OnlinePhuntsho

LHASA UPRISING: CHINA’S ACTIONS CROSSING ITS BOUNDARIES

By Bhaskar Roy

The bloody crackdown on the student protestors at the Tien An Men (TAM) Square in June 1989, was described by the Beijing leaders as its internal affair. The students were demanding only transparency in government work, end to corruption, and some freedom of expression to voice their views. They neither asked for a western style democracy nor demanded the abolition of the Communist Party. The crackdown left more than 300 young people dead. The dead are yet to be properly accounted for. The TAM incident eventually became an international issue.

The Tibetan Buddhist monks and nuns protests in the Tibetan capital city of Lhasa starting March 10 were airing their basic aspirations as a people – freedom of religion, perpetuation of Tibetan culture, and their way of life. They are aware that independence is no longer even a hope. But autonomy within China’s sovereignty and constitution should be rightfully theirs.

Tibet and the Tibetans within China have been generally peaceful for some years now. Starting 2002, the Dalai Lama’s delegation led by his special envoy in Washington, Lodi Gyari, have held six rounds of talks with their Chinese authorities, that is, the United Front Works Department (UFWD). The Chinese wanted to know and understand the Dalai Lama’s proposal of autonomy for Tibet. The Chinese aim was to try and examine under a microscope whether the autonomy proposal had any or the minutest speck of independence hidden in it. Therefore, while listening to the Tibetan delegation they kept up the pressure that the Dalai Lama’s proposal was “nothing but a sham” and that he actually wanted independence.

There were threats by the UFWD that they would end the talks, but were persuaded to continue by the Dalai Lama’s delegation agreeing the late paramount leader of China, Deng Xiaoping had said anything can be discussed except “independence”. And the Dalai Lama had openly discarded the independence platform.

The other aspect of the talks was what should be recognized as Tibetan Autonomous areas under the Dalai Lama’s proposal. The Chinese indicated that it must be limited to the present Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR), while the Dalai Lama’s delegation persuaded that the Tibetan “autonomous” counties and prefectures in adjoining provinces like Gansu, Qinghai and Sichuan should automatically be included. They argued that some Tibetans cannot be left outside the autonomous Tibet.

The Tibetan delegation was also treated quite warmly by the Chinese. They were even taken to some of the important monasteries.

A surprising hard line U-turn was noticed from the Chinese sometime around 2005-2006. Some analysts attribute the reversal to hard line by the Chinese to the appoint of Zhang Qinli as TAR Party Secretary in November, 2005. Zhang is a product of China’s Communist Youth League (CYL), the main power base of Party General Secretary and President Hu Jintao. Zhang, therefore, is considered a Hu protégé. Hu also carries the reputation of quelling Tibetan protestors with force in 1989.

It does not appear Zhang Qinli’s taking over of TAR Party Secretary is the whole story. A slight change of Chinese attitude to the Dalai Lama was becoming somewhat visible as early as 2004. The change seems to have been linked to the perceived US encirclement of China using Japan, Australia and, of course, India. They also continue to be concerned how far Pakistan had gone into US control to counter China in some way or the other. No wonder, therefore, while giving information on bursting Uighur Muslim terrorists cells preparing to disrupt the upcoming Beijing Olympics, Xinjiang Party Secretary, Wang Lequan said recently that the leaders of the Uighur terrorists were based in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

On the India-US perception, however, the Chinese apparently felt that in the process of encirclement of China, it may be natural for India to assist the USA in inciting the Tibetans against China.

The Chinese were sure about US intentions, but were not sure about India’s involvement. They had no evidence, but suspicions only. According to informed people who were contacted by Chinese officials in India, the Chinese did not come up with any clue that India had any intentions to sabotage China whether using the Tibetans or by any other means. Indian officials, politicians and intellectuals were too engrossed in extolling the growing India-China relations.

The Chinese leadership was obviously irked with US President George W. Bush presenting the US Congressional medal to the Dalai Lama last year. To the Chinese this was not only an affront but also a challenge, and a threat to their sovereignty and territorial integrity. Since the US was too important to Beijing, it only protested the US act but decided to proceed with the bilateral relationship. Beijing took more umbrage with German Chancellor Angela Merkel for her meeting with the Dalai Lama.

In parallel, the frustration of the Tibetans both inside China and outside with the Dalai Lama’s “Middle Path” policy is not independence but autonomy was rising. While they revered the Dalai Lama as the “Living Buddha” or the “Living God”, they felt the Chinese were in no mood to respect the Dalai Lama’s proposal. Beijing, they felt, was buying time to totally marginalize the Tibetans in Tibet, and reducing the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan diaspora into a non-entity. In “truth”, as sought from fact, this is the Chinese strategy.

The protests in Lhasa starting March 10, the 49th anniversary of Tibetan uprising, was to expose China’s lie-that the Tibetans in China already enjoy autonomy. To the Tibetans it is the ultimate insult, a “thousand cuts with the sword”. What happened in Lhasa on March 10 and 11 is release of pent up emotions and the sense of betrayal of the Dalai Lama by the Chinese government. Hence the intensity of emotion was higher than before.

It must be taken into note that this time the protests spread to Tibetan area outside TAR. Even about a dozen Tibetan students in Beijing’s Minzu (Minority) University protested, something unprecedented. The Chinese authorities may like to take note of these new developments.

The Chinese security force took over the situation in Lhasa and other places by sheer show of force. It does not matter if 19 people died, or one hundred in Lhasa. Sad as it may be, body counts do not really the issue. The cause and its reasons are.

Although the Tibetan protestors have been calling for a boycott of the August Beijing Olympics this year, it is only symbolic. The cold war is over by long, and nobody wants a repeat of the 1980 Moscow Olympics boycott, or that of the 1984 games in Los Angeles.

The Dalai Lama is on record, repeatedly, that he supports the Beijing Olympics. He has said that China, as the most populous country in the world, deserves to host the Olympic games. But the Chinese authorities are distrustful of the Dalai Lama. Or, is the distrust a way to present to the world that the Dalai Lama is against international events which bring the world together?

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao took to the podium to declare his governments view of the Dalai Lama in a press conference in Beijing on March 18. Wen charged that the riots in Lhasa was preconceived, planned and executed by the “Dalai”, and that the “Dalai” was a “Liar”. This, after the Dalai Lama not only declared his support for the Beijing Olympics, but his declared position if the Tibet movement adopted violence he would resign from his position.

The words spoken by Premier Wen Jiabao does not behove that of a head of State of growing world power. The Chinese boast of four thousand years of civilization. Wen’s words were less than civilized. He attacked the Dalai Lama in the most derogatory terms, which will not help in winning the hearts and minds of the Tibetans. The world “Dalai” and not “Dalai Lama” is an insult to the entire lineage of the spiritual leaders of the Tibetans. This will have its consequences.

The Chinese leaders have been extrapolating and giving modern interpretations of ancient philosophers like Confucius and the great strategists. But when under pressure, they seem prone to emulate the first Han Emperor QinShi Wandi, who decided to bury intellectuals alive because they disagreed with his bloody ways to rule.

The Chinese may be making a mistake by trying to drive the Dalai Lama out of the scene. They feel that with him out of the Tibetan issue, the Tibetan resistance will melt away. They may be wrong. The Dalai Lama is their best bet for a peaceful solution to the Tibet issue.

Premier Wen Jiabao’s insult of the Dalai Lama is not going to make the smallest of difference to the Tibetan spiritual leader.

Unfortunately, the senior communist leaders do not appear capable of understanding the strength depth of religions and spiritualism. The father of communism, Karl Marx had said “religion is the opium of man”. Marx had said in a context that could, perhaps, be applied to the old Tibet of spiritual leaders, landlords and the exploited serf. The Chinese Emperors and war lords had not exactly glorified themselves where their subjects were concerned. That is one of the reasons that the Chinese had failed to understand the extreme interpretation of Islam by Muslim terrorists. This is, of course, the other end of the religious spectrum.

The Chinese insults would get lost in the vast ocean of the Dalai Lama’s spiritual embodiment. But for the lay Tibetans who believe in the Dalai Lama, these insults from the Chinese may be unpardonable.

The Chinese have quelled the protests in Lhasa and Tibetan areas in adjoining provinces by force. Both sides claim different number of deaths, with the Chinese claiming their security force did not resort to shooting and the dead were victims of Tibetan rioters. But the Chinese must understand, at least politically, that following the Dalai Lama’s declaration that he will resign from his spiritual seat if the Tibetans chose violence to achieve their, demonstrations calmed down. That is the power of the Dalai Lama exercises over his people both outside China and inside. But this, also, has a limit.

The Chinese are not known for negotiations where internal problems are concerned. They have always resolved protests and demonstrations through the barrel of the gun.

To counter and quell the Tibetan protestors they have gone beyond the boundaries of their country, this time. According to a reporter for the news agency AFP, Chinese security officials in plain cloths moved inside Nepal to monitor Tibetan protests there, and prevent them from trying to cross over to Tibet from Nepal. This was confirmed to the AFP by Nepali officials in the border areas. They reportedly said Nepal was a weak country and could not do anything. The AFP reporter also said he and his photographer were prevented from doing their work on Nepal soil by the Chinese security officials who were armed. India made an official statement calling for restraint from both sides and peaceful dialogue to resolve the issue. It was a cautious and neutral statement which meant no offence and did not question either side. The “either side” was a problem for the Chinese who wanted all support Chinese actions and demonise the Tibetans. India has another problem. It does not want more Tibetan refugees coming into the country because of the Chinese crackdown.

India cannot remain unconcerned with such a significant development involving the Chinese. India’s policy is not to turn away destitutes and refugees on humanitarian grounds. It not only accepted the Dalai Lama and roughly 150 thousand Tibetan refugees who fled Chinese state discrimination. During Bangladesh’s war of liberation in 1971, 10 million Bangladeshis took refuge in India to escape the atrocities of the west Pakistan army. Perhaps apart from the Afghan refugees in Pakistan following the war in that country, India hosts the highest number of refugees in the world. Such humanitarian acts have not prevented New Delhi from seeking friendly relations with countries from which these refugees came to India.

Most democratic countries in world host refugees escaping political, religious and ethnic persecution from the countries of their origin.

Therefore, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao’s press statement (March 18) assumes importance in this context. While acknowledging the Indian governments action to “handle” the “Tibet independence”, he went on to say the Tibet issue was “sensitive” in India-China relations underscoring “ I hope the Indian government can follow the agreements reached between the two countries and handle this situation in a correct way”. For good measure, he answered a planted question on the Sino-Indian border issue, saying “This is a complex issue left from the past (AW) cannot be expected to be resolved over night”. Wen also said “new progress in the (border) negotiations will be made as long as the two sides show sincerely and work on the principle of treating each other equally and making mutual accommodation”. He made no reference to the 2005 India-China agreement on the principles and modalities of resolving the border issue which accepted no transfer of populated areas.

It can be well understood that the Chinese leadership is highly concerned over the smooth holding of the Beijing Olympics. The world supports China fully on this. The splendour that China plans to display is emphasised by the fact the preparation till recently was being headed by President Hu Jintao, and now handed to his approved successor Xi Jiping. The Olympics, therefore, translates into a very important political domain. The “Band master” will be held to account if anything goes wrong. A quiet power struggle in China is still very much alive.

But waging “people’s war” and “do or die battle” on the Tibetan protestors, perhaps, may not be the successful way to win the “minds and hearts” of Tibetans. Much as the Chinese authorities may like to claim, almost all Tibetans secretly or openly revere the Dalai Lama and free Tibet.

The more the Chinese use force on the Tibetans and keep the world in the dark, more the world will question the sanctity of the Beijing Olympics. The President of the European Union has already cautioned Beijing’s intransigence on the Tibetan developments could affect the games. Han-Gert Pottering added “If these continue to be no signals of compromise, I see boycott measures as justified”. Taiwan’s President – elect, Ma Ying-Jeou, has welcomed the Dalai Lama to visit Taiwan any time.

Premier Wen Jiabao’s press statement on India with regard to the Tibet issue has internationalized the Tibet question. Specially for India, it has held out other threats. It has also violated Nepal’s sovereignty. It has, however, been more cautious with the United States, proving the Chinese popular saying “blackmail the weak, respect the strong”.

Tibet is no longer an internal issue of China.

(The author is an eminent China analyst with many years of experience of study on the developments in China. He can be reached at grouchohart@yahoo.com)

Source: South Asia Analysis Group: Tibet:* Lhasa Uprising- Chhinese Actions Crossing its Boundary.

OnlinePhuntsho

TIBET: GLOBAL AMNESIA ON CHINESE GENOCIDE GENERATES GRAVE STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS
By Dr. Subhash Kapila

Introductory Observations

Tibet has once again been thrust in the global consciousness by the widespread Tibetan uprising of March 2008 just a year before the 50th anniversary of the first major uprising of the Tibetan nation against China and nearly the 60th anniversary of China’s military invasion and occupation of the sovereign, spiritual and pacifist nation of Tibet.

Sadly, the United States and India have turned out to be the most significant strategic sufferers by the “strategic inactivity” of the United States and pathetic “strategic timidity” of India as we shall see later in the Paper.

To cover up their strategic follies both the United States and India developed a strange political and strategic amnesia on Tibet. The rest of the global community followed suit.

Emboldened by the global amnesia on Tibet, the Chinese Government has been tempted to pursue an unrestricted policy of ethnic, religious and cultural genocide in Tibet. The periodic Tibetan uprisings in virtually every decade were brutally suppressed by China confident that no international murmurs would follow.

The March 2008 Tibetan uprisings have been widespread and violent and no longer only directed against Chinese security forces in Tibet. This time the swelling Han Chinese population in Tibet too was targeted. This is ominous.

The global community can no longer afford to continue with its amnesia on Tibet and should take the March 2008 Tibetan uprisings as a wake-up call for concerted action to restore Tibet’s sovereignty.

A lot of papers and analyses have flowed-in on the Tibet issue since March 10, 2008 dealing with every conceivable political aspect and events. This Paper therefore would confine itself to analyze the grave strategic implications that could be generated if the global community continues to be permissive of the Chinese cultural genocide in Tibet. Also would be highlighted the strategic losses suffered by the United States and India as a result of their Tibet policies.

This paper therefore would like to focus attention on the following issues:

* India's Strategic Losses Accruing From Timid Tibet Policies.
* United States Strategic Losses Accruing From “China-Permissive” Policies
* Tibet: The Contemporary Strategic Significance.
* Tibet’s “Total Independence” is a Global Strategic Imperative
* The United States, NATO and India's Convergence of Strategic Interests on Tibet.

Some readers may be dismissive over some of the issues stated above on the grounds that they are too far fetched and not falling in the realm of possibility. The answers to such dismissiveness would be that in international relations nothing is impossible. How many foresaw the disintegration of the Soviet Union, how many thought that the disintegration of Yugoslavia would be facilitated by United States and NATO military intervention on humanitarian grounds and how many thought that the unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo with NATO protection would not generate strong international murmurs.

Therefore the strategic implications on Tibet outlined above arising from the Chinese genocide in Tibet, cannot be ruled out. Analytically, historical strategic losses may stir USA, NATO, India and others towards full independence of Tibet as a global strategic imperative. Hence the discussion that follows.

India's Strategic Losses Accruing From Timid Tibet Policies

India's political leadership in the last 60 years has refused to learn strategic lessons from the Nehruvian foreign policy approaches towards China. The responses of the Indian Government to the March 8, 2008 political unrest are again pathetic and in the Nehruvian mould, India's political leadership as opposed to India at large, has a palpable fear of China and saying anything against China.

It is pitiable that India as an emerging global power should be reveling in statements from Chinese Foreign Ministry officials certifying that India is a good neighbor because the Indian Government has refused to condemn China over its ongoing cultural genocide in Tibet.

In stark contrast, when has China been sensitive to India's strategic sensitivities in the last 60 years in its South Asian policies. In fact China has constantly adopted stances adversarial to India's national security interests, right till to date and India’s political leadership has just lumped it.

India at large needs to know the strategic losses that have accrued to India as a result of India's political leadership’s timidity beginning from Nehru.

Briefly outlined these can be enumerated as follows:

· Tibet as buffer state essential for India's security was gifted away by Nehru’s total obliviousness to India's strategic interests. And this too without a murmur. In passing it needs to be said that once again another Congress Government has gifted away Nepal as a buffer state to Nepalese Maoists.

· Military occupation of Tibet by China with India's permissiveness brought China’s military presence on India's doorsteps for over 3000 kilometers

· Emboldened by India's passivity, China raised territorial disputes all along India's borders with Tibet, ultimately resulting in the Sino-Indian War of 1962 and Chinese military occupation of vast tracts of Indian territory.

· Nehru’s strategic and political timidity resulted in India being unprepared for war with China and a military debacle heaped by China from Tibet on the illustrious Indian Army for which culpability lies solely on India's political leadership.

· Tibet’s annexation by China facilitated it to emasculate India strategically within South Asian confines.

· If India had contested China’s annexation of Tibet, India would not have had to face Pakistan as a country with Chinese nuclear weapons and Chinese long range missiles.

· The Karakoram Highway which outflanks India strategically, courtesy Pakistan would not have come up if Tibet was helped by India to retain its independence. Karkoram Highway is a Chinese life-support system to Pakistan strategically confront India

· India would not have lost thousands of kilometers of Indian territory in Aksai Chin and the North East as a result of Chinese aggression facilitated by China’s military annexation of Tibet.

These are inexcusable strategic losses caused by India’s political leadership’s timidity. India today is well placed to join others in undoing many of the negative aspects of India's strategic losses by working towards full independence of Tibet

United States Strategic Losses Accruing From “China Permissive” Policies

The United States as many American authors maintain has for the better part of the 20th Century had a narcissistic obsession with China hoping to convert China into a Westernized and Americanized Asian nation.

The Communist take over in 1949 brought the United States face to face with China's propensity for armed conflict first in Korea and then later in Vietnam.

The United States continued to view China solely through its strategic utility in relation to drawing China away from the Soviet orbit. The United States did manage to do so for a brief period in the 1970s. However, China’s strategic utility to USA was over by early 1980s and thereafter United States-China relations have been decidedly adversarial, notwithstanding the rhetoric that emanates from both nations.

The “China-Permissive” policies of the United States as such led first to the military annexation of Tibet by China and now the emergence of the “China Threat” to US security.

The United States strategic losses accruing as a result of its “China-Permissive” policies can be recounted as follows:

· Tibet as the heartland of Asia was allowed by United States permissiveness to be annexed by China and its militarization is now a threat to USA and NATO interests.

· Had the United States prevented the Chinese annexation of Tibet and which it was in a position to do so militarily, Chinese military intervention in Korea against the United States may not have taken place.

· Chinese hold over Tibet facilitates an extended Westward deployment of Chinese strategic nuclear missiles by thousands of kilometers. Such Westward deployment of Chinese strategic weapons facilitates affective coverage of South Asia, South West Asia, Central Asia and NATO countries – all areas strategic for United States and NATO security interests.

· China’s annexation of Tibet facilitated it to convert Pakistan into a more durable strategic ally of China than the United States by using land routes for unrestricted supply of Chinese nuclear weapons and missiles via the Karakoram Highway built by China.

· China’s development of Gwadur port in the vicinity of the Gulf and its being linked with Karakoran Highway to Tibet and thereon to China outflanks USA strategically in the vital Gulf Region, Afghanistan etc.

· The above gives China a vital counter-pressure point strategically to counter USA strategic moves against China in East Asia.

· China as an emerging superpower contending with the United States enjoys significant strategic advantages as long as it holds on to Tibet. In a way it not only imparts greater flexibility to China against USA but also reinforces Chinese deterrence capabilities against USA.

China’s strategic utility to the United States in the global chess-game became redundant in the 1980s.

It is China which is now in the process of check-mating the United States and this is facilitated by China’s continued military occupation of Tibet.

The United States needs to review its China strategic policies and especially on Tibet more specifically and forcefully. Full independence for Tibet should now emerge as the prime US aim, strategically.

Tibet: The Contemporary Strategic Significance

Tibet with its vast expanse of the Asian heartland is no longer some remote hermit kingdom which the global community can rule it out of its strategic consciousness.

The world has shrunk with globalization and globalization cannot be confined to the political and economic dimensions. Strategic shrinkages have also accrued as a result of the globalization process.

In terms of global strategic shrinkage, events and turbulent unrest in Tibet has global strategic implications on a number of grounds, when it is taken into account that it is in Tibet that a sizeable component of China’s nuclear arsenal and long range nuclear missiles are deployed.

Sixty years of China’s forcible suppression of Tibetan uprisings has failed to subdue the Tibetan nation’s aspirations for independence. This is likely to intensify further.

If ever China’s rises to emerge as a threatening military superpower and needs to be checkmated, it is Tibet from where the process of checkmating has to start.

China minus Tibet and Xinjiang is reduced strategically to an East Asian regional power, more in the nature of Japan and without pretensions to sit equally with USA and Russia.

With China’s military annexation of Tibet undone, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia will fall like dominos from China’s control.

Strategically, the global community has to recognize that Tibetan unrest with China has not yet acquired the contours of suicide bombers and insurgency against China. It cannot be ruled out even if external support is not forthcoming. The global community has to prepare itself for the contingency of military intervention in Tibet on humanitarian grounds if such an eventuality emerges.

Tibet’s “Total Independence” is a Global Strategic Imperative

The discussion in the paper so far would have amply highlighted that “total independence: of Tibet is a global strategic imperative.

This issue is deliberately injected into this discussion as the global community can be tempted to settle for less by “greater political autonomy” for Tibet under China’s political and strategic control. This temptation could arise as His Holiness, the Dalai Lama now seems to be inclined to accept this as a compromise solution.

Strategically, Tibet’s “greater political autonomy” under China would not facilitate the withdrawal of China’s nuclear weapons arsenal and strategic missiles arsenal from Tibet. China’s global strategic weight arising from the geo-strategic advantages imparted by military control of Tibet is not reduced.

In strategic terms, China is counting on the demise of the present Dalai Lama. The Tibetan younger generation is aware of it and are becoming restive. They are also impatient with the Dalai Lama’s peaceful “Middle Way” policy approaches to China as in the last five decades it has neither brought peace to Tibet nor independence to Tibet. They demand complete independence from China now.

The global community needs to pay serious attention to this aspiration of the Tibetan nation, if not on grounds of human rights and liberties, but at least on strategic grounds.

The United States, NATO and India's Convergence of Strategic Interests on Tibet

No further effort in analysis is required to highlight that there are strong convergence of strategic interests on Tibet which should bind the United States, NATO and India for assisting the Tibetan nation’s re-emergence as an independent sovereign nation until it was military annexed by China in 1949.

Complying with China’s insistence that all countries should politically adhere to the “One China” policy is a travesty of both history and strategic realities.

The Tibetan nation has a distinct ethnic, religious and cultural character which in no way is anywhere close in ethnicity and culture to China. The Tibetan nation is as distinct from China as China let us say is distinct from India. The “One China” policy is only applicable to China and not to Tibet, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia. The global community has so far gone along with this fraudulent concept as a result of its China appeasement policies. The time has come to call off this fraud.

Fortunately, the United States and NATO countries have shown indications to call of this fraud.

The present German Chancellor was strong enough to receive the Dalai Lama officially in her office in September 2007 in defiance of Chinese protestations.

The French President has not ruled out boycotting the Olympics should China not change its policies in Tibet.

The visit and meetings with The Dalai Lama this month of the US Speaker, Ms Nancy Pelosi to the Headquarters of the Tibetan Government-in-exile at Dharamsala in India were rich in political symbolism. The US Speaker made no bones about expressing the following to highlight American support for the Tibetan nation:

· “If freedom loving people throughout the world do not speak out against China and China’s oppression in Tibet, we have lost all moral authority to speak on human rights anywhere in the world”.

· “The situation in Tibet is a challenge to the conscience of the world”.

· “We are here at this time to join you in shedding bright light on what is happening in Tibet”.

· “I am here to support the Dalai Lama on behalf of the people of the United States."

Sadly, India is yet to forcefully come out with such strong support for the cause of Tibetan independence, when India's strategic stakes in Tibet are far more higher.

More pathetically, the present Indian Government has not permitted any contact by its political leaders or government officials with the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government-in exile in India out of supine deference to China’s sensitivities.

It is high time that India's political establishment recognizes that such stances impinge heavily on India's image as an aspiring global power. How can the world respect India's emerging power when its leaders project the deficiency of political will in speaking out forcefully on issues which effect India's national security.

Concluding Observations

The Tibetan revolt against China in March 2008 on a widespread scale and in unprecedented intensity sends ominous signals to the global community, in that while the United States, NATO countries and India and others may fear China’s military rise, the Tibetan nation and its people no longer fear China and challenged and will continue to challenge China’s colonization of Tibet which is akin to Manchuria's annexation by Japan in the 1930s.

The prevailing global strategic balance, despite China’s military modernization and expansion of her strategic assets is still not tilted in China’s favor so as to deter USA, NATO countries and India from strong strategic and political postures on Tibet.

Political and strategic excuses could be found in the 1950s to justify their passivity in acquiescing to China’s military annexation of Tibet. In 2008 when globalization has also led to global strategic shrinkage, the global community should not watch idly the continued cultural genocide by China in Tibet and the resultant spin-off of suicide bombings and insurgency which the younger generation may resort to for total independence. They are convinced that China will not relinquish its annexation of Tibet without the use of force.

In the 1930s the global community did not stand up to events on Manchuria. Munch and Sudetenland. The end results were devastating.

Can the United States, NATO countries and India afford strategically a repeat of the above events by China’s continued annexation of Tibet and from where it targets critical strategic regions of the world with her nuclear weapons and long range strategic nuclear missiles?

(The author is an International Relations and Strategic Affairs analyst. He is the Consultant, Strategic Affairs with South Asia Analysis Group. Email:drsubhashkapila@yahoo.com)

Source: South Asia Analysis Group: Tibet: Global Amnesia on Chinese Genocide Generates Grave Strategic Implications

sweetstar

So,that is what you think?
Do you know that was not only a protest?The Tibetan Buddhist monks and nuns has killed hundreds of innocent people!Shouldn't China's goverment make a crackdown???
The bloody crackdown in 1989 was a tragedy,China's goverment did totally wrong.But please consider it just as it stands,The Tibet one is not a justicial protest!

sweetstar

I'm sorry if I used ultra words.

Ray

A closed country where individual liberties are controlled and existence orchestrated to suit govt needs, is bound to succeed and results are more promising.

It can be compared to the Army, where discipline overcomes problems and result are more efficient compared to the input.

However, when individual rights are stifled, no matter how spectacular the result maybe, it at times, sparks the desire of man to be free of control and be allowed to have the freedom of choice.

Therefore, Tiananmen Square and Tibet are natural and spontaneous reaction to the need of man to be free of control and micromanagement.

In the case of Tibet, it is more so, given that the Dalai Lama is a God to them and he has been repeatedly insulted by the Communist regime. This rage must have been boiling and it boiled over, so much so, that it spilled over to regions beyond the boundaries of the Tibet Autonomous Region and into the Tibetan Prefectures, This, in itself, indicates the intensity of the Tibetan anger. It is time the Chinese addressed the grievances, real or imagined.

Very few would seriously believe that Tibet can be free. However, China could consider autonomy, if that brings peace. Even if autonomy is given, it is a moot point if the Chinese will allow the Tibetans, who left Tibet, to return. If these Tibetan returned, then it could be more dangerous since most of them would have imbibed the concept of democracy, which would be a threat to the Communist style of rule.

There is no doubt China finds the warming of relationship of the US with countries on its periphery unsettling. Any country would. That is why she has started making an extra effort to wean these countries away from the US sphere of interest.

It is not that China has an animus towards India, but it does perceive India as a proxy of the US in the region, given India’s growing relationship with the US. It also fears that given the impetus from western country, India’s economy could pose a serious challenge to the Chinese economic boom and hence her hegemony. If India should become a economic powerhouse, it influence in Asia would rise and Asian countries would look up to India as a guide and mentor and that would sabotage the Chinese desire to be a challenge to the US.

Even Pakistan’s closeness to the US through the War on Terror and declaration as a front line ally has disquieted China, which has reasons to be suspicious, that the US operators in Pakistan could diverted the pan Islamic resurgence towards Xinjiang and agitate the Uighur to a comparative frenzy as in Tibet. Already the inequality in the demographic pattern in Urumchi, the capital, is causing heartburns amongst the Uighurs.

Another aspect that irks the minorities is that the Hans who are in their area are doing economically better than the locals. The resentment is natural, However, what they fail to realise that the Hans are a enterprising and hard working race who would do well in any society and in any circumstances. That is an irony that the Communists have to take into consideration and educate the minorities on.

That all is not well in Tibet requires no elaboration. There was a crackdown and it was observed and reported by tourists and foreign journalists. The situation must have been controlled thereafter and the Chinese then showcased a conducted tour of selected foreign journalist. But that backfired and notwithstanding that the foreign journalists were taken to a pro Chinese monastery, the monks broke down in front of the journalists and stated that the Chinese were lying to the world! Obviously, the tour was abruptly concluded and the journalists were returned to Mainland China. The fact that no more foreigners are being allowed indicates that the situation is still not normal and none know what action is being taken to bring Tibet to normalcy. It can only be conjectured that whatever is being done, is not pleasant.

The Olympics will go on. It would not be surprising that the minorities would do their best, be it the Tibetans, Uighurs or others, to highlight their protest with unusual and maybe spectacular events (there have been two Uighur attempts to hijack aircraft which were foiled). The security will be immensely tight and it may cause problems for those who are slated to come for the Olympics. Movement beyond to other parts of China may not be allowed and that will be a disappointment who would like to club the visit to see the historical monuments of China’s awe inspiring heritage.

Hopefully, the world leaders do not boycott the Opening and Closing ceremonies for that will be a snub that China will not forget in a hurry.

And China, knowing that memory is short, can take solace that after the Olympic games, no matter what is the outcome, the world will be back to business and all the protests forgotten and Tibet out of the mind!

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

Ray

And they should.

Hope it does not take the frenzy of the Cultural Revolution!

But then, why is the Tibetan protest not justified?

Some elements say that to give the protest a bad name, the Army personnel disguised themselves and went on a rampage. Maybe true and Maybe false. None can know because of the media curfew!

Adux

Xiaohaha

I think there's definitely racism in this.

Ray

Racism of China on Tibetans?

I don't think that it is race predominant.

I think it is more of indication of power over Tibet than racism per se that the Chinese govt is displaying.

tiskew

Sorry , that picture was proved to be fake, though disappointing for you maybe.
Those soldiers were hierd to play monks in a movie called "The Touch", try to google it and you find out more. And if you dig up more about the Chinese millitary uniforms, you will know who is lying

On the other side, please use some basic logic, if you are preparing hosting a big meal for your friends, will you mess up your home first and then waiting for critics from all over the world? Maybe basic logic doesn't work in this media Frency?

Yep, there is a media curfew, but why you don't ask why? The only thing your media is looking for is the dark side of China, no prove needed, no confirmation, oops, small mistakes, even there was no "sorry", so what's the difference it would make to let you in or not? You tell me

Ray

Using basic logic. I find that if there are rebellious people in my home and I am calling guest homes, I don't bully these rebellious elements in my home so that they are encouraged to be hell bent in spoiling the mood of the festivity planned!

All media of the free world looks for issues that interest the readers and the general public, including what to you is small mistakes, but to others a huge mistake!

Have you noticed how the US and the international media has gone after Bush and his policies in Iraq? Did Bush throw out the media from Iraq? Even if he wanted, which anyway he didn't, he couldn't have done!

Notice also how the frenzy against Bush has now mellowed. He has allowed the frenzy to play itself out, and at the same time taken measures to rectify the mistakes that his people felt he had committed!

That is what is called the power of democracy - the real power of the People and not the sham power that only oscillates in the rhetorical realm of Communism and indicative of a sham "Peoples' Power'!!

tiskew

Hehe, so where is the prove of bully? Tell me if you have seen what the "Monks" are doing? I guess you should know what Buddism mean ;p

Yep, though those mistakes are finely tuned to guide the readers, that's also fine? Right?

yep, I noticed that, but before US started the war, was everyone agreed or at least most of them? Did US successfuly send the troops over there in the name of Freedom and Democrazy and finally get the oil out of it, and please tell me the Iraq civilians have a better life now ;p

Yep, he could not, and you have the great power of democracy which I hope one day I will have too. But it's hard to make me not wondering :
Bush happened to finish his 8 years of US president without problem ?
US happened to get the oil they need without big trouble?
So where is your power?

Hehe, you think China is sitll a communism country? Tell me you have been here. It's now a bloody money society if you happen to notice.

Ray

The photo of the Police with the monks dress is a fake. The Colonel proved it so and I have gone on all forums where I visit and have made it a point to post that it is a fake. I am all for the truthful reporting of events and if the Tibetans are wrong, then they are wrong!

I understand Buddhism. My troops were Buddhists. Does Buddhism mean that they hang around like lamb while they are slaughtered and their Buddhism vanishes into thin air. If that is your concept of Buddhism, then the Buddhists are wrong.

I did not agree with the logic presented for Iraq, nor do I still. Yet, I cannot deny that the US has handed over the running of Iraq to the Iraqis and now they are slowly leaving Iraq. Heard of Basra? Has the US planned to make Iraq a part of the US? No. Therefore, Iraq cannot be compared with Tibet!

Democracy does not mean it is Heaven! So what is this that you want me to understand about Democracy causing problems. Let me give you an example - An animal can cause problems. But with a whip, the animal can be tamed and it will do as you dictate. But there is the danger than an extra tight lash may make the animal bite you!

Iraq is not about Oil. Understand geostrategy!

tiskew

OK, thank you very much for cleaning up the fake photos, that's the only thing we need.

Yes, Budhism troops means you need to fight whatever you need to fight against. But how about civilians ? Does that make attacking civilians, shops, burn up stores, fire engines, polices reasonable too?

I agree, US has not make Iraq a part of US, because there's no need to if they can left some defense troops and all the hi-ranks were close to them,that's more than enough. And defin