleep the idea that the US went to war for oil.

Nonsense, it’s simply another indicator of the gross incompetence of the idiots who started these wars.

[Wootan]

What I suspect is.. we're just part of this globalist banking paradigm. We do the fighting. Then the spoils are outsourced to Chindia. Haliburton and Goldman Sachs are happy, we're supposed to not be thinking so much.

Spot on!

[Arthur75]

Exxon is seriously holding position in Iraq Kurdistan though, for instance :

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/ ... 8F20120317

[ralfy]

Even then, with foreign investors in various oil companies, it will be a global elite that will benefit. Citizens receive either collateral damage or more debt.

[Ibon]

The elite of all nations are becoming culturally more allied with one another as the masses of humanity under them do as well. We see this trend unfolding and really there is nothing one can do. Knowledge of this does not set you free except in the small ways where frugality can make you less beholden of this global enterprise.

But in the end we are all dependent on that which we recognize as dysfunctional.

[Arthur75]

The elite of all nations are becoming culturally more allied with one another as the masses of humanity under them do as well. We see this trend unfolding and really there is nothing one can do. Knowledge of this does not set you free except in the small ways where frugality can make you less beholden of this global enterprise.

But in the end we are all dependent on that which we recognize as dysfunctional.

I wouldn't drop the nation structural aspect that quickly (be it for China, India, the US, others)

[Pretorian]

Iraq cost a FORTUNE. We got nothing out of it.

Correction-- you got nothing out of it. Millions of Americans and people around the world did benefit from it directly or indirectly.

[Pretorian]

Who makes the money from the heroin?

drug syndicates and local police/DEA organizations. 95-99% of what heroin is worth around the world never reach Afghanistan or even bank accounts of their masters in any form imaginable.

[evilgenius]

Isn't going to war for the prevalence of markets reason enough? I mean, for instance, the battle with the Arabs in the 70's (a political one) over oil was waged on the part of the West not for control by a regional entity over supply, but for control over that by the spot market. The sense is that if a market can rule then the US and others whose interests eventually are 'all in' with that will come out well too, even in a swelling world where other regions are coming along.