Xi in the White House: was the menu tasty?

As Prime Minister Narendra Modi returns to India after a highly successful trip to the United States (and Ireland), it is interesting to look at another high-profile visit, President Xi Jinping’s.
While Mr. Modi and US President Barrack Obama discussed several multilateral issues of common interest, including long term strategic issues such as China’s new assertiveness, the issue of climate change was central to the Obama-Modi talks.
While major powers, in particular China, have already pledged their CBDRs (Common but Differentiated Responsibilities), India is expected to announce its CBDRs in early October.
However, Xi Jinping’s US visit was important for several other reasons.
For the Chinese President, it was the first State Visit with a 21-gun salute on the White House lawn, an elaborate reception and a succulent ‘Sino-American’ menu for the State Dinner to which 240 selected guests from the US Industry and even Hollywood, were invited.
Before the visit, Reuters had mentioned ‘5 big challenges’ and their possible outcomes for the Sino-US relations.
First was ‘cybersecurity’ which has been the source of tension between the 2 superpowers.
Then was ‘climate change’: China is the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide and last year, it had pledged “to work towards a new global climate change agreement” to be agreed during the Paris’ UN Climate Change Conference in December.
Economy was a third issue on the agenda. Reuters says: “China’s faltering economy and perceived slow progress on market reforms are major concerns for global investors worried about its openness to foreign competition. The nation drastically devalued its currency in August, sending waves through global markets.” A bilateral investment treaty between Beijing and Washington is still far away.
More tricky was the tensions in the South China Sea. Beijing has recently developed a number of artificial islands and military infrastructure in the South China Sea causing “considerable concern from neighbouring countries and putting pressure on the US to address the conflict” said Reuters.
And of course, the Human Rights issue. Here Beijing is not ready to discuss anything, often citing the poor human rights’ records of the United States, where a Black has many more chances to be killed by a policeman than a White. Xi just agreed that human rights and democracy were important pursuits, “but that reforms would proceed in time with China’s timetable.”
Even for Washington, it was certainly not the most urgent issue to tackle, though it is useful for ‘public consumption’.
Incidentally, the Dalai Lama was in the US at the same time as Xi, but due to health problems, part of his program had to be cancelled; in any case no ‘official’ meetings had been planned.
The South China Morning Post (SCMP) spoke of ‘goldilocks problems’ faced by China: “When President Xi Jinping visits the United States, the mainland public is bound to receive wall-to-wall positive coverage of what Beijing has pledged will be a successful trip. But underneath the pomp and pageantry, Xi may find himself facing an American audience that is increasingly ambivalent towards China.”
The Hong Kong newspaper cites “a host of security and economic issues is a shifting balance between the two countries as China's clout continues to grow.”
An analyst commented “For nearly 30 years, a sense of opportunity for business and trade, …but now you have fear, anger and worry".
Let us look at the issue of cybersecurity.
Xi Jinping and Obama pledged to curb commercial cyberespionage.
The two governments announced that they would soon launch biannual ministerial-level talks. Xi stated that ‘lot of consensus’ had been reached with Obama, who asserted that both countries would refrain from state-sponsored cyber-theft of intellectual property.
It is easier said than done. Will the NSA stops peeping into Chinese servers? Will China rein in its hordes of hackers? And what is ‘commercial cyberespionage’? Will military espionage be allowed? Where is the limit between the two? Obama even admitted: "The question now is: Are words followed by actions?"
Though both leaders highlighted some areas in which the US and China could work together, they also acknowledged that many differences remain.
The Chinese media argued that Obama reiterated that the US would not interfere in Hong Kong and did not support ‘independence’ for Taiwan, Tibet or Xinjiang. Is it possible?
More important was the issue of the South China Sea. Xi reiterated China had the right to uphold its territorial sovereignty and that Beijing did ‘not intend to pursue militarisation’ of the artificial islands.
What means ‘militarisation’?
In the midst of the visit, the SCMP reported that according to Chinese military sources: “China might press on with land reclamation in the strategically important South China Sea despite US President Barack Obama’s warning.”
Xi ‘confirmed’ that the islands were Chinese territory from ‘ancient times’ and Beijing had the right to uphold its maritime rights.
A source close to the Chinese military told the SCMP that Beijing would carry out reclamation …when necessary “China needs those artificial islands and airstrips in the South China Sea, because [the area] is a supply base for its navy and air force in the Asia-Pacific.”
‘Peaceful’ supply?
Reclamation is bound to continue and though it is more and more worrisome for the neighbours, the US can’t do much about it.
These thorny issues were discussed during a private ‘informal’ dinner. For almost three hours, the two leaders, with a couple of aides, talked about the burning issues straining bilateral ties. Analysts say that it was an opportunity for the two leaders to ‘know each other’.
As Xi was leaving the dinner venue (at Blair House (sic), a guest residence nearby the White House), the American President waved at his guest and said ‘ni hao’ (‘hi’ in Chinese).
Will it be enough to sort out all the difficult issues? Probably not.
At the same time, Xi tried to project China as a ‘responsible’ stake-holder.
Xi pledged billions to battle climate change; in the joint statement, Beijing said that it will “make available 20 billion yuan (3 billion US $ billion) through a bilateral fund to help developing countries combat climate change”.
A few days later, Xi announced at the UN that China will take the lead to set up a permanent peacekeeping police squad, building a peacekeeping standby force of 8,000 troops, and again pledging one billion dollars.
But at the same time, Hong Kong newspaper Ta Kung Pao reported that China may have recently conducted a successful test of the fastest hypersonic aircraft in the world.
It quoted the website of the Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC), which mentioned an initial test flight on an unspecified high-altitude, super-fast aircraft with a ‘unique flying style’. The report was deleted shortly after. Analysts however believe that Beijing is developing a new hypersonic aircraft that can travel at five times the speed of sound.
Though commentators say that for Xi, the opportunity to make personal connections with America's business and political leaders was important, it does not mean that China will be changing its ‘core’ positions.
Just before he left for the States, a report titled "The US-China Military Scorecard: Forces, Geography, and the Evolving Balance of Power, 1996-2017" had been released by the RAND Corporation, a US-based think tank. It argued: “Admitting that the People's Liberation Army still trails the US Navy considerably in terms of technology and skill, the gap has narrowed gradually between 1996 and 2017.”
Xi knows that, but China will not relent till it reaches the ‘level’ of the United States, which is Beijing’s ultimate objective.
A lot of tensions in perspective!
Narendra Modi’s visit was on a more peaceful and economic note.

All is forgiven, let’s be friends. Good, but...

My article All is forgiven, let’s be friends. Good, but... is today in the Edit Page of The Pioneer.
Here is the link...

The US and West Europe have suddenly warmed up to the Indian Prime Minister, after having shunned and humiliated him through various actions. They are Modi’s friends today, but they are not all-weather friends

A friend of mine, wanting to emulate the Charlie Hebdo cover, suggested a cartoon replacing the Prophet by US President Barack Obama with similar words (‘On a tout pardonné’ (Everything is forgiven), but instead of ‘Je suis Charlie, to have ‘Je suis Modi’ (I am Modi). It is a fact that all those who condemned Mr Narendra Modi, banned him from visiting their countries, those who held him responsible for the so-called pogrom in Gujarat, have now ‘forgiven everything’; they lavishly praise him as the new messiah who opens opportunities for their struggling economies. It is true for the United States, but also for Old Europe, which has jumped onto the Make in India bandwagon.
If Mr Modi is wise (I am sure he is) and despite the trouncing he has got from a ‘Naxalite’ in Delhi, he will not attach too much importance to the ‘I am Modi’ slogan. The Prime Minister is surely aware that his new-found friends can at any moment revert to their old ideological position against India. The fact that he chose to have an ‘aligned’ foreign policy, even with a perennial foe like China, is certainly a positive development. However the question remains: Are India’s new ‘Je suis Modi’ friends, sincere? It is not difficult to find out. Take the United States. At the recently-held National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, Beijing went berserk at Mr Obama praising his “old friend”, the Dalai Lama. If one looks at what Washington, DC, has done to improve the fate of the ordinary Tibetan, the answer is, ‘next to nothing’.
The New York Times explains how ‘politics’ often works: “China and the United States have worked out a reliable pas de deux over the Dalai Lama …It goes like this: Chinese leaders warn the White House against granting the Dalai Lama a public audience, and the American president …finds a way to hold a meeting that will result in the least offence to Beijing.”
So, Mr Obama did namaste to the Tibetan leader; he called him a “powerful example of what it means to practise compassion” — and that was it. The US is not a great defender of human rights and religious freedom, and the Tibetans will not receive more support from Washington, DC. Mr Obama’s public posturing was for internal public consumption (note that the ‘T’ word was not even pronounced). Take now his remarks about India in the same gathering. Mr Obama stated: “Acts of intolerance in India that would have shocked Gandhiji...”
Where was Mr Obama’s great understanding of India and the newly found India-US friendship? Whether at Siri Fort, where President Obama preached: “India will succeed so long as it is not splintered along the lines of religious faith”, or in Washington, his rebuff of India (and of China) is required for his public image. The Times of India termed the speech “an embarrassing smack down” for a country which received him “with euphoria”.
The morale of the story is that India’s Prime Minister should not be carried away by praises (or criticism); he should follow his own path, looking after India’s interests. In his address to the Heads of Indian Missions, the Prime Minister urged Indian diplomats to shed old mindsets and quickly adapt to changing global situations. Indeed, India should live in today’s world. Presuming that the Vedic rishis could build aircraft, today the indigenous fighter plane, the Tejas, has still not got its final combat readiness certificate — 32 years after its conception. Here lies one of India’s problems; her ‘glorious past'’ does not help make the nation a vibrant modern research centre.
Even when the Prime Minster says that “love for nature is part of Indian culture”, it is not enough to make Delhi a pollution-free city. It is fine to tell diplomats that they are “tejasvi, jeevant anshpunj” (shining vibrant representatives), but India has one of the smallest diplomatic corps in the world, compared to its population and ambitions. There is no harm in reiterating that India always stood for Vishva-Bandhutva (the brotherhood of the world), but common men and women should not be forgotten. Is it not a reason why Delhi voted the Aam Aadmi Party in?
Mr Modi does not have an easy task. After years of stagnation under successive Governments, his regime, with only a few talented ‘generals’, has to fight on many fronts: Corruption, dirt and general bureaucratic tamas etc. In one way, it was encouraging to see, perhaps for the first time, that the Ministry of External Affairs has explained one of its important stands. The ministry’s website published some 19 ‘Frequently Asked Questions and Answers’ on civil liability in the case of nuclear damage; the answer to the first question (on the understanding reached during the visit of President Obama to India) shows where the problem lies. It says: “India and the United States have reached an understanding on the issues related to civil nuclear liability and finalised the text of the Administrative Arrangement to implement the September 2008 bilateral 123 Agreement.”
Why was the issue not talked about earlier? For five years, why had nobody said that it was unacceptable to the foreign suppliers? Neither the Congress-led Government nor the then Opposition ever explained their positions (the then Opposition — today the Government — was unfortunately only interested in obstructing the ruling party).
France was the first country to sign a ‘US nuclear deal’ with India in September 2008, and two years later when President Nicolas Sarkozy visited Delhi, he triumphantly announced that two agreements had been signed between Areva of France and the Nuclear Power Corporation of India. After this, there was a blank.
Mr Modi has inherited many such glamorous ‘breakthroughs’, without subsequent follow-ups. Let us hope that the new US ‘breakthrough’ will be different. Another problem of the present foreign policy is that New Delhi bites off more than it can chew. In one week, becoming the United States’ best friend and ‘aligning’ its position with China and Russia is probably not wise.
On February 2, Minister for External Affairs Sushma Swaraj met her Russian and Chinese counterparts in Beijing for the 13th Russia-India-China; as The South China Morning Post said: “[It] is still a minefield to manoeuvre through in terms of diplomatic relations.” There’s nothing wrong in being a bridge between China and Russia, but had South Block fully digested Mr Obama’s visit?
Deng Xiaoping, the former Chinese paramount leader, once told his colleagues: “Keep a cool head and maintain a low profile. Never take the lead, but aim to do something big.” It is something that India must ponder over. In any case, in the months to come, Mr Modi’s Government will probably have to focus more on the common man’s policies, if it wants to avoid new deceptions.

Does Obama really want to split China?

My article Does Obama really want to split China? appeared in NitiCentral.

Here is the link...

When it was announced that President Barack Obama and the Dalai Lama were both going to attend the US National Prayer Breakfast, an annual ‘religious’ gathering held in Washington, Beijing went berserk.
The White House had taken care to clarify that ‘no specific meeting with the Dalai Lama’ was scheduled; the President only expressed his strong support for Tibetan culture (a very diplomatic term).
It was then not clear if the President and the monk would meet face to face; the Chinese authorities were nevertheless already ‘mad’; The Global Times thundered: “In whatever form and on whatever occasion, should a president of the United States meet with the Dalai Lama, it will unquestionably step on China's toes and therefore cast a shadow over US-China relations. This should be clear to all US politicians.”
The English mouthpiece of the Party angrily added: “So Washington seems to play a political gimmick by inviting the Dalai Lama …We have no idea whether it was the US president's idea to invite him …but whatever the reason, Obama is acquiescing to the Dalai Lama's attempt to split Tibet from China.”
Does Obama really want to ‘split’ China? It is doubtful.
Beijing explained that the reason for the Dalai Lama's flight from ‘China's Tibet’ in 1959 was because he had failed to maintain serfdom on the Roof of the World: “the majority of Tibetans were slaves leading a life of unimaginable misery.”
Unfortunately for Beijing, sixty-five years later, not only the ex-serfs, but also the ‘ethnic’ (read Tibetans) Communist Party’s cadres are still deeply unhappy to have been ‘liberated’. It explains why the Party’s Central Commission for Discipline Inspection recently decided to punish Party officials who ‘take an ambiguous attitude’ and are colluding with separatist organizations.
Tibetans with relatives in India are clearly targeted by this edict.
Xinhua also reported that the regional government in Lhasa will offer up to 300,000 yuan (48,000 US $) “to whistle blowers with clues concerning violent terror attacks in a move to promote stability in the region”.
The news agency quoted a document published by the infamous Public Security Bureau (secret police): “the reward will cover tip-offs on overseas terrorist organizations and their members' activities inside China, the spreading of religious extremism, terror related propaganda, those producing, selling and owning weapons, activities that help terrorists cross national borders [read India] and terror activities via the Internet.”
Obama went ahead with the ‘prayer meeting’, though he was warned: “some politicians in the US …have even gone so far as to echo his calls for an ‘independent Tibet’. Obama should not be that unwise.”
Andrew Jacobs of The New York Times saw the situation in a realistic manner: “China and the United States have worked out a reliable pas de deux over the Dalai Lama …It goes like this: Chinese leaders warn the White House against granting the Dalai Lama a public audience, and the American president either ignores the threats of diplomatic fallout or finds a way to hold a meeting that will result in the least offense to Beijing.”
So, Obama did ‘namaste’ to the Tibetan leader, waved and even smiled at him; later in his speech, he called him ‘his good friend’, a ‘powerful example of what it means to practice compassion … one who inspired us to speak up for the freedom and dignity of all human beings’.
The ‘T’ word was not pronounced, thanks to the White House’s good drafters.
Xinhua also played its role perfectly: “This action by the U.S. to drive a nail into the hearts of the Chinese people is harmful to the political trust between the two countries.”
At the same time, The China Daily tempered China’s pain: “US President Barack Obama acknowledged the Dalai Lama but did not meet directly with him at a religious event in Washington.”
It would be wrong to conclude that the US is a great defender of Human Rights and religious freedom and that the Tibetans will now receive some vital support from Washington. Obama’s public posturing is clearly for internal public consumption.
So were his remarks about India; he stated that “Acts of intolerance [in India] that would have shocked Gandhiji.” He added that India is “a place where, in past years, religious faiths of all types have, on occasion, been targeted by other peoples of faith, simply due to their heritage and their beliefs.”
Where was Obama’s great understanding of India and the newly found Indo-US friendship?
Whether at Siri Fort, where President Obama preached: “India will succeed so long as it is not splintered along the lines of religious faith,” or in Washington, his ‘rebuff’ of India (and also China) is required for his public image.
Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley rightly said: “Aberrations don’t alter India’s history of tolerance,” he pointed out to the great example of India’s tolerance sitting next to President Obama: “That is His Holiness the Dalai Lama. It is part of that tolerance that he found it comfortable [to stay in India since 1959].”
The Times of India termed Obama's speech ‘an embarrassing smack down’ for a country where he was received ‘with euphoria’ a few days earlier.
For Tibet, it is even sadder. It reminds me of another sad story: in the autumn of 1991, John Major, the British Prime Minister went to Beijing; he was the first Western leader to visit China after the Tiananmen events. Before leaving, Major had told the media that he would present to the Chinese leadership, a list of several hundred political prisoners prepared by Amnesty International. After meeting Premier Li Peng, Major confirmed that he had passed on the list to his Chinese counterpart; everyone praised Major’s moral courage. Later on, one of the British officials who attended the meet, admitted that Major had never shown the list to Li Peng, nor had he spoken a word about human rights; he had plainly lied.
Business was already business; it still is today.
Xinhua may call the US a ‘troublemaker’ interfering with China’s internal affairs in order to ‘contain, separate and Westernize’ the Middle Kingdom, but business will continue as usual …after a few days.
A commentator compared the present high drama to the Cham ritual dance of Tibet where different characters played different roles in a script written centuries ago (by an Indian sage). Despite the high tempo, Cham always ends up the same way.
I discovered this when I wrote my book, “The Negotiations that never were”, on the fruitless talks between Beijing in Dharamsala.
In the meantime, the Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy, an NGO based in Dharamsala published last week the report affirming: “In 2014, the human rights situation in Tibet continued to deteriorate. Human rights violations continued …The PRC cracked down against Tibetans in response to mining protests, protests against forced displays of loyalty, religious practices, and the continuation of the self-immolations protests.”
Nothing has changed since Tibet was so-called liberated in 1950.
And neither Beijing nor Washington seems interested to find a remedy to the depressing situation.
By the way, a couple of days after the famous Prayer Breakfast, Xinhua announced that President Xi will visit Washington later this year.

Rebalancing the Chinese Romance

My article Rebalancing the Chinese Romance is posted in Rediff.com

Here is the link...


'The question remains: Was the Obama visit truly a success?
'Only the future will tell us if the "breakthrough" in the nuclear liability issue will concretise into electricity... As importantly, it will be interesting to watch how India's relations with China will evolve in the months to come,' says Claude Arpi.

President Barack Obama has come and gone. The dust is slowly settling over the Indian capital. Even if very few concrete projects have materialized during the three-day visit, it looks as a great diplomatic success for Mr Narendra Modi. The bonhomie displayed by the two heads of Government is certainly a good omen for the future. At last India has come out of the dreadful ‘non- alignment’ syndrome.
The question remains, was the visit truly a success?
Only the future will tell us if the ‘breakthrough’ in the nuclear liability issue will concretize into electricity and if a similar formula can be applied for other countries ready to invest in nuclear energy in India, particularly France and Korea.
As importantly, it will be interesting to watch how India’s relations with China will evolve in the months to come.
The Global Times ran an op-ed saying: “The seemingly enthusiastic approach of the US and India and the romance between the two leaders do not suggest any substantial improvement in the bilateral ties of the two countries."
It is certainly a possibility, but it is also a fact that the visit of the US President to India on the occasion of the Republic Day triggered a larger than usual number of articles/comments in the Chinese press.
It started early on; the ‘romance’ was ignited by a big hug on the tarmac of Palam airport in front of the Beast.
The mouthpiece of the Communist Party of China asserted: “High-sounding remarks and deals are often showcased during high-level visits between the US and India, but when the trips end, actions often lag behind and words fail to translate into visible actions. The latest visit will likely repeat this pattern.”
This is might be true, but it is not restricted to the US, it happened after Xi Jinping’s and Putin’s visit to India too.
What made the difference this time was the ‘U.S.-India Joint Strategic Vision for the Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean Region’, released on the first day of the 3-day stay of the Obamas in India.
The new ‘Vision’, again mentioned in the Joint Statement, says: “India and the United States are important drivers of regional and global growth. From Africa to East Asia, we will build on our partnership to support sustainable, inclusive development, and increased regional connectivity by collaborating with other interested partners to address poverty and support broad-based prosperity.”
What has probably irked Beijing and triggered the Chinese press impressive media coverage was that India and the US affirmed “the importance of safeguarding maritime security and ensuring freedom of navigation and over flight throughout the region, especially in the South China Sea.”
The Joint Strategic Vision directly targeted Beijing: “We called on all parties to avoid the threat or use of force and pursue resolution of territorial and maritime disputes through all peaceful means, in accordance with universally recognized principles of international law, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.”
How come these ‘non-shareholders’, India and the US, ‘call on all parties’ to interfere in the region, protested China?
Hu Qingyun, in another The Global Times’ piece saw the situation slightly differently: “While some say the US intends to use India as a wedge to contain China, most experts agree that New Delhi will not take sides.”
Zhou Fangyin, a professor at the Guangdong Research Institute for International Strategies explained in same article: “Obama's strategy is quite clear. He wants to split the relations between China and India, as well as India and Russia, in an effort to fulfill his strategy of a ‘re-balance’ in Asia," adding: “The US is courting India to become an ally in South Asia to contain China by supporting economic and military development.”
It is a fact that Beijing is clearly worried about any outside interference on its own turf. The more neutral South China Morning Post also believed the Modi-Obama encounter was targeting China: “Obama's appearance as chief guest at India's Republic Day parade underlined the strengthening ties between the two countries and - according to some analysts - sent a message that India and the US could team up against China if needed.”
Sun Shihai, a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences told the Hong Kong newspaper: "The trip is a signal that both nations are exerting pressure on China. It shows that India's worries about China are deep-rooted and have not eased even though Beijing and New Delhi have vowed to deepen cooperation."
As the US President arrived in Delhi, Xinhua had predicted that nothing much will happen: “the Sino-Indian relations are not expected to be ‘significantly’ impacted by Obama's visit. The ongoing Obama trip in India may succeed in propelling the US-India relationship forward, it could hardly change the ground reality that India also needs China as a crucial cooperation partner."
Hua Chunying, the Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson took the same line during his press briefing, she affirmed: “China hopes the development of US-India relations can promote mutual trust and cooperation between countries in the region as well as benefit regional stability and prosperity.”
On January 26, 2015, President Xi Jinping sent a congratulatory message to his Indian counterpart in which he noted that “both China and India, as two ancient civilizations, are pursuing a great dream of national rejuvenation. China is delighted with India's achievements in its development.” Xi also conveyed that: “China is willing to make concerted efforts with India to lift China-India strategic cooperative partnership featuring peace and prosperity to new highs.”
The views of The New York Times are obviously more antagonistic to China: “Mr. Obama and his aides discovered to their surprise that Mr. Modi’s assessment of China’s rise and its impact on the greater strategic situation in East Asia was closely aligned with their own. Just as they did, Mr. Modi seemed increasingly uneasy about China’s efforts to extend its influence around the region and interested in a united approach to counter them.”
It is doubtful if the views of the Modi government were not known in Washington before Obama’s arrival; the US newspaper however added: “Mr. Modi seems not only willing but eager to redefine India’s relationship with the United States at a time China is on the rise economically, militarily and politically.”
Does Modi want to put all his eggs in the American basket? Certainly not!
An interesting development took place a day after President Obama left India. The Indian government announced the "curtailment of tenure of foreign secretary Sujatha Singh with immediate effect” and S. Jaishankar, India's ambassador to the US … and former ambassador to China became the new foreign secretary.
Jaishankar’s knowledge of the two countries and his rapport with both capitals will be a great asset in the new ‘alignment’ policy of Narendra Modi.
Another telling detail, Pakistani Army Chief, General Raheel Sharif was in Beijing during Obama’s visit to India. The General met the PLA top brass and particularly Yu Zhengsheng, chairman of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, who told him: “China appreciates and supports Pakistan's efforts in fighting against terrorism and hopes to better bilateral defense and security cooperation.” Beijing is ready to work with its ‘forever good friend’ “to upgrade our strategic coordination, deepen all-round cooperation, and step up the building of China-Pakistan economic corridor," said Yu. A veiled threat?
Around the same time, during a politburo meeting, President Xi reaffirmed his commitment to traditional Marxist philosophy. The Politburo had a collective study session on Marxist dialectical materialism, a year after it held a similar one on historical materialism.
Is China going back to the days of pure Marxism? It is probably a more important question than the new ‘re-alignment’ of the Asian forces.

Common man snubs the commentariat

My article Common man snubs the commentariat appeared in today's Edit Page of The Pioneer.

Here is the link... 
 
Every possible insult has been used by experts, both Indian and foreign, to demonise Narendra Modi. The country’s electorate has resoundingly ignored them all and put the talking heads in their place

China often criticises democracy, particularly the ‘Indian system’, as not being a system which ‘works’. It has been partly true. In many fields, such as infrastructure development or defence preparedness, India is nowhere near China. Beijing believes that the faultline lies in the democratic process which, most of the times, delivers fractured results, ending up in ill-assorted coalitions, which, in the process, invariably forget national interests.
Fortunately, it is not always the case; this time the Narendra Modi Government will hopefully be in a position to deliver the goods; this should be a lesson for China which, in recent times, seems to live in fear, due to the lack of stability inherent in its authoritarian system.
During the two-month lively campaign, what has deeply shocked many is the relentless, incessant, insidious attacks by some educated people against Mr Modi, who was the BJP’s prime ministerial candidate. Every possible insult has been used by Indian and foreign ‘experts’ to show Mr Modi as the worst person on earth, and warn the common men of India of dire consequences, if such a person was to be elected to the helm of the country.
Having closely followed the reactions in the French Press, I was shocked by the number of articles on the ‘butcher of Gujarat’, the ‘Indian Hitler’ (always reminding the readers that Hitler too first came to power through an election), the fate of the ‘minorities’ soon to be massacred etc.
In France, the chef d'orchestre (the conductor of the orchestra) is a self-styled expert on India. For years, this gentleman has been advising successive Governments in Paris (he does not anymore). He hates the ‘saffron brigade’ which he compares to neo-fascist groups in France (it shows his poor knowledge of India). For years, he spoke of Hindu Nationalism as a fascist movement and warned Indians not to follow a path which would automatically lead to the destruction of the famous Indian fabric. There has always been a lot of condescension towards Indians, who, nonetheless, keep inviting him to talk on India to share his ‘knowledgeable’ analysis.
This is an archetype of a number of foreign scholars and researchers, who like to warn India against the approaching Goebbelsian days. Their analysis is usually based on a pathologic obsession with caste and religion.
The reality is different: For the first time since the Mandalisation of Indian politics, caste and religious factors did not play a major role in the recent election. India decided for good governance and development.
I still remember, several years ago, I visited one of these French ‘knowledgeable scholars’ in Paris. As I entered his office, he asked me to which caste my wife belonged. I told him that I did not care; I had chosen her for other reasons. It, however, showed his narrow comprehension of India. To me, one of the most positive developments, is that the experts (and the foreign Governments that they been advising) will have to review their textbooks on India. Though it is not the case anymore, for years the French Government has been influenced by some of these ‘India experts’. So have other Western countries.
As the results poured in, President François Hollande congratulated the people and authorities of India on the outstanding conduct of the legislative election. He expressed the wish to work with Mr Modi “to carry the strategic partnership between India and France to an ever higher level of trust and cooperation”; concluding “India can count on France’s steadfast friendship.”
For the US, a reset call from President Barack Obama to Mr Modi helped to start the relations afresh! The Times of India commented: “A single phone call that went out from the White House to Prime Minister-designate Narendra Modi close to midnight on Friday erased nearly a decade of stigma that Washington had heaped on the BJP leader.” The issue of visa was buried in a few seconds; Mr Obama invited Mr Modi to visit the White House “to advance bilateral ties between the two countries”, the US President now looks “to working closely with Modi to fulfill the ‘extraordinary promise’ of the US-India strategic partnership.”
The past is past in Washington, DC, but the fact remains that richly-endowed US think-tanks had got it completely wrong; for years, they considered Mr Modi as a pariah who would never make it. Ms Nancy Powell, the US Ambassador to India, lost her job for discovering too late the pulse of the country. Some Indian intellectuals in the US have also played their role in ostracising the BJP and its leaders. Just two years ago, the ‘eminent’ TIME journalist Fareed Zakaria ‘enthralled’ an Indian public by telling them, why “it (Mr Modi as Prime Minister) is never going to happen”. In fact, he then saw “a U-turn in the high-flying Modi’s fortunes”. It did not happen that way.
Now, what will this ‘educated elite’ do? They will write open letters to Mr Modi to tell him that, though they still don’t like him much, they are ready to accept him as a Prime Minister as they are ‘democrats’ and respect (though regrettably on this particular occasion) India’s first-past-the-post rule.
To “redeem the trust of those who have not supported you”, one of these gentlemen suggested: “When you [Modi] reconstitute the Minorities Commission, ask the Opposition to give you all the names and accept them without change. And do the same for the panels on Scheduled Castes and Tribes, and Linguistic Minorities. And when it comes to choosing the next Chief Information Commissioner, the next CAG, CVC, go sportingly by the recommendation of the non-Government members on the selection committee, as long as it is not partisan.”
In other words, ask ‘experts’ to make all important appointments. Amazing! And who will be responsible if it goes wrong? Certainly not the Leader of the Opposition' (who technically does not even exist, as the Congress could not gather the required 10 per cent of the seats) or even the ‘experts’.
In the days and weeks to come, Mr Modi will receive plenty of open letters from well-wishers wanting to advise what he should do to fix the economy, foreign affairs, defence, the fight against Maoist terror, infrastructure and education. I hope Mr Modi will just say “thank you” and do what he thinks is fit for India. It is not the well-wishers who have been elected to run the country, but he and his team.
I don’t want to do the same as our ‘experts’, but I will suggest to Mr Modi to look at China for one the rare positive steps taken by President Xi Jinping in the fight again the corrupted “flies and tigers”. Were Mr Modi to recover some of the Indian money in Swiss vaults or elsewhere, India would be a much richer and more respectable nation.

In Beijing, sound and fury signify nothing

Gen. Odierno with Gen. Fang Fenghui

My column in the Edit page of The Pioneer appeared  yesterday under the title In Beijing, sound and fury signify nothing.


Here is the link...

While China has undoubtedly been vocal in its opposition to the Dalai Lama-Barack Obama meeting, it has also been pragmatic enough to continue its relations with the US in the business-as-usual mode

During his visit to Beijing earlier this month, US Secretary of State John Kerry probably informed his Chinese ‘friends’ that President Barack Obama would be meeting the Dalai Lama when the latter arrived in Washington, DC. Then Beijing did what it is good at: It pulled one of its sharpest loose-cannons from his quasi-retirement to shoot at US foreign policy. Mr Zhu Weiqun used to occupy an important position in the Chinese United Front Department, which deals with ‘minorities’; for years, he was the main interlocutor for the Dalai Lama’s envoys in the still-born negotiation process between Dharamsala and Beijing. Mr Zhu does not have an executive assignment anymore; he is a mere director of the Committee for Ethnic and Religious Affairs of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, a grand-sounding title which can be useful when Mr Zhu’s ‘expertise’ is required.
Mr Zhu wrote a hard-hitting article published by the official Chinese media, where he argued that the West will soon “see the real face of the Dalai clique and East Turkestan movement” (Xinjiang). Mr Zhu, however, admitted that in the Western world today, the Chinese case on Tibet is still “weak and isolated”, but “the trend of history” was changing fast as “time is on China’s side”. Reuters noted that Mr Zhu’s message uses “unusually strong language”, suggesting that China should ignore foreign pressure on human rights.
Mr Zhu, a hardliner on Tibet, undoubtedly knew about the forthcoming meeting between the Tibetan leader and the US President. For him, “As China becomes more involved in international affairs, and as Tibet and Xinjiang further open to the world, more and more Westerners will have an understanding of Tibet and Xinjiang that better accords with reality.” The “reality”, according to Mr Zhu, is that nobody can point a finger at China, particularly when it concerns human rights and freedom of speech.
The original article, which says that the US should be pragmatic when it looks at the issue of the Dalai Lama, was published in China Tibet Online, an official Chinese website which reports issues related to Tibet. It appeared a couple of days before the announcement that the Dalai Lama would meet President Obama in the White House. Mr Zhu asserted: “What should be developed should be developed, and when stability should be maintained it will be maintained — China must totally disregard whatever the West says.” This sounds like the old Tiananmen Square rhetoric; whatever the cost, the hard-line should and will be maintained. Mr Zhu speaks of a “strange phenomenon” emerging: “When China is in steady progress, the Western leaders would line up to woo China, but change their attitude immediately and slander China as long as something happens in Tibet or Xinjiang… which is really unbelievable.”
Mr Zhu misses one part of history. Tibet has, for centuries, been an independent nation with its own Government, Army, coinage, stamps and passport. Now the Dalai Lama seeks for Tibet only a genuine autonomy within the People’s Republic of China. When he was negotiating with Dharamsala, Mr Zhu systematically blocked this type of compromise. Interestingly, he concluded: “The American foreign policy is based on ‘pragmatism’ for its own interests and ideology.”
The day before the Obama-Dalai Lama encounter, Beijing thundered that the proposed meeting would be a “rampant interference” which would damage bilateral relations. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying angrily added: “If any country deliberately insists on harming China’s interests... it will also damage its own interests and will harm the bilateral relations between China and the relevant country. If the US President wishes to meet any person, it’s his own affair, but he cannot meet the Dalai Lama.”
Xinhua was also sanguine: “No matter what Mr Obama is to discuss with the Dalai Lama, their meeting will be sheer politics, but of no avail in manipulating China over the Tibet issue. It is high time for the United States to wake up to Dalai Lama’s hypocrisy and abandon the lose-lose deal.” But business is business. Between ‘pragmatic’ states, lose-lose can become win-win in no time and contrary to what Mr Zhu asserted, it is not the privilege of the United States to be pragmatic, China has a thousand-years-old tradition of pragmatism.
The day Mr Obama met the Dalai Lama, The New York Times quoted a top US military commander as saying that, “the US Army is working on starting a formal dialogue and exchange programme with the Chinese People’s Liberation Army before the end of the year.” From where was General Raymond T Odierno, the US Army Chief of Staff, speaking? You won’t believe it! He was speaking from Beijing!
Though the Chinese Government knew about the Obama-Dalai Lama scheduled meeting, General Odierno’s trip was not cancelled. During his Press conference in the Chinese capital, the General affirmed: “It really is about us focusing on a long-term relationship and the importance of us conducting exchanges, conducting institutional visits.” That is a win-win statement. Gen Odierno affirmed that a formal high-level Army-to-Army exchange would be helpful because “throughout history, miscalculation is what has caused conflict,” adding that the purpose of his visit was to lay the groundwork for senior-level exchanges between the two Armies.
After visiting barracks in Shenyang Military Area Command, Gen Odierno affirmed that the Chinese troops are “incredibly professional and wonderful”. After meeting with the top Chinese Generals, he declared: “It’s been very encouraging and made very clear to me the importance that you place on collaboration and cooperation. And I think that is the key.” Don’t you think that it is pragmatism all the way and from both sides? The fact that Beijing allows such a senior US General’s visit to happen despite America’s “rampant interference” in China’s so-called internal affairs, is pure pragmatism.
In the meantime, repression continues in Tibet, particularly in the restive Nagchu Prefecture and, instead of trying to dispel Tibetan resentment, Beijing makes it worse with hard-line policies. To give an example, Mr Gao Yang, a Han cadre who served a long time in Tibet, has been nominated as Party Secretary of Nagchu; he replaces the Nagchu-born Tibetan Dortho. A Han from Shandong Province, replacing a Tibetan will not help in diffusing the situation.
In any case, India should certainly learn from the Chinese and the Americans. But Indian diplomats will argue that Indian diplomacy is based on ‘principles’, not on pragmatism. By the way, why doesn’t the Indian Prime Minister meet the Dalai Lama? But perhaps the Mandarins in the Prime Minister’s Office see such a meeting as “rampant” interference in China’s affairs.

Hardline and Pragmatism

February 21, 2014 (Map Room)

China is good at putting ‘unusable’ Party leaders in cupboards (with always nice names/titles on the door). The reasoning is that, at a required time, these old cadres can be taken out of their ‘retirement’ and recycled for the sake of the Party’s interests. This is called a pragmatic approach.
Take the case of Zhu Weiqun, who used to occupy a senior position in the United Front Department and was the main interlocutor of the Dalai Lama’s envoys in the still-born negotiations process between Dharamsala and Beijing.
Zhu Weiqun is today the director of the Committee for Ethnic and Religious Affairs of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. That’s a long title which can be useful when Zhu’s ‘expertise’ in required. After all, he is the official who had the longest encounters with the Tibetan delegates and can read their minds.
Zhu recently ‘expatiates’ for Xinhua ‘on why the West been is unwilling or unable to give up acts harmful to both China and itself’.
The article was reproduced by China Tibet Online, an official Chinese website which reports issues related to Tibet.
Zhu’s article is titled: “US’s ‘pragmatism’ consideration on Dalai Lama’.
It appeared a couple of days before the announcement that the Dalai Lama would meet President Obama in the White House (Beijing was obviously in the know about the meeting).

China Tibet Online used this picture
to illustrate the meeting

Before letting Zhu speak, the Editor of China Tibet Online noted: “The West has never stopped interfering in Tibet and Xinjiang issues, ever since the founding of the People's Republic of China despite its overall positive relations with China after China's reform and opening-up. Under special condition, such interference could even suddenly be intensified, which caused the bilateral relations to stagnate and even retrograde within a certain period of time. It has not only made trouble to China but also done no less harm to the West.”
Zhu gave ‘his’ reading of the history of the relations between the Dalai Lama and Washington: “In the 1970s, the US needed to concentrate on the ‘Cold War’ toward the former Soviet Union, extricate itself from the Vietnam War. Under this circumstance, China's attitude was very important, while the Dalai Lama was given the cold shoulder for not being very useful and even affects the improvement of the China-US relations.”
This culminated by President Nixon's visit to China in 1972, Zhu analyses thus the situation: “the US significantly cut down on the economic and military support to the Dalai clique. After ceasing the aerial delivery by the CIA for the major armed forces of the clique occupied in Mustang area of Nepal in 1965, it allowed the Nepalese military forces to annihilate it in 1974.”
The former Chinese negotiator then explains the Dalai Lama’s renouncement to Independence in the 1980s: “Desolated by the international community, the Dalai clique had to change its banner from ‘Tibet independence’ to ‘the Middle Way approach’, and stepped onto the path of ‘indirectly Tibetan separatism’ under the cloak of ‘Greater Tibet and High-degree Autonomy’.”
It is in 1987 that the Dalai Lama proposed his Five-Point Peace Plan to the US Congress in Washington. It was a constructive proposal. A year later, in front of the EU Parliament in Strasbourg, the Tibetan leader mentioned for the first time his ‘Middle Path’ approach, seeking genuine autonomy. At that time, the Dalai Lama had the full support of the West, he cannot be said that he was ‘desolated’.
Zhu explains further that China's fast development since its reform and opening-up policy in 1978 has put the West into a dilemma: “On the one hand, everyone tries to improve its relations with China to get benefit from it, especially to get rid of its economic and financial crisis. On the other hand, they fear and worry that China would break the long-standing western-dominated international rules and pattern of interests. Therefore, they have taken every opportunity to contain China and separate China as a multi-ethnic country like what it did to the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia.”
Zhu Weiqun sees a ‘strange phenomenon’ emerging: “When China is in a steady progress, the western leaders would line up to woo China, but change their attitude immediately and slander China as long as something happens in Tibet or Xinjiang. Of course, their attitudes will become softened immediately after the situation in Tibet or Xinjiang comes back to normal, which is really unbelievable.”
Mr. Zhu misses one part of history.
Tibet has for centuries been an independent nation with its own government, army, coinage, stamps, passports, etc.
China invaded Tibet in 1950 and in May 1951, Beijing forced a 17-Point Agreement on weak Tibetan leaders. The clauses of the Agreement were never sincerely implemented by China.
I mentioned a few days ago a document published by Melvyn Goldstein in which in 1957, the Central Committee, the highest authority in the Party under Mao's leadership, admits that “although Tibet became an inseparable part of China a long time ago, it has maintained an independent or semi-independent status in its relations with the motherland.”
As Mr. Zhu read this 1957 note of his own Party.
The document mentions only a ‘nominal subordination to the Beiyang government [from 1912 to 1928] and the Guomindang administration [from 1928 to 1949]’ and asserts that between the Xinhai Revolution (the 1911 Revolution) and the ‘Peaceful Liberation of Tibet’ in 1951’ Tibet once again restored its semi-independent status.
It says: “The fact that [Tibet] had achieved long-term independence and semi-independence historically distinguishes Tibet from other minority nationality areas in China.”
At the end of the 1950s, Mao and his associates decided to put the so-called reforms on hold.
Where Zhu Weiqun is probably right is when he says: “When some new leaders took office, they usually will meet with the 14th Dalai Lama regardless of China's strong opposition, and then privately promises to China that it will never happen again in a bid to recuperate its relationship with China.”
The duplicity of some Western leaders, at least as far as Tibet is concerned is well-known. Zhu says: “[This] will usually be followed by a large business delegation to visit China in order to obtain economic benefits. And so does the cycle go for the next leader.”
Zhu’s conclusion was: “The American foreign policy is based on ‘pragmatism’ for its own interests and ideology, so is the so-called Tibet issue and Xinjiang issue.”
When it became officially known that the US President would be meeting the Tibetan leader in ‘Map Room’, the Chinese government were upset, very very upset. How dare Obama to come back on his words (has he ever promised not to meet the Dalai Lama?).

Rampant Interference
The proposed meeting would be a 'rampant interference' which would damage bilateral relations said Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying: “For the United States leader to meet the Dalai Lama is a gross interference in China's internal affairs and a serious violation of the norms of international relations.”
She angrily added: “If any country deliberately insists on harming China's interests, in the end it will also damage its own interests and will harm the bilateral relations between China and the relevant country. If the US president wishes to meet any person, it's his own affair, but he cannot meet the Dalai Lama.”
Xinhua was also sanguine: “No matter what Obama is to discuss with the Dalai Lama, their meeting will be sheer politics, but of no avail in manipulating China over the Tibet issue. It is high time for the United States to wake up to Dalai Lama's hypocrisy and abandon the lose-lose deal.”
But business is business.
Between ‘pragmatic’ States, lose-lose can become win-win in no time and contrary to what Mr. Zhu asserts, it is not the privilege of the United States to be pragmatic, China has a thousand-old tradition of ‘pragmatism’.

Gen. Fan Changlong receives Gen. Odierno

The day Obama met the Dalai Lama, The New York Times quoted a top U.S. military commander as saying that “the U.S. Army is working on starting a formal dialogue and exchange program with the Chinese People’s Liberation Army before the end of the year.”
From where was General Raymond T. Odierno, the U.S. Army Chief of Staff speaking? You won't believe it! From Beijing!
Though the Chinese government was undoubtedly informed by Secretary of State John Kerry about the Obama-Dalai Lama scheduled meeting (when Kerry was in Beijing a week earlier), General Odierno’s trip was not cancelled. During his press conference in the Chinese capital, the general even spoke of “expanding cooperation and managing differences constructively”.
He affirmed: “It really is about us focusing on a long-term relationship and the importance of us conducting exchanges, conducting institutional visits.”
That is a win-win statement.
The general not only visited the Shenyang Military Area Command (MAC) in northeast China, but he also met General Fan Changlong, senior vice chairman of the Central Military Commission (CMC), General Fang Fenghui, Chief of the General Staff of the People’s Liberation Army (also a member of all-powerful CMC) and General Wang Ning, the PLA’s Deputy Chief of Staff.
General Odierno said the formal dialogue between U.S. and Chinese army officials would include discussions of humanitarian relief, disaster management and peacekeeping operations.
Odierno affirmed that a formal high-level army-to-army exchange would be helpful because “throughout history, miscalculation is what has caused conflict.” The purpose of his visit was “to lay the groundwork for senior-level exchanges between the two armies”.
After visiting the Chinese troops, Odierno said that they are ‘incredibly professional and wonderful’. After his meeting with General Fang, he declared: “It’s been very encouraging and made very clear to me the importance that you place on collaboration and cooperation. And I think that is the key.”
Don’t you think that it is pragmatism all the way and from both sides?
The fact that Beijing ‘allows’ such a senior general’s visit to happen despite the US ‘rampant interference’ in China’s so-called internal affairs, is pure pragmatism.
India should certainly learn from the Chinese and the Americans.
But we are told that Indian diplomacy is based on ‘principles’, not on pragmatism.
Now Zhu, the harliner is not required anymore, he can be sent back to his cupboard. He will be recalled is a tough ‘Tibet expert’ is required again.

Charge of the fight brigade dissipates

My article Charge of the fight brigade dissipates appeared in The Pioneer today.

Here is the link...

The sabre-rattling by the US and France over Syria has, thankfully, receded after the Presidents of the two countries discovered they had to battle a groundswell of opposition to their desire for war

“On y va? On n’y va pas?” (“Shall we go? Shall we not go?) Where? To Syria, of course! Why? To avenge the victims of an alleged chemical weapons attack that caused the deaths of hundreds of people on August 21, near Damascus in Syria.
The Americans and the French immediately declared that they had proof that President Bashar al-Assad’s forces were behind the attack. Soon, French President François Hollande became ‘François , le justicier’ (the Dispenser of Justice). “C’est pas possible” (It’s not possible), Mr al-Assad has to pay, “the chemical killing cannot go unpunished”. The new crusader was so shocked that he was ready to go to Syria alone, (provided Washington, DC, followed Paris, of course). The belligerent French President realised nonetheless that Syria was not Mali and France did not have the means to go to the battlefield without a proper mandate.
On August 30, in an interview with the daily, Le Monde, the French President confirmed his position: “The chemical massacre of Damascus cannot and must not go unpunished. Otherwise, it would risk an escalation that would trivialise the use of these weapons and threaten other countries.... I think a halt must be brought to a regime that commits the irreparable on its people”. Mr Hollande was still not keen to seek an international mandate: “If the Security Council is unable to act, a coalition can be formed. It should be as broad as possible. It will rely on the Arab League which condemned the crime. It will have the support of the Europeans. But there are few countries that have the capacity to impose a sanction by appropriate means. France is one. She is ready.” Wishful dreaming, especially after the tide turned!
At first, the French President was not too much bothered by the refusal of the British Parliament to go for Mr al-Assad: “Each country is sovereign to participate or not in operation”, he said. Then on August 31, President Barack Obama decided to seek the green light from the US Congress. To say the least, this was a let-down for Mr Hollande. What should be France’s next steps if even its good European friends were not on board to Damascus? The Time commented: “France seems isolated in its desire to ‘punish’ the Syrian regime quickly... the French head of state has become the preferred partner to the White House since the surprise of the House of Commons vote on 29 August”.
In the meantime, public opinion in France was more and more against an intervention. An analyst in Le Monde hit hard at the presidential plans: “Is schizophrenia, with dissociation in the thought-process provoking contradictory actions, looming large for François Hollande? We have a President who is a tightrope walker in the French internal scene, and a trapeze artist in the international arena; when it comes to govern France, he is careful, though sometimes not too straight, but he is martial, even brutal, when it comes to intervene in foreign land; an adept of alternative medicine in France and shock therapy abroad,” he said.
After most of the European countries and the BRICS nations showed their lack of interest for the US-French project, Mr John Kerry, the US Secretary of State, tried to convince the French public. Appearing on French TV with his French counterpart Laurent Fabius, he made an impassioned plea in fluent French; Mr Kerry spoke of Western Europe’s past and its decision to go to war against Adolf Hitler. “This is our Munich moment”, he said, adding that, “This is not the time to be silent spectators to slaughter”. The Time commented: “Kerry’s words were intended to sway people in Paris, a city which suffered under Nazi occupation and which narrowly averted widespread destruction during Hitler’s final days.” But Mr Kerry’s appeal didn’t move the French.
According to a survey of the IFOP, the serious survey institute, published by Le Figaro, almost two-thirds of French (64 per cent) were opposed to an intervention, only, 36 per cent declared themselves in favour; in a survey conducted a week earlier, 55 per cent were against.
Mr Pierre Charasse, a former French Ambassador to Pakistan, now retired in Mexico, sent a satiric letter illustrating the public mood, to Mr Hollande. “Mr President, you have taken the lead of a large global movement on behalf of the ‘Duty to Protect’ …this was the vocation of France [which] does not fail in his duty. Your exemplary determination should quickly convince your trembling European partners and the cowards in the public opinion… of the merits of a surgical military intervention in Syria”.
The former Ambassador says that “we are confident that our weapons will not fall into the hands of jihadist fighters of the Al-Nusra Front, which are part of the rebel coalition” and that Al Qaeda should get your strong messages: “It is important… to reach out to those who want our destruction.” The letter continues on the same tone: “If Americans are struggling to identify targets, French intelligence services will be pleased to provide them all the information they have, so that the operation is short and scathing.”
Mr Charasse suggests next time sending forces to Mexico where 70,000 people died (with 26,000 missing) of violence during President Felipe Calderón’s tenure (2006-2012) alone: “Logically with figures like this, the Mexican civilian population should be eligible for benefits of the ‘Duty to Protect’.”  Mr Charasse may exaggerate when he writes: “World public opinion, the unemployed in Greece, Portugal, Spain, France and elsewhere would presumably appreciate surgical strikes on the IMF, the European Central Bank, the City of London or some ‘non-cooperative’ fiscal paradise”, but it is a fact that there could be several other possible targets on this planet.
There are indeed many injustices or wrong-doings the world over, whether it is in North Korea where Kim Jong-un regularly starves his own people, in China where the Communist Party mistreats its ‘minorities’ or elsewhere. Shall these countries also be bombed? Why is only ‘small’ Syria in question?
It is a positive sign if Mr Hollande’s and Mr Obama’s plan fails. War can’t bring a sustainable solution to complicated and intricate issues such as the Middle East is witnessing. Ultimately, the international community should be strong enough to impose a ‘punishment’, but individual nations can’t decide on their own whom to punish or exempt. Let us hope that the latest Russian proposal to ‘chemically’ disarm Syria will mark a step forward.
On the positive side (though not related), India and France have begun a joint military exercise called Shakti in Bourg Saint-Maurice in the French Alps. For 11 days, the Five Kumaon Regiment will practice with the French Chassseurs Alpins (13th Alpine Battalion). Their objective is to conduct joint counter insurgency platoon operations in a mountain environment… under the United Nations Charter!

The Great Snooping Game

Was it a Great Master coup by President Xi?
A few weeks ago, US President Barack Obama and President Xi Jinping of China decided to meet for a week-end at a luxurious desert estate known as Sunnylands in southern California.
The atmosphere of the first official encounter between the new Chinese President and his American counterpart was to be as ‘relaxed’ as possible: no stiff protocol, no long speeches, no ties, not even a formal agenda.
More than the North Korea or South and East China Seas dispute, Obama had in mind the Chinese hackers visiting the Pentagon’s and other US government Internet servers and taking away American military secrets. This was a major irritant for the United States and Obama was keen to corner Xi on the subject.
As he entered Sunnylands, Xi knew that the stakes were vastly different from the previous day.
Welcoming his counterpart, Obama reiterated the importance of the relationship which was “reflected with this somewhat unusual setting that we are hosting the President [Xi] in”. Obama spoke of sharing the “visions for our respective countries” and how a new model of cooperation between countries based on mutual interest and mutual respect could be forged (it sounds panchsheelian).
In his opening remarks Xi denied any wrong doing from China. But when he said that the cybersecurity issue needed to be resolved in a ‘pragmatic way’, as China was also a victim of cyber attacks; he was probably smiling to himself.
The Guardian had just reported that the US National Security Agency (NSA) had obtained direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple and other US internet giants. The British newspaper quoted from a top secret document demonstrating that the NSA had been using a previously undisclosed programme called PRISM, allowing US officials to collect personal information including search history, content of emails, file transfers and live chats.
Suddenly, it was the pot calling the kettle black.
The Guardian had verified the authenticity of a 41-slide top secret PowerPoint presentation, which was not to be shown to foreign allies.
According to the new revelations, PRISM is able to directly collect information from the servers of most major US service providers.
Earlier in the week, The Guardian had already leaked of a top-secret court order compelling telecoms provider Verizon to turn over the telephone records of millions of US customers.
The US companies’ denial is similar to Beijing rebuffing the fact that there are active hackers in China.
President Barack Obama had suddenly to staunchly defend his government’s surveillance over his countrymen's phone and internet activities. He called it a ‘modest encroachment on privacy’, necessary to defend the United States from outside attack. And he differentiated surveillance and espionage!
We shall never know if Xi told Obama: “please look in your backyard before pointing a finger at us”; but the fact remains that the Chinese President had won the battle. Obama could not lecture him anymore on the human rights and liberties, so dear to the American people.
Another serious question emerges from the revelations about PRISM: could the famous Chinese hackers be for something in the ‘timely’ disclosure?
Guess where Edward Snowden, already termed the ‘most consequential American whistleblower’ emerged day the after the Sunnylands Summit? In Hong Kong, the Special Administrative Region of China!
The 29-year-old working for a defence contractor under the CIA told The Guardian: “I have no intention of hiding who I am because I know I have done nothing wrong."
Strangely, he was staying at an unnamed ‘plush hotel’ in the former British colony. Why did he choose Hong Kong? Because the city has: “a spirit of commitment to free speech and the right of political dissent,” he said.
Could Hong Kong be a good place for Snowden to get ‘protection’ from Beijing if needed be? The future will tell us.
In the meantime, the United States will continue to snoop on the rest or the world (as well as on its own citizens), while the Middle Kingdom will maintain its surveillance of each of its nationals and peep into the US servers whenever required for its ‘defence’.
President Xi Jinping can be happy, Barack Obama repeated his favorite formula for foreign politics (in internal politics, Xi speaks of a ‘Chinese Dream’): a "new model for major country relationships"
Xi said that both sides need a new path, "different from the inevitable confrontation and conflict between major powers in the past”.
Well, where is India in this scheme?
Did Dr. Manmohan Singh take up the issue of cybersecurity when Premier Li Keqiang visited Delhi? Will the ‘honest’ Defence Minister broach the topic during his forthcoming trip to Beijing?
Of course, not! China is a friend and a strategic partner; Beijing may bother us in Ladakh, but it would never do this in the cyberspace!
In any case, the National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO) is watching! Unfortunately, there is another side to it, the Indian agencies are also watching Indian citizens.
The International NGO Human Rights Watch said that the new Central Monitoring System (CMS) recently introduced by Delhi ‘was chilling, given its reckless and irresponsible use of the sedition and Internet laws” in India.
It seems that the system has the capacity to provide government agencies like the National Investigation Agency or the IB, centralised access to the country’s telecom network and monitor phone calls, text messages, and Internet messages bypassing service providers.
Earlier, when my website site was hacked, I could without hesitation point a finger at the Dark Visitors from China, now I will have a choice on who to blame.
India, however, remains far behind the US and China in the Great Snooping Game and as far as external threats are concerned, India needs to work harder, much harder.

Normal clichés!

The press just loves clichés?
The latest one is on the new French President, François Hollande whom the media calls ‘Mr Normal’.
After the G-8 Summit at Camp David, Reuters titled: “France's ‘Mr. Normal’ stands out in diplomatic debut”
What does ‘normal’ mean?
Hollande was born in a middle-class family in Rouen, Normandy. His father Georges Gustave Hollande was an ENT specialist involved in extreme right local politics. The young Hollande revolted against the strict religious education imposed by his father; it is probably ‘normal’.
Later Hollande did the most brilliant studies in the top French educational institutions: the HEC (High Institute of Commerce), the IEP (Institute of Political Studies, Paris) and the ENA (National School of Administration), the most select school in France producing the cream of the cream of bureaucrats, diplomats or CEOs ; he topped. Is it ‘normal’?
Rather unusual in France: before graduation, Hollande went as a university student to the United States in the summer of 1974.
And another abnormal aspect of Holland, he lived with Ségolène Royale, the loser of the 2007 presidential battle against Nicolas Sarkozy, without getting married!
Hollande and Royale, who spent some 25 years together, have 4 children. They had met while studying at the ENA. Some newspapers speculated: if Fate had been different, Royal could have attended the G8 Summit in the US and Hollande would have been the ‘First Boy Friend’. But that’s tabloid news.
It is probably during his tenure as the Socialist Party’s First Secretary that Hollande learned the trick of being a man of consensus; there, he had no choice, with all the different factions and ‘currents’ trying to express their divergent views, often threatening to pull apart the Party.
It is these qualities that he will require to govern France, par excellence an ungovernable country; and this since the time of the Gaullish tribes.
The leitmotiv of the Socialist candidate during the electoral campaign was to put an end to “austerity everywhere, austerity that brought desperation to people throughout Europe". For him, one of the problems of ‘austerity’ is that it creates a depressive mood.

Today, Hollande has perhaps a chance to change the tide.
Though against the principle at the national level, during his first Council of ministers, President Hollande advocated that ‘austerity’ should start at home. He reminded his colleagues of his promise of "dignity, simplicity and sobriety".
The Council voted from something unusual (for India at least): a 30% cut in the salaries of all ministers as well as of the President.
A masterstroke, analyzed many observers (Hollande's predecessor had increased his salary by about 170% at the time of joining office) and for the first time, half the appointed ministers were women (17 out of 34).
Further, the Ministers were asked to adhere to a strict code of conduct regarding official ‘gifts’ (‘not more than 150 Euros’) and ‘private’ invitations. Ministers were asked to travel by train whenever possible and, if travelling by car, to respect the road code. Hollande had given the example by ordering his convoy to stop at red lights when he drove through Paris on his way to the Elysée palace for the investiture ceremony.
A two-page ‘rules’ asks the ministers to respect “the existence of a line of confidence between the citizens and those who govern them, …these simple principles that should guide your behaviour", the note said.
This does not seem ‘normal’ in India.
The Government was also requested to avoid internal squabbles. "The expression, direct or indirect, of disagreements can only weaken the government and provoke the skepticism of people with regard to the credibility of political action …Once a decision is made … the principle of solidarity comes first.”
Well, well, well! One can hope that a translation of this note will be prepared in all the official languages of India.
After Hollande’s first G8 Summit at Camp David (Maryland), Reuters reported: “Despite some awkwardness, Hollande appeared to pass his initial diplomatic tests. He claimed victory after G8 leaders backed his calls for more economic stimulus in Europe, and forged an apparently jovial relationship with President Barack Obama.”
The first words of the Summit’s communique: "Our imperative is to promote growth and jobs."
The French President told a news conference: “I think the G8 was fruitful and enabled us to send a twin message. There will not be growth without confidence and there will be no confidence without growth."
Commentators thought that Hollande’s “conciliatory, understated manner” was a positive departure from his impulsive predecessor. Comparatively, he was normal.
It will not be a rosy task for Francois Hollande to take over as the second Socialist President after Francois Mitterrand in 1981.
President Hollande did not have any ‘grace period’ like his predecessors had. He immediately plunged into the European mess and more particularly in the state of the Greek economy and this possibility of Greece dropping out of the Eurozone. On the evening of his investiture, Hollande jumped into the French ‘Air Force One’ and took the direction of Germany.
Unfortunately, a few minutes later, his plane was struck by lightning and had to return to the base. He used another plane to have his first encounter (and dinner) with the pro-austerity German Chancellor.
France’s relations with Germany and the European Union are now bound to change. Soon after Hollande’s take-over, the spokesperson of Angela Merkel stated that there was no question to come back on signed treaties, particularly on ‘financial discipline’.
But can Europe continue the German way?
Nobel Prize laureate Paul Krugman believes that the elections in France and Greece: “were in effect referendums on the current European economic strategy, and in both countries voters turned two thumbs down.”
He adds: “It’s far from clear how soon the votes will lead to changes in actual policy, but time is clearly running out for the strategy of recovery through austerity — and that’s a good thing”.
And the relations with India in all this?
As Hollande was returning to France after his visit to the US for the G8 and NATO summits, the visit of Indian Air Chief Marshall NAK Browne was announced. The IAF Chief is to have talks with the new French defence minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian; the Chief of Defence Staff, Admiral Edouard Guillaud and his counterpart, General Jean-Paul Palomeros.
This comes at a time when the final negotiations for largest-ever defence project are on. India is to acquire 126 Medium-range Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) for which the Rafale of Dassault Aviation has been selected.
Defense has always been a key component of the Indo-French partnership. During a visit to Delhi last year, the same Admiral Edouard Guillaud quoted Kautilya: “An unfailing ally is one who receives and provides help because of old bonds, friendship and generosity”. He explained that India and France not only “share similar ideals of freedom, democracy and cultural diversity”, but the two countries also have common objectives, namely “a safer world.”
Will Hollande follow his political guru, Mitterrand’s footsteps? An article published in Le Monde on May 22, 1981 titled: “India chooses the Mirage 2000 to modernize its Air Force”. A day earlier, Francois Mitterrand had become the first elected Socialist President of the 5th Republic.
There are many things that India and France could do together, in the field of defence, but also in economic, cultural and scientific domains. Let us hope that the new French President will grab the opportunity.

Despite denials, China has a big problem in Tibet

My article Despite denials, China has a big problem in Tibet is posted on Rediff.com. 
"The logical next step for a nation promoting democracy in North Africa or the Middle East would have been to invite the 'elected' leader of the Tibetan diaspora along with the Dalai Lama [ Images ]. But no, Washington prefers to receive the Dalai Lama and ignore Dr Lobsang Sangay, the new 'elected' Kalon Tripa. It is more convenient to receive a 'religious' leader, says Claude Arpi".
Read on by clicking on the title.

That was quick!

Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi hinted that the dispute arisen out of the White House meeting between President Obama and the Dalai-Lama may be something of the past. Washington will be forgiven.
In the case of President Sarkozy of France, Beijing's anger took months to subside. Sarkozy had dared to meet the Tibetan leader in Warsaw (Poland) against Beijing's 'advice'.
This is the difference between a 'big' country and a 'small' one and of course, it depends on the current 'national interests' of the PRC.
  
China Hints at Resolution of Sino-US Disputes
VOA
Peter Simpson
Beijing 07 March 2010
China's foreign minister says Beijing and the United States should move past recent disputes and work together to get relations back on track.  The foreign minister's comments came on the sidelines of the annual session of parliament.
Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi appeared to signal Sunday that a small, but significant, thaw in the frosty relations between Beijing and Washington has begun.
During a lengthy news conference at the on-going National People's Congress (NPC) in Beijing, he invited the United States to work with China to put recent differences behind them.
He says the United States should work with the Chinese in a joint effort to return the China-U.S. relationship to a track of stable development. And he says Beijing hopes the United States will agree to overcome the differences.
Beijing and Washington have been at odds over a number of issues.  Among them are U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, the White House welcome for Tibet's exiled leader, the Dali Lama, Chinese cyber-spying and trade issues.
Yang's call for a resolution came amid a repeat of the hostile rhetoric by Beijing in recent weeks.
He reiterated Beijing's claim the United States had caused the strained ties, saying China's core interests had been ignored.  China's foreign policy has caused international anger recently, including Beijing's rigid stance on climate change and emissions cuts.
Beijing's trade policies have also caused friction.  China has refused to adjust the value of its currency, the yuan, which has been frozen at just under $7 since mid-2008.  This has allowed Beijing to preserve the international competitiveness of its exports.
Europe and the United States claim this creates unfair trade balances and have called on Beijing to loosen the yuan.  China's central bank released a statement to NPC delegates Saturday pledging to keep the country's currency stable throughout 2010.
Beijing has said it believes a change in its exchange rate will lead to a slowdown in economic growth and mass unemployment, threatening social stability.
Chinese exports plunged by 16 percent last year. China's Commerce Minister, Chen Deming, says it could take up to three years for the country's exports to reach pre-global financial crisis levels.

Victory to the Gods

My article Victory to the Gods, has been published in the Edit page of The Pioneer. Click here to read.

Not-so-grand exit

If this is confirmed, it is very bad news. Was it not better not to meet the Nobel laureate 2009 than this exit through the back door?
On the picture, the Dalai Lama does not seem bothered at all.



Nice. Obama Meets With Dalai Lama; Makes Him Leave Through Garbage Exit
February 18, 2010,
First Things
Jim Hoft
Obama would not meet the Dalai Lama in the Oval Office.
Not-so-grand exit: The Dalai Lama leaves the White House via an exit where rubbish bags are kept on the ground following his meeting with Barack Obama, (Daily Mail)
Obama showed the Dalai Lama the back door today after their meeting.
The Daily Mail reported:
The Dalai Lama and U.S president Barack Obama met for the first time at the White House today, defying furious protests from China
The two Nobel Peace Prize winners seemed intent on keeping the meeting low-key, in order avoid worsening tensions between the two countries
The Tibetan spiritual leader, who was also denied a meeting in the Oval office, left via a side entrance where rubbish bags were piled up and The White House didn’t release photos of the meeting until several hours afterwards.

Obama-Dalai Lama meeting will not change anything for Tibet

My article Obama-Dalai Lama meeting will not change anything for Tibet
is posted on Rediff.com. Read it.

Incense Burning in North-Eastern Tibet

I find this very touching because these people are ready to risk their life to show their devotion to their leader (and to the person that they perceive as the leader of the world).


Thousands rejoice in Tibet as Obama meets Dalai Lama
Phayul
February 18, 2010
By Kalsang Rinchen
Bangalore, February 18 – Thousands of Tibetans took to the streets of Ngaba County today, not in protest but in joy, hours before the much talked about meeting between His Holiness the Dalai Lama and US President Barack Obama. The mournful atmosphere of the Tibetan New Year was replaced by jubilation with people cracking firecrackers in the streets and celebrating.
Tsering, a monk of Kirti monastery in Dharamsala, told phayul that his contacts in Ngaba had seen thousands of Tibetans from nearby villages and townships gather near Ngaba Kirti monastery campus and burn incense in the gigantic incense burner and throw wind-horse prayer flags in the air.
People wandered in the streets and shouted ki ki so so lha gyalo (victory to gods - a slogan Tibetans say after throwing tsampa in the air during the incense burning ritual of purification, tib: Sangsol or lhasol), he said. Amid the chaos, Chinese security forces were alert ensuring that the Tibetans did not take the opportunity of large gathering to hold anti-government protests, Tsering added. Sources have also said that some Chinese police even confiscated firecrackers from Tibetans and extinguished already lit firecrackers.
The Tibetans in Tibet have great hope that the meeting between Obama and His Holiness will bring some positive development to Tibet issue, said Tsering.
At the time of this report going online many monks of Ngaba Kirti monastery were still sitting around the incense burner saying prayers, according to our source.
Celebrations were said to have taken place in several places in Tibet but no reports have come out as yet.