As PoK rises in revolt against Pakistan, China continues infra-building in Shaksgam Valley

My article As PoK rises in revolt against Pakistan, China continues infra-building in Shaksgam Valley appeared in Firstpost

The new infrastructure could give a tremendous advantage to China in case of a new conflict with India in the region

Today, we are living in a world where everything can be seen from the sky, which often makes human intelligence (humint) irrelevant.
The latest case is a road illegally built by China in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). While in the old days, it would have taken months or years to discover the road passing close to India’s Siachen Glacier, satellite imagery of the new road was splashed over the Indian and foreign media.
The road, located in the Shaksgam Valley, branches out from an extension of Highway G219 (also known as the Aksai Chin road) and “disappears into mountains at a place approximately 50 km north of India’s northernmost point, Indira Col in Siachen Glacier,” according to India Today.
The construction that passes through Aghil Pass (India’s frontier with Xinjiang before 1947), was first flagged on X (formerly Twitter) by ‘Nature Desai’, an observer of the Indo-Tibetan boundary.
Tom Hussain, a Pakistani journalist who writes for The South China Morning Post, gave the Chinese motivation: “Pakistan is looking to develop new overland border crossings with China that would potentially boost the allies’ military interoperability against Indian forces in Ladakh and the rest of Kashmir.”
The Hong Kong newspaper asserted that the Gilgit-Baltistan region, today under Pakistan’s control, had proposed a new transit and trade route linking Xinjiang to Kashmir “[which] will increase Beijing and Islamabad’s military interoperability against Indian forces in the region”.
The spokesperson of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) immediately asserted: “Shaksgam Valley is a part of the territory of India. We have never accepted the so-called China-Pakistan Boundary Agreement of 1963, through which Pakistan unlawfully attempted to cede the area to China. …We have registered our protest with the Chinese side against illegal attempts to alter facts on the ground. We further reserve the right to take necessary measures to safeguard our interests.”
It is, however, necessary to understand the history behind the Shaksgam Valley.

The Role of Western Powers
When China invaded northern India in October or November 1962, Delhi had no alternative but to ask for the help of Western nations, particularly the United States and Great Britain. At first, the United States seemed only too happy to offer support, thus gaining leverage over India, which until then had been ‘non-aligned’; this ‘neutrality’ often meant an alignment with Moscow, while Pakistan, a member of the SEATO and the Baghdad Pacts, always sided with the West.
When, at the end of November 1962, Washington realised that north India was in danger of being invaded by Chinese troops, it immediately declared its support for Delhi, but instead of helping India, London and Washington chose instead to try to settle the Kashmir dispute between their Pakistani ally and India.
On November 22, Averall Harriman, the American Under-Secretary of State, and Duncan Sandys, the British Commonwealth Secretary, visited the two capitals of the subcontinent to persuade the enemy brothers that it was time to bury the hatchet and find a solution to their fifteen-year-old dispute. Harriman and Sandys eventually signed a joint communiqué and asked the two countries to resume negotiations.
Although India, in an extremely weak position, had some doubts about the possibility of obtaining positive results from negotiations conducted in such particular circumstances, Nehru accepted.
On December 22, 1962, Nehru wrote to the Chief Ministers of the provinces: “I shall briefly refer to Indo-Pakistan problems, notably Kashmir. In another four days’ time, Sardar Swaran Singh will lead a delegation to Rawalpindi to discuss these problems. We realise that this is not a good time to have such a conference because the Pakistani press and leading politicians have vitiated the atmosphere with wild abuse and attacks on India. Nevertheless, we have agreed to go and to try our best to arrive at some reasonable settlement. It is clear, however, that we cannot agree to anything that is against our basic principles and ultimately injures the cause of Indo-Pakistan friendship.”
In the end, the two delegations held a series of six meetings, but nothing much came out of them. The first negotiations took place in Rawalpindi, where Swaran Singh and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the two foreign ministers, confined themselves to a historical presentation of the problem and a reiteration of their respective points of view.

Derailing Talks
But soon the negotiations went off on a tangent: the Pakistan government announced that it had reached an agreement in principle with China on its northern border problem (with Xinjiang). Hardly a month after the end of the Sino-Indian war, Pakistan was prepared to give China a piece of India’s territory (as per the August 1948 UN Resolutions).
Advertisement
What a slap in the face for India!
This agreement between China and Pakistan was obviously meant to derail the Kashmir talks.
It is indeed surprising that Pakistan, an ally of the United States and the Western world, should have chosen this moment to make the announcement. It was yet another proof that Pakistan expected nothing from the talks with Delhi, even though they had been initiated by their mentor, the US; at the same time, the support expected by India from the US for India’s northern borders had gone in smoke.
Nehru remained optimistic all the same, or perhaps, like the ostrich, preferred not to see anything. In a letter to the Chief Ministers, he remarked: “The talks have produced no results as far as our problems are concerned, except that they have reduced, to a small extent, the barriers of fear and mistrust that make it difficult to approach these problems.”
Negotiations continued, without tangible results, between 16 and 19 January in Delhi and 8 and 11 February in Karachi. Pakistan was only interested in a plebiscite for Kashmir, but India insisted on prior demilitarisation of the regions occupied by Pakistan.

The Treaty Discussed
On February 25, 1963, the government was asked in Parliament if the Note of Protest sent by Delhi to Pakistan regarding the Sino-Pakistan border treaty drew any response; if yes, what it said; and if the text of the agreement was available.
Dinesh Singh, the Deputy Minister in the MEA, answered: (a) No formal reply has been received to our protest note so far. (b) Does not arise. (c) No Sir.
At that time, Delhi did not even have a copy of the agreement.
Later, on the same day, Harish Chandra Mathur of the Congress asked again about the government’s reaction. Nehru answered: “The Government of India’s reaction is obviously unfavourable.” That was all.

The Treaty Cedes India’s Territory
China and Pakistan signed the agreement on March 2, 1963, by Bhutto and Chen Yi, the foreign ministers of the two countries. According to the two parties, this agreement was intended to promote “the development of good neighbourly relations and friendly relations and the safeguarding of peace in Asia and the world.”
In Article 1, it was acknowledged that the border had never been formally demarcated, and that the two countries wanted to draw it on the basis of “the traditional and customary border.”
As the Pakistani and Chinese maps did not match exactly, it was decided that the topographical features on the ground would be decisive.
It should be noted that in its description of the border, the agreement mentions the Karakoram Pass as the eastern end of the border. In practice, this seems to mean that the Siachen Glacier was occupied by Pakistan at the time. This was, of course, not the case. In fact, the Siachen glacier, long unexplored, has never been occupied by Pakistan, and it was only in 1984 that India took control of it.

Article 6
More interesting is Article 6, in which Pakistan and China agreed that after the settlement of the Kashmir dispute between Pakistan and India, “the sovereign authority concerned will reopen negotiations on the boundary with the Chinese Government so as to sign a formal boundary treaty to replace the present agreement.”
It means that even if the 1963 agreement was considered ‘legal’, which it is not, China is today building a road on a territory that is only temporarily with China. It is clearly a provocation in retaliation for India refusing to budge in Depsang and Demchok in Ladakh.
It remains that the new infrastructure could give a tremendous advantage to China in case of a new conflict with India in the region.
After maps of the new roads were published, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar reasserted that Pakistan-occupied Kashmir is part of India; he also mentioned the resolution of the Indian Parliament, which states that PoK is part of the country, and observed, “So, what will happen in the future? Very difficult to tell. But, I always tell people one thing, today PoK is in the consciousness once again of the people of India.”
In the meantime, the people of Gilgit-Baltistan have started revolting against the Pakistani state. The game is certainly not over.

Tail End: India will soon have the occasion to protest again; Pakistan and China plan to ‘realign’ the Karakoram Highway to avoid Attabad Lake, which is prone to landslides.

World on a boil

My article World on a boil appeared in The Edit Page of The Pioneer.

Globally, countries have descended into chaos amid political turmoil. This scenario will continue as we dawn upon another year. This is the new normal The planet is in turmoil. This did not start in 2018 but worsened during the past year and without being a bird of bad omen, it will...

The Planet is in turmoil.
This did not start in 2018, but it worsened during the past year and without being a Bird of Bad Omen, it will continue in 2019.
The 2018 Award for Chaos goes to …Donald Trump.
The New York Times published an article titled “You’re Hired! You’re Fired! Yes, the Turnover at the Top of the Trump Administration Is Unprecedented.”
Jim Mattis, the defense secretary was the last on the list. He was the fourth member of the Trump Administration to resign or be forced out in the last two months. The article says: “Some roles have been more volatile than others. For example, there have been four White House communications directors, with stints ranging from less than a week (Anthony Scaramucci) to more than six months (Hope Hicks). Sean Spicer, while serving as press secretary, filled the position twice...”
A list of major departures is given: Jim Mattis, Secretary of Defense after Trump announced plans to withdraw troops from Syria; Ryan Zinke, Secretary of Interior, amid several ethics investigations; Nick Ayers, Chief of Staff to vice president; John F. Kelly, White House’s Chief of Staff; Jeff Sessions, Attorney General or Indian-origin Nikki Haley, Ambassador to the UN.
No need to go into the political implications for the US and the planet.
Other nations are in turmoil too.
As the Gaulish tribes had always feared, the sky is falling on President Macron’s head; during the last two months he has had to face millions of Gilets Jaunes (Yellow Vests) in the streets of France. This phenomenon involves some atavism; in fact, the Gaulish character traits have never really disappeared, they keep re-emerging from time to time. One of these traits is to be anti-establishment.
Remember in the comic, Asterix the Gaul? Centurion Gracchus Armisurplus, commander of a Roman Compendium fortified garrison, pays a heavy price each time the Gauls walk out of their village; Asterix and his companions could not accept the established Roman hierarchy.
Whether in May 1968 or today, the French love to march down the streets to protest; nobody can stop them shouting “Ras le bol”, (‘the bowl is brimming over’) or chanting “Macron, du Pognon” (Macron, give dough); Macron once called his countrymen with their proud Gaulish DNA, the ‘Gaulois réfractaires’ (‘change-allergic Gauls’).
Cross the Channel and you find Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader saying in his new year's message that post-Brexit his country is a ‘complete mess’ and that it ‘cannot go on like this’. The UK is due to leave the EU on March 29, 2019, but the island nation, which once upon a time ruled the world, may plunge in to chaos if the MPs reject the UK's withdrawal agreement ...ditto if they agree to Prime Minister May’s proposals.
Corbyn accused the government, “eight years of damaging Tory failure has left us with a divided country where millions are struggling to make ends meet.” It is always easier to blame the others, especially when one has oneself triggered the mess in the first place.
One word about the born-in-turmoil Pakistan; according to a media report, Islamabad will need to disburse $40 billion to China in 20 years as repayments of debt and dividends on a $26.5 bn investment under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).
Citing documents of the ministry of planning and development, The Express Tribune affirmed that out of $39.83 bn, debt repayments for energy and infrastructure projects amount to $28.43 bn and the remaining $11.4 bn need to be paid in the shape of dividends to the investors.
What a mess!
China is not left out. There is no doubt that with his unpredictability, President Donald Trump has changed the rules of the game for Beijing; he acts wildly …like China has been doing for years and Beijing is not accustomed to this. Whether Beijing accepts it or not, Mr Trump will be at the centre of China’s fate in the coming year.
Jeffrey Sachs in Project Syndicate asserted: “The Trump administration’s conflict with China has little to do with US external imbalances, closed Chinese markets, or even China’s alleged theft of intellectual property. It has everything to do with containing China by limiting its access to foreign markets, advanced technologies, global banking services, and perhaps even US universities.”
Indeed, Year 2019 will be a crucial year for China.
On the morning of May 4, 1919, student representatives from 13 different local universities met in Beijing and drafted five resolutions, in particular, to oppose the granting of Shandong to the Japanese and the creation of a Beijing student union. Later in the afternoon, some 3,000 students of Beijing University marched to Tiananmen Square shouting slogans such as “Struggle for the sovereignty externally, get rid of the national traitors at home” or “Don’t sign the Versailles Treaty”.
Will we witness a remake of the dramatic events which will be celebrated by the Communist Party of China (CPC) during the year?
2019 will also mark the 70th anniversary of the foundation of the People’s Republic, and 30 years of the massacre of Tiananmen Square.
At an event marking the 40th anniversary of China’s reform and opening, President Xi Jinping of China told the 3,000 officials assembled in the Great Hall of the People: “Every step in reform and opening up will not be easy, and we will face all kinds of risks and challenges in the future and we may even encounter unimaginable terrifying tidal waves and horrifying storms. …Only by improving the party’s leadership and governance … can we ensure the ship of reform and opening up will sail forward.” Can the Party be the saviour of the Middle Kingdom?
During his New Year message, President Xi said: “Looking at the world at large, we're facing a period of major change never seen in a century. No matter what these changes bring, China will remain resolute and confident in its defense of its national sovereignty and security.” He spoke of China's sincerity and goodwill to safeguard world peace. Let us see.
You may ask, what about India?
Mess, confusion, uncertainty, chaos, turmoil and the ugly face of democracy will prevail, till the general elections at least; this is a safe prediction. But India is perhaps a better place to face the chaos, we call it ‘democracy’ here, the least-worst system of governance.
A Year of Chaos ahead?

Jai Jai Jai

The planet is passing through difficult times. Even the most optimistic are aware that the environment is degrading fast and it may be difficult to stop the ecological downfall; at the same time, one has rarely seen so much tension among nations.
There are however solid reasons to hope that global solutions can be found through dialogue. One such occasion is the yearly G20 (or Group of Twenty).
Collectively, the G20 economies amount for some 85% of the gross world product, 80% of world trade and two-thirds of the world population.
The G20 came into existence during the 2008 planetary financial crisis, when the world leaders had no choice but to collectively address issues.
Before his departure for Buenos Aires, Prime Minister Narendra Modi stated: “The G-20 seeks to promote multi-faceted cooperation among the twenty largest economies of the world. Through the ten years of its existence, G-20 has strived to promote stable and sustainable global growth.”
Though the theme of the Summit was “Building Consensus for Fair and Sustainable Development”, the world press was mainly excited about the ‘Dinner’.
Chinese President Xi Jinping was sharing a supper with his mercurial US counterpart, who has given him sleepless nights since several months, trying to ‘rebalance’ the world economy and principally the trade between the two largest world economies.
The South China Morning Post wrote: “Chinese and American officials may have spent weeks preparing for the high-stakes summit between Xi Jinping and Donald Trump, but any hopes of resolving the current trade war may ultimately hinge on their personal chemistry.”
The ‘successful dinner’ was the first face-to-face meeting between the two leaders since Trump started a trade war with China.
More than the Summit itself, it is perhaps the sideline encounters which had to be watched, they could ultimately help redesigning the political geography of the planet.
One was of particular significance for India as well as Asia.
Narendra Modi met Donald Trump and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe for their first trilateral exchange to discuss major issues of global. It assumed significance at a time China is flexing its muscles in Asia, now known as the Indo-Pacific region.
After the meeting, Modi asserted that the three nations will "continue to work together on shared values. …If I put it diffirently, Japan, America, and India is ‘JAI’, meaning success. We are making a new beginning. …I believe, [JAI] will play a big role in promoting world peace and prosperity.”
While the Indian Prime Minister spoke of the convergence of vision between the three nations, Abe affirmed that he was happy to participate in the ‘first ever JAI trilateral’; as for Trump, he appreciated India's growth story.
The three leaders noted their cooperation on all global issues such as better connectivity, sustainable development, counter-terrorism and maritime and cyber security.
As another strong message to China, the JAI leaders spoke in a free, open, conclusive and rule-based order in the Indo-Pacific region, based on respect for international law and peaceful resolution of all differences.
Let us remember that China claims almost all of the South China Sea, rejecting the counterclaims of Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan.
It is today crucial for Delhi to ‘balance’ China, who has shown strong hegemonic tendencies, particularly in the South China Sea …and on Indian borders.
Modi, Trump and Abe have now agreed to cooperate in various ways and they stressed the importance to continue with the ‘Trilateral Format’ at multilateral conferences.
Incidentally, a RIC (Russia, India and China) meeting also took place and Modi had earlier a good meeting with Xi Jinping.
Delhi bats for pragmatic multilateralism, while defending its own interests.

Impermanence, Impermanence

As President Xi Jinping arrived in Islamabad in April 2015, he was welcomed by huge billboards in Chinese and English: the friendship between China and Pakistan was ‘higher than mountains, deeper than oceans, sweeter than honey, and stronger than steel.’
In an article published in Pakistani papers before he landed in Islamabad, Xi wrote: “This will be my first trip to Pakistan, but I feel as if I am going to visit the home of my own brother.”
He added that the bilateral relationship ‘has flourished like a tree growing tall and strong’.
It was very touching!
More prosaically, The Washington Post remarked: “Xi arrived in Islamabad bearing real gifts: an eye-popping $46 billion worth of planned energy and infrastructure investment to boost Pakistan's flagging economy. This would include adding some 10,400 megawatts to Pakistan's national grid through coal, nuclear and renewable energy projects.”
It was a Chinese Dream for Pakistan!
Beijing had decided to set up a China-Pakistan Economic Corridor which would link up Xi's pet project, the two New Silks Roads (also known as ‘One Belt, One Road’).
The ‘corridor’ was to have railways, roads, optical fiber cables, dams (to produce the necessary electricity), pipelines and was to connect the port of Gwadar on the Arabian Sea through the Karakoram Highway, to the Xinjiang province of China and then Central Asia …and later Middle East, Africa and Europe.
Since then the project has been inaugurated.

Impermanence
What political observers often forget is the impermanence of all things.
In 1953, The People’s Daily published an article criticizing Pakistan and the US for the ‘too’ close relations.
It is worth reading the translation sent by the Indian Embassy in Beijing to the Ministry of External Affairs in Delhi.
Incidentally, Shalabh Kumar, the Chairman of the US Republican Hindu Coalition recently affirmed that the US President-elect Donald Trump had told him that the new administration is “not going to tolerate a dual role from India’s neighbors.”
Kumar added: “The US President-elect made that policy very, very clear, that he is not going to tolerate a dual role from India’s neighbors. You need good defense cooperation among friends, which is happening but is going to accelerate dramatically in the common fight against terrorism.”
Of course, as I said, there is no such a thing as Permanence in politics.
Buddha has defined anicca (Pali) or anitya (Sanskrit) as one of the three marks of existence: all conditioned existence, without exception, is "transient, evanescent, inconstant".
All temporal things, whether material or mental, are compounded objects in a continuous change of condition, subject to decline and destruction.
I presume it is true in geopolitics too.

Extracts from The People’s Daily (February 12, 1953)

WHAT FOR HAS [ADMIRAL JERAULD] WRIGHT COME TO PAKISTAN

The article points out that the recent visit of the Commander of the American Flagship, Pittsburg [Admiral Jerauld Wright], to Karachi marks a further step in the chain of American attempts to induce Pakistan to join the Middle East Defence Organisation and turn into a military base. Quoting the words of the Naval Commander spoken in a press interview on board the ship and the comments of The New York Times, harping on the strategic importance of Pakistan, the article states that America regards Pakistan as a worthy target fulfilling all conditions for its aggressive designs. The article then refers to visits by Mrs. Rosenberg, Assistant Secretary for Defence, high-ranking American military officers and the Deputy Joint Chief of Staff of Turkey made in 1951-52 – all to induce Pakistan to join the Middle East bloc.
The article then refers to a report emanating from Karachi and Delhi press circles in March 1951 saying that America was trying to exploit the Kashmir dispute to persuade Pakistan to join the Middle East Defence Command. The article further states that America also tried to use Pakistan’s food shortage to force her into her camp. In December 1952, according to the article, the American Ambassador in Karachi insisted that Pakistan authorities should change their attitude on certain matters, especially on the question of Middle East Command. The article finally refers to a “Commercial Navigation Treaty” proposed by America to Pakistan in April 1951 (and which is still in a draft stage) according to which Pakistan rupee was to get most favourable exchange rate vis-à-vis the U.S. dollar, goods imported from America would enjoy equally favourably treatment with the British goods, the American investments in Pakistan would receive protection and the Visa system for American visitors to Pakistan will be abolished. The article says that this American infiltration in Pakistan is bound to be resisted by the British with all their might. Moreover, it is already meeting with growing opposition from the people and public organizations of Pakistan.

Dumped by friends, bullied by others

My article Dumped by friends, bullied by others appeared in the Edit page of The Pioneer today.

Following the Chinese attack in 1962, India asked the Soviet Union for support. But the Soviets backed Beijing on the McMahon Line. The US promised to help only if New Delhi compromised on Kashmir

Despite the comprehensive coverage of the 1962 conflict in the Indian media, one angle has not been analysed: The views from Moscow. In the 1950s already, Beijing’s and Moscow’s outlook on the world had started diverging; Khrushchev dared speaking of the possibility of ‘peaceful coexistence with the West’, while Mao Zedong believed in an ideological war with the ‘class enemies’. For Beijing, the Soviet Union’s attitude was ‘Marxist revisionism’.
When the first Sino-Indian border clash occurred in a place called Longju on the McMahon Line in August 1959, the misunderstanding between the People’s Republic of China and the USSR became deeper. When the Dalai Lama escaped Tibet in March 1959, following an uprising of the Tibetan population of Lhasa against the Chinese invaders, Moscow supported Beijing, but five months later, the Soviet stand changed.
Nikita Khrushchev, the First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, refused to unequivocally support China.
Using new documents from the Soviet Archives, MY Prozumenschikov, a Soviet scholar, wrote a paper on the Sino-Indian Conflict and the Cuban Missile Crisis, which was published by the Washington-based Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Prozumenschikov asserted: “Soviet leaders believed that in many ways the flare-up was provoked by the Chinese themselves, in order to demonstrate in practice their refusal to accept the McMahon line (a 1914 boundary agreed on by British and Tibetan officials and which Indian accepted as the correct Sino-Indian frontier) as the state border between the PRC and India.”
A month after the Longju incident, TASS News Agency issued a statement calling on both the warring sides to resolve the conflict by peaceful means. The fact that Moscow refused to take a clear ‘class’ stand in a conflict between a Socialist state and a Bourgeois state, deeply upset China. On September 13, 1959, the Chinese Communist Party accused the Soviet regime of “compromise”.
Beijing pointed out: “The TASS statement showed to the whole world the different positions of China and the Soviet Union in regard to the incident on the Indian-Chinese border, which causes a virtual glee and jubilation among the Indian bourgeoisie and the American and the English imperialists.”
When Jawaharlal Nehru and Krishna Menon decided to ‘throw out the Chinese’ from the Thagla Ridge in early October 1962, they were probably under the impression that they would get the tacit support of the Soviets, or that at least that Moscow would remain neutral. That was not to be the case as, by that time, Khrushchev had got entangled in the traumatic and volatile Cuban missile crisis.
The notes taken by Vladimir Malin, the Chief of the General Department of the Party’s Central Committee, bring some light on the Soviet change of heart. Malin recorded all the discussions of the top party officials of the Politburo.
On October 14, 1962, six days before the Chinese attacked India, the comrades in Moscow mentioned the forthcoming ‘Indian attack’ on the Chinese forces.
According to Malin, “Decision was taken: 1. Delay the shipment to India of MiG-21 aircrafts; 2. On instructions to the Soviet Ambassador in India, Cde. [comrade] [Ivan] Benediktov. Say to [Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal] Nehru: ‘We are disappointed.’ Are they [India] thinking about how this conflict will end?”
The McMahon Line was then questioned: “By whom was the McMahon Line created? By whom was it recognised? When was it introduced?” For the Soviet Politburo, the PRC’s “proposals for troop withdrawals spanning 20 km are reasonable.” The conclusion was: “We are in favour of eliminating the conflict; ...India is hardly going to gain anything from the conflict.” Nehru had clearly lost a friend in the Socialist world; Moscow was now parroting Beijing’s stand: India was about to attack China.
Three days after the Chinese attack (on October 20), a Romanian delegation led by Foreign Minister Corneliu Manescu stopped over in Moscow after visiting Indonesia, India and Burma. They were invited for dinner by Khrushchev Manescu later reported: “Comrade NS Khrushchev insisted [to know] more on the attitude of Nehru and the Sino-India problem. In this context, comrade Khrushchev generally mentioned that Nehru had oscillated between the line of imperialist countries, neutrality and the socialist countries. Lately, [being] under the influence of the ruling party, of the reactionary forces, Nehru seems to be closer to the line of imperialist countries.”
Again, there was a mention of the Chinese proposal: “Also under the pressure of the reactionary forces, the Indian side rejected this proposal on the grounds that the border should remain the McMahon line.” Khrushchev commented that this was not fair because “the McMahon line was established by the British in 1912 [1914], when India was a British colony and, of course, the British had every incentive to take as much Chinese territory as possible.”
Khrushchev was, however, disturbed by the fact that then CPI general secretary EMS Namboodiripad was “in a wrong position this time” as he supported Nehru”s view on the conflict. “This is dangerous because it can lead to divisions among the party”, he commented.
A few days later, Benediktov, the Soviet Ambassador to India met Namboodiripad. By that time, Moscow had made official its change of stand (in an article in the Pravda on October 25); this was mainly triggered by the difficult Soviet position in the Cuban missile crisis. The CPI leader told Benediktov that the CPI believed  “this publication in all probability will inaugurate a new period of anti-Soviet hysteria in India.” This document shows the servile attitude of the Indian comrades.
Namboodiripad was happy by the new Soviet stand: “The publication of this article …truly will help our party get out of the extremely difficult position it is now in. Before this [help] there were moments when we felt ourselves to be simply helpless, but now the party will be able to remedy this situation.” The CPI leader pleaded with the Soviets to push China to resolve the border dispute “without damage to the prestige of India and of Nehru himself. On November 19, Nehru began panicking. He shot two secret letters to President Kennedy. India’s non-alignment position had gone for a toss.
As a result of Nehru’s letter, Averell Harriman, then US Assistant Secretary of State visited India on November 22. The visit, on the day China declared a unilateral ceasefire, supposedly was to assess India’s needs to resist Communist China; but the US envoy (and his British counterpart) “made clear their Governments’ willingness to provide military assistance to India, but pointed out the related need for negotiations to resolve the Kashmir dispute.”
A clear signal to India, which had not recovered from the blackest month of its history: Compromise on Kashmir.

Communist Spies

A Chinese official working in the office of the Vice-Minister of China's Security Ministry has been arrested. 
He is suspected to have spied for the United States. As often in these circumstances, both countries have kept silent.
Another piece of news in Hong Kong's Oriental Daily  on May 28 must immensely worry the Chinese counterintelligence services.
The Chinese daily says that "Ninety Percent of CCP Central Committee Members Have Family Members Overseas".
It quotes from a survey recently conducted by the Central Committee of the Communist Party (and reported by The Dongxiang, another Hong Kong publication), which found that, as of the end of March 2012, 187 (91 percent) of the 204 members of the Central Committee of the Communist Party had family members living or working overseas or maintaining citizenship in other countries. 
The survey included the members' sons and daughters, grandchildren, and siblings. For the 167 alternate Committee members, 142 (85 percent) had relatives who had emigrated overseas. 113 (88 percent) of 127 members of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection of the Communist Party of China had relatives who had emigrated overseas.
Is it not frightening for the Communist orthodoxy that most of the family members of China's bosses have one objective only, to run abroad (mainly to the US) and often settle there?
The Communist Party has a problem, isn't it?
And they know it.
On May 24, 2012, The People’s Daily reported that "China Develops Strategies to Prevent Government Officials from Fleeing Overseas". 
The official mouthpiece of the Party, asserted: "On May 23, 2012, the Chinese Disciplinary Committee held its 3rd joint meeting discussing how to prevent government officials who are in violation of law and discipline from fleeing overseas." It is not said what is the percentage of family members of the Disciplinary Committee living abroad.
The Chinese newspaper continued: "A participant observed that the current situation is rather complicated and the task is huge. The committee issued a directive that government officials be strictly prevented from fleeing overseas. It mandated specific actions including: enhancing the control and administration of certificates and documents for overseas travel; promptly learning the real time situation of both the private overseas travel by government officials and the emigration of their spouses and children; listing officials, along with their spouses and children who have already emigrated overseas, as major targets; striving to establish a very tight and efficient network to prevent them from fleeing."
All this makes it a great fishing ground for the CIA to recruit new agents, close to the Communist power.
But each coin has two sides. It will become more and more difficult for the Western intelligence agencies to control all the new migrants who will slowly insert themselves in the local society and could continue to 'serve' China's interests. 
This is globalization!

China arrests security official on suspicion of U.S. spying
Reuters
June 1, 2012

HONG KONG (Reuters) - A Chinese state security official has been arrested on suspicion of spying for the United States, sources said, a case both countries have kept quiet for several months as they strive to prevent a fresh crisis in relations.
The official, an aide to a vice minister in China's security ministry, was arrested and detained early this year on allegations that he had passed information to the United States for several years on China's overseas espionage activities, said three sources, who all have direct knowledge of the matter.
The aide had been recruited by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency and provided "political, economic and strategic intelligence", one source said, though it was unclear what level of information he had access to, or whether overseas Chinese spies were compromised by the intelligence he handed over.
The case could represent China's worst known breach of state intelligence in two decades and its revelation follows two other major public embarrassments for Chinese security, both involving U.S. diplomatic missions at a tense time for bilateral ties.
The aide, detained sometime between January and March, worked in the office of a vice-minister in China's Ministry of State Security, the source said. The ministry is in charge of the nation's domestic and overseas intelligence operations.
He had been paid hundreds of thousands of U.S. dollars and spoke English, the source added.
"The destruction has been massive," another source said.
The sources all spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of punishment if identified.
China's foreign ministry did not respond immediately to a faxed request for comment sent on Friday.
The sources did not reveal the name of the suspected spy or the vice minister he worked for. The vice minister has been suspended and is being questioned, one of the sources said.
The Ministry of State Security rarely makes public the names of its officials and does not have a public web site.
The incident ranks as the most serious Sino-U.S. spying incident to be made public since 1985 when Yu Qiangsheng, an intelligence official, defected to the United States. Yu told the Americans that a retired CIA analyst had been spying for China. The analyst killed himself in 1986 in a U.S. prison cell, days before he was due to be sentenced to a lengthy jail term.

STRING OF SCANDALS
The vice minister's aide was arrested at around the same time that China's worst political scandal in a generation was unfolding, though the sources s a id the two cases were unrelated.
The political scandal erupted in February when the police chief of Chongqing municipality, in southwest China, took shelter for 24 hours in a U.S. consulate. Chongqing's ambitious Communist Party boss, Bo Xilai, was later suspended after it emerged the police chief had been investigating Bo's wife for murder.
o's wife is now being detained on suspicions that she poisoned a British businessman, Neil Heywood, in a dispute over money.
Washington kept an official silence on that incident, but in late April relations came under even more pressure when blind Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng escaped from house detention and sought refuge in the U.S. embassy in Beijing.
Chen spent six days in the embassy, sparking a diplomatic crisis that was only resolved when Beijing allowed him to leave the country last month to take up an academic fellowship in New York.
The exposure of the espionage case could put more pressure on the powerful Zhou Yongkang, who formally oversees the state security apparatus as a member of China's top decision-making body, the Politburo Standing Committee.
The Bo and Chen cases have already raised questions over the effectiveness of the security establishment which, under Zhou, has become more costly to maintain than the nation's military.
(Reporting by Reuters China; Editing by Don Durfee and Mark Bendeich)

Is the Tibet Declaration of Independence illegal?

In Philadelphia, a group of American and British lawyers debated the legality of America's Declaration of Independence.
If one follows the American argument, Tibet is also an independent nation.
Read the Tibetan Declaration of Independence and the BBC article and decide.
The only difference, as the Thirteenth Dalai Lama often said, is that there are big insects and small insects.
Nobody argues or reject the arguments of 'big insects'; it is not the case with 'small insects'.
Tibet was and remains a small insect, while America is the most powerful one. 
In the world today, there are different laws for different types of insects.
 

Proclamation of Tibetan Independence by the Thirteenth Dalai Lama on the 8th Day of the First Month of the Water-Ox Year (1913)
I, the Dalai Lama, most omniscient possessor of the Buddhist faith, whose title was conferred by the Lord Buddha's command from the glorious land of India, speak to you as follows:
I am speaking to all classes of Tibetan people. Lord Buddha, from the glorious country of India, prophesied that the reincarnations of Avaloki tesvara, through successive rulers from the early religious kings to the present day, would look after the welfare of Tibet.
During the time of Genghis Khan and Altan Khan of the Mongols, the Ming dynasty of the Chinese, and the Qing Dynasty of the Manchus, Tibet and China cooperated on the basis of benefactor and priest relationship. A few years ago, the Chinese authorities in Szechuan and Yunnan endeavored to colonize our territory. They brought large numbers of troops into central Tibet on the pretext of policing the trade marts. I, therefore, left Lhasa with my ministers for the Indo-Tibetan border, hoping to clarify to the Manchu emperor by wire that the existing relationship between Tibet and China had been that of patron and priest and had not been based on the subordination of one to the other. There was no other choice for me but to cross the border, because Chinese troops were following with the intention of taking me alive or dead.

On my arrival in India, I dispatched several telegrams to the Emperor; but his reply to my demands was delayed by corrupt officials at Peking. Meanwhile, the Manchu empire collapsed. The Tibetans were encouraged to expel the Chinese from central Tibet. I, too, returned safely to my rightful and sacred country, and I am now in the course of driving out the remnants of Chinese troops from DoKham in Eastern Tibet. Now, the Chinese intention of colonizing Tibet under the patron-priest relationship has faded like a rainbow in the sky. Having once again achieved for ourselves a period of happiness and peace, I have now allotted to all of you the following duties to be carried out without negligence:

1. Peace and happiness in this world can only be maintained by preserving the faith of Buddhism. It is, therefore, essential to preserve all Buddhist institutions in Tibet, such as the Jokhang temple and Ramoche in Lhasa, Samye, and Traduk in southern Tibet, and the three great monasteries, etc.

2. The various Buddhist sects in Tibet should be kept in a distinct and pure form. Buddhism should be taught, learned, and meditated upon properly. Except for special persons, the administrators of monasteries are forbidden to trade, loan money, deal in any kind of livestock, and/or subjugate another's subjects.

3. The Tibetan government's civil and military officials, when collecting taxes or dealing with their subject citizens, should carry out their duties with fair and honest judgment so as to benefit the government without hurting the interests of the subject citizens. Some of the central government officials posted at Ngari Korsum in western Tibet, and Do Kham in eastern Tibet, are coercing their subject citizens to purchase commercial goods at high prices and have imposed transportation rights exceeding the limit permitted by the government. Houses, properties and lands belonging to subject citizens have been confiscated on the pretext of minor breaches of the law. Furthermore, the amputation of citizens' limbs has been carried out as a form of punishment. Henceforth, such severe punishments are forbidden.

4. Tibet is a country with rich natural resources; but it is not scientifically advanced like other lands. We are a small, religious, and independent nation. To keep up with the rest of the world, we must defend our country. In view of past invasions by foreigners, our people may have to face certain difficulties, which they must disregard. To safeguard and maintain the independence of our country, one and all should voluntarily work hard. Our subject citizens residing near the borders should be alert and keep the government informed by special messenger of any suspicious develop ments. Our subjects must not create major clashes between two nations because of minor incidents.

5. Tibet, although thinly populated, is an extensive country. Some local officials and landholders are jealously obstructing other people from de veloping vacant lands, even though they are not doing so themselves. People with such intentions are enemies of the State and our progress. From now on, no one is allowed to obstruct anyone else from cultivating whatever vacant lands are available. Land taxes will not be collected until three years have passed; after that the land cultivator will have to pay taxes to the government and to the landlord every year, proportionate to the rent. The land will belong to the cultivator.

Your duties to the government and to the people will have been achieved when you have executed all that I have said here. This letter must be posted and proclaimed in every district of Tibet, and a copy kept in the records of the offices in every district.

From the Potala Palace.
(Seal of the Dalai Lama)

Is the US Declaration of Independence illegal?
BBC News Magazine
19 October 2011
By Matt Danzico and Kate Dailey
In Philadelphia, American and British lawyers have debated the legality of America's founding documents.
On Tuesday night, while Republican candidates in Nevada were debating such American issues as nuclear waste disposal and the immigration status of Mitt Romney's gardener, American and British lawyers in Philadelphia were taking on a far more fundamental topic.
Namely, just what did Thomas Jefferson think he was doing?
Some background: during the hot and sweltering summer of 1776, members of the second Continental Congress travelled to Philadelphia to discuss their frustration with royal rule.
By 4 July, America's founding fathers approved a simple document penned by Jefferson that enumerated their grievances and announced themselves a sovereign nation.
Called the Declaration of Independence, it was a blow for freedom, a call to war, and the founding of a new empire.
It was also totally illegitimate and illegal.
At least, that was what lawyers from the UK argued during a debate at Philadelphia's Ben Franklin Hall.

American experiment
The event, presented by the Temple American Inn of Court in conjunction with Gray's Inn, London, pitted British barristers against American lawyers to determine whether or not the American colonists had legal grounds to declare secession.
For American lawyers, the answer is simple: "The English had used their own Declaration of Rights to depose James II and these acts were deemed completely lawful and justified," they say in their summary.
To the British, however, secession isn't the legal or proper tool by which to settle internal disputes. "What if Texas decided today it wanted to secede from the Union? Lincoln made the case against secession and he was right," they argue in their brief.
A vote at the end of the debate reaffirmed the legality of Jefferson and company's insurrection, and the American experiment survived to see another day.
It was an unsurprising result, considering the venue - just a few blocks away from where the Declaration was drafted. But did they get it right? Below are some more of the arguments from both sides.

The American case for the Declaration
The Declaration is unquestionably "legal". Under basic principles of "Natural Law", government can only be by the consent of the people and there comes a point when allegiance is no longer required in face of tyranny.
The legality of the Declaration and its validity is proven by subsequent independence movements which have been enforced by world opinion as right and just, based on the fundamental principles of equality and self-determination now reflected in the UN Charter.

The British case against it
The Declaration of Independence was not only illegal, but actually treasonable. There is no legal principle then or now to allow a group of citizens to establish their own laws because they want to. What if Texas decided today it wanted to secede from the Union?
Lincoln made the case against secession and he was right. The Declaration of Independence itself, in the absence of any recognised legal basis, had to appeal to "natural law", an undefined concept, and to "self-evident truths", that is to say truths for which no evidence could be provided.
The grievances listed in the Declaration were too trivial to justify secession. The main one - no taxation without representation - was no more than a wish on the part of the colonists, to avoid paying for the expense of protecting them against the French during seven years of arduous war and conflict.

The importance of Pakistan

Islamabad does not need to worry; regardless of the bin Laden episode, Washington will not walk out of their so-called alliance against terror.
The United Sates needs Pakistan for its operation in Afghanistan and does not want China to take its place in the region. For these two reasons, the Obama Administration will close its eyes to many non-senses of the ISI and the Pakistani Army.
A year before 9/11 attack on the twin towers, the US Under-Secretary of State Thomas Pickering met with some Pakistani officials in New York. One of the issues discussed was bin Laden, Washington was already hunting the Saudi terrorist: “Pickering opened the meeting by expressing disappointment that Pakistan, whom he called a good friend of the US, was not taking steps to help with OBL," says a secret cable addressed to the US Secretary of State.
The same tune continued till the Abbottabad raid: Pakistan never helped (on the contrary) to catch any terrorist on its soil, but the US and Pakistan remain ‘friends’.
In fact ‘friend’ is not the correct word; Pakistan is more of a vassal State which gets yearly lollipops to remain quiet. A historian wrote: “an Empire has no allies; it has only vassal nations who in principle are sovereign, but let themselves be reduced to the sad condition of satellites.” Is not America the last colonial empire?
For the past fifty years, the position of the United States vis-à-vis Pakistan has to be seen in this perspective. It is the tragedy of Pakistan, built on a falsehood (The Two Nation Theory), that it requires a big brother to (economically) stand on its legs. Washington may not be happy with its vassal for having given refuge to Enemy no 1, right in the midst of a military cantonment, but the fact remains that successive governments in Islamabad have protected bin Laden (and so many other terrorists and jihadists), while Washington has continued to financially keep Islamabad afloat.
Colonel Sir Francis Younghusband who became famous after his military expedition in Tibet in 1904, once wrote: “We, who have dealt with Asiatics, can appreciate so well [the following tactic]: taking the opportunity, striking while the iron is hot, not letting the chance go by, knowing our mind, knowing what we want, and acting decisively when the exact occasion arises.” The occasion arose, Obama struck; but the relation between the two ‘friends’ remains unchanged.
In July 1946, the British Indian Chiefs of Staff Committee prepared an interesting report “on the importance of India as a military base”. C. Dasgupta, the retired diplomat who wrote War and Diplomacy in Kashmir pointed out: “[The report] most significant feature, however, was the re-assessment of India's geostrategic value. This reflected a notable shift of emphasis from the naval to the air factor.”
The British Government, would it decide to leave the subcontinent, needed ‘air bases’ to be able to keep a tab on Afghanistan, Central Asia, Soviet Union and Eastern Turkestan. Quoting from the British report, Dasgupta continued: “It was also essential that the Soviet Union be denied air bases in India. If India was dominated by Russia with powerful air forces it is likely that we should have to abandon our command of the Persian Gulf and the Northern Indian Ocean routes, making it impossible to ensure the uninterrupted flow of vitally important oil supplies.”
Another report prepared in London came to the same conclusions: “India's territory provides important bases for offensive air action and for the support of our forces in the Indian Ocean and neighbouring areas”.
Having decided to partition the sub-continent, London understood that Pakistan was the best bet strategically. In October 1946, the India Office advised the Chiefs of Staff Committee that “if India were to split up into two or more parts, the Muslim areas would probably be anxious to remain in the Commonwealth if, in such circumstances, we were willing to have them”.
For the British (and later the Americans), ‘Hindus’ were unreliable allies, having strange ideas such as non-violence or non-alignment as the main features of their future foreign policy.
The Partition was therefore a good solution for London; they could keep air bases in Pakistan and at the same time walk out of the sub-continent without too much damage.
The Americans followed the footsteps of the British in the early 1950’s. They had an even better idea: an independent Kashmir.
As early as January 1948, Sheikh Abdullah was ready to offer the Maharaja’s State on a platter to the Americans, but it took some five years for Washington to realize how serious the proposal was.
When Adlai Stevenson came to Srinagar in May 1953, he discussed with Abdullah the creation of an independent Sheikhdom of Kashmir state. It suited perfectly the American interests as it could thus check the advances of the Chinese in Sinkiang and the Russians in Afghanistan.
Kashmir controlled the roads to Afghanistan, to the central Asian republics of Soviet Union, to China and to Tibet. A few weeks after the meeting, Abdullah asserted: “It is not necessary that our State should become an appendage of either India or Pakistan.” Only after he was arrested in August 1953, did the Americans drop their idea to have a base in Kashmir.
Hardly a year later, Washington’s sight turned towards Pakistan; it was the beginning of the famous ‘friendship’.
Just a look at a map of the Pakistan shows the extraordinary strategic importance of the country. The British were no fools! They knew it. Already way back in 1877, a Political Agent was posted in Gilgit to keep an eye on the region. Since they followed the footsteps of the British, America had been looking for an obedient ally to keep a foot in the region.
Today another player has entered the Great Game, Beijing.
To come out their vassalage, Islamabad is now cleverly playing the Chinese card. A report from Pakistan suggests that the Chinese are interested in studying the remains of the US top-secret stealth helicopter abandoned during the Abbottabad raid. A Pakistani official even said, "We might let them [the Chinese] take a look."
It is a way to convey the message: the Chinese are waiting at our door, “don’t mess with us, our ‘all-weather friend’ can replace you”.
On May 7, 2011, an interesting article was published by China Review News, “The More Anti-terrorism, The More Terror: the Post-bin Laden Era Tests US Strategy”. The author predicts that China will be the next target of US anti-terrorism ‘war’. The argument is that before 9/11, President Bush viewed China as the main strategic rival and exerted diverse forms of pressure and then when “Osama bin Laden gave a vicious blow to the US, George W. Bush became a different person and turned to cooperate with China”. The conclusion is “9/11 changed the foundations of Sino-US relations and gave China a 10-year golden opportunity to regain strength.”
Now a new era of uncertainties has begun, however Washington has no choice but to remind ‘friends’ with Pakistan, at least till Jinnah’s State implodes under its own contradictions.

The making of the Pakistani bomb and the US dichotomy

A couple of month back, I published an article The making of the Pakistani bomb in The Indian Defence Review.
It proved the eternal ambiguity (or dichotomy) of the US policy vis-à-vis Pakistan.
Quoting from an official US document, I wrote in conclusion that the Pakistani bomb was built with US 'support': "[During the 1980s], the US was criticized for providing massive levels of aid to Pakistan, its military ally, despite laws barring assistance to any country that imported certain technology related to nuclear weapons. President Ronald Reagan waived the legislation, arguing that cutting off aid would harm US national interests."
Undoubtedly, there is a long love/hate story (at least since 1947) between the United States and Pakistan.
The US 'made' Bin Laden (just read The Bin Laden Files, a set of fascinating historical documents in the National Security Archives) and then spent billions of dollars trying to track him in Pakistan, the US 'ally' against terrorism.
Yesterday, The New York Times elaborated on the US past of Bin Laden:

Through the looking glass of Sept. 11, it seemed ironic that the Americans and Osama bin Laden had fought on the same side against the Soviets in Afghanistan — as if the Americans had somehow created the Bin Laden monster by providing arms and cash to the Arabs. The complex at Tora Bora where Qaeda members hid had been created with the help of the C.I.A. as a base for the Afghans fighting the Soviets.
Bin Laden himself described the fight in Afghanistan this way: “There I received volunteers who came from the Saudi kingdom and from all over the Arab and Muslim countries. I set up my first camp where these volunteers were trained by Pakistani and American officers. The weapons were supplied by the Americans, the money by the Saudis.”
In truth, the Americans did not deal directly with Bin Laden; they worked through the middlemen of the Pakistani intelligence service.

The same ISI has been hiding Bin Laden for the past ten years in Pakistan, while proclaiming that he was dead.
Is this entire story not strange?
My conclusion is that the successive US Administrations have wasted the American tax payers' money for decades in betting on the wrong horse.

The Chinese Way

Last week, I posted the story of Kissinger finding propaganda material against "American imperialists" in his guest house when he arrived in Beijing in 1971. Forty years later, the mindset of the leadership of the Middle Kingdom has not changed.
Obama should have played the Tibetan National Anthem for Hu Jintao.

Chinese Pianist Plays Propaganda Tune at White House
US humiliated in eyes of Chinese by song used to inspire anti-Americanism
By Matthew Robertson
Epoch Times
Jan 22, 2011 
Chinese Pianist Plays Anti-American Song at White House Dinner (NTD Television)Lang Lang the pianist says he chose it. Chairman Hu Jintao recognized it as soon as he heard it. Patriotic Chinese Internet users were delighted as soon as they saw the videos online. Early morning TV viewers in China knew it would be played an hour or two beforehand. At the White House State dinner on Jan. 19, about six minutes into his set, Lang Lang began tapping out a famous anti-American propaganda melody from the Korean War: the theme song to the movie “Battle on Shangganling Mountain.”
The film depicts a group of “People’s Volunteer Army” soldiers who are first hemmed in at Shanganling (or Triangle Hill) and then, when reinforcements arrive, take up their rifles and counterattack the U.S. military “jackals.”
The movie and the tune are widely known among Chinese, and the song has been a leading piece of anti-American propaganda by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) for decades. CCP propaganda has always referred to the Korean War as the “movement to resist America and help [North] Korea.” The message of the propaganda is that the United States is an enemy—in fighting in the Korean War the United States’ real goal was said to be to invade and conquer China. The victory at Triangle Hill was promoted as a victory over imperialists.
The song Lang Lang played describes how beautiful China is and then near the end has this verse, “When friends are here, there is fine wine /But if the jackal comes /What greets it is the hunting rifle.” The “jackal” in the song is the United States.
The name of the song is “My Motherland,” originally titled “Big River.” In an interview broadcast on Phoenix TV, the first thing Lang Lang is quoted as saying is that he chose the piece.
He then said, “I thought to play ‘My Motherland’ because I think playing the tune at the White House banquet can help us, as Chinese people, feel extremely proud of ourselves and express our feelings through the song. I think it’s especially good. Also, I like the tune in and of itself, every time I hear it I feel extremely moved.”
He expressed this idea more frankly in a later blog post, writing: “Playing this song praising China to heads of state from around the world seems to tell them that our China is formidable, that our Chinese people are united; I feel deeply honored and proud.”

Known in Advance
Whether Lang Lang’s decision to play “My Motherland” was entirely his own is impossible to confirm. That his choice was known in advance to CCP officials is very likely.
Cheng Xiaonong is a former assistant to former CCP General Secretary Zhao Ziyang. He now lives in New Jersey and is a commentator on Chinese politics.
Cheng said that “The White House had to report in advance to the Chinese delegation and so the Chinese delegation would have certainly known Lang Lang’s program.”
Cheng believes, however, that the Chinese delegation would see no reason to suggest a change in the program. “The program is not against the interests of China. In fact, it is the opposite.”
In addition to the Chinese delegation likely knowing of the program in advance, CCP officials connected to Phoenix TV would also have known.
Phoenix TV is based in Hong Kong and its signal may be seen throughout China by satellite. Its interview with Lang Lang was broadcast at 7 a.m. Beijing time on Jan. 20, which is 6 p.m. D.C. time on Jan. 19—shortly before the state dinner. The interview was not live—it was filmed on another day in advance of the broadcast.
Phoenix TV, nominally independent, is known to have very close ties to the CCP. The scholar Anne-Marie Brady, whose research focuses on China’s media and propaganda, has said that Phoenix TV is more loyal to the Chinese regime than the official state-run media.
At a minimum, the staff at Phoenix TV knew in advance that Lang Lang planned to play the song. Given the close ties between the network and the CCP and the sensitivity of anything broadcast about Hu’s state visit, CCP officials not knowing this in advance would be unusual.
 The music he is playing is the theme song from an anti-American propaganda movie about the Korean War. (Screenshot from Youtube) Propaganda
“My Motherland” having been played at the White House will be seen as a propaganda triumph in China.
“In the eyes of all Chinese, this will not be seen as anything other than a big insult to the U.S.,” says Yang Jingduan, a Chinese psychiatrist now living in Philadelphia who had in China been a doctor in the Chinese military. “It’s like insulting you in your face and you don’t know it, it’s humiliating.”
Yang sees Lang Lang choosing this tune as an expression of the deeply anti-American propaganda that is constant in China.
“This deeply anti-American chauvinism has been fanned by the CCP for years; Lang Lang is expressing the feelings of this generation of angry young people,” Yang said.
A well-known example of such feelings was seen on Sept. 11, 2001, when Chinese chat rooms were filled with young people celebrating this act of terror as an American defeat.
Excited at this coup, patriotic Chinese have been circulating the clip for the last several days. One netizen wrote “the right place, right time, right song!”
The phrase “right place, right time, right song” echoes Chinese propaganda and is a declaration of victory over the United States. Chinese have been taught that the United States lost the Korean War. A U.S. general is quoted in the propaganda as describing the Korean War as being “the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place with the wrong enemy,” which is taken as an admission of defeat. In fact, the quote is from Gen. Omar N. Bradley testifying to Congress as to why the United States should not extend the Korean War into China.
Another Chinese commenting on a forum responded to the Lang Lang performance by writing, “Defeat America, defeat Obama” (writing Obama’s name with the wrong first character, one meaning “sunken” or “dented.”)
Others wrote comments like: “omg!”; “Didn’t they know?”; “Where was the U.S. foreign affairs?” and “Very good. My impression of Lang Lang has really changed.”
More moderate Chinese have expressed disappointment at the attitudes of their countrymen. A sinovision blog quotes “Professor A” saying : “Everyone knows this Shangganling is from a ‘Resist America, Support Korea’ film, and I think Lang Lang would know that too. If he knew the song’s background and still chose to play it, then you can guess his motivation, or intellectual capacity. If he didn’t know, then mainland China’s education system is in more of a mess than I thought...
“Suppose for a moment that Obama was invited to a banquet in China, and he invited an American artist who had performed in China for many years to play an American war song against China, what kind of reaction do you think the Chinese government and people would have? … I think the American government still doesn’t know the background of this song—if they knew, wouldn’t they be offended?”

Humiliating the US
In a press release on Jan. 21, the well-known democracy activist Wei Jingsheng commented on Lang Lang’s performance at the White House. Wei underscores how U.S. administrations have failed to understand the CCP.
He said, “These [Chinese communist] dictators... will not want the same values and civilization as the democratic West.  They have no hesitation to use subterfuge and insult to the best of their advantage against the people at home, as well as against their hosts abroad, even in the White House.”
Whether Chinese officials intended Lang Lang to play this piece, its performance at the White House fits a general pattern of Chinese propaganda attacking the United States. Subtle details are seized on and used to humiliate the United States before the Chinese people.
When Nixon visited China, a photo was taken of him getting off the plane to greet Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai. Nixon has a big smile and extends his hand out to Zhou. Zhou had a bum arm at the time. He stood with a rigid face and held his hand close to his body.
The photo was widely used in all of the Chinese media to help support the idea that Nixon’s visit was a victory for China. Chinese schoolchildren were told, “See how long Nixon’s arm is stretched out? That shows the United States is reaching out to us.”
When President Obama visited China in November 2009, he toured the Imperial Palace. Obama exited through the Shen Wu Men, which may be translated as Gate of Divine Prowess. CCTV reported that he exited through the Shun Zhen Men, which may be translated as “Gate of Obedience and Purity.”
In fact, the Gate of Divine Prowess is the outer gate and everyone must exit through it. However, Chinese media would not accord President Obama the honor of going through the “Gate of Divine Prowess.”
Neither the White House nor the Chinese Embassy responded to phone calls requesting comment on this story.
Comment: ChinaReports@epochtimes.com

The Beginning of a New START

Great news for Christmas. The US Senate has ratified the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia. 
I happened to be attending a Seminar on Disarmament in Mumbai. During the previous days, participants raised doubts: will the Republican-dominated Senate agree to follow President Obama in this small, but significant step. They finally did. A nice Christmas present for humanity.

Senate Approval of New START Moves Nuclear Arms Control Forward
Hans Kristensen
Federation of American Scientists
The Federation of American Scientists today applauded the Senate’s ratification of the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) between the United States and Russia.
The Senate voted 71 to 26 in favor of ratification of the treaty.
The approval of the treaty is a victory for common sense and an impressive achievement for the Obama administration in overcoming stubborn opposition from Cold Warriors to modest nuclear arms reductions.
New START does not require destruction of a single nuclear warhead, but it reduces the limit for how many of them can be deployed on long-range ballistic missiles and heavy bombers.
The United States and Russia possess more than 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons and will continue to do so when the treaty limit is reached seven years from now.
During the past year and in an effort to ensure Congressional support for New START, the administration has committed to significant increases in spending on modernizing nuclear weapons and the production complex over the next decade: well over $100 billion for modernization of missiles and bombers, and more than $85 billion for modernizing warheads and production facilities.
This modernization will have to be balanced against the other important goal of U.S. nuclear policy: securing international support for strengthening non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and materials. Demonstrating clear intentions to reducing the number and role of nuclear weapons will be essential to winning support for this agenda.
Despite its limitations, the approval of the New START treaty brings U.S-Russian strategic relations back on track, reestablishes a vital on-site inspection regime, and potentially opens the way for negotiations on additional reductions in the future.
Those negotiations must establish limits on and verification of U.S. and Russian non-deployed and non-strategic nuclear weapons, and prepare the ground for broadening nuclear arms control to the other nuclear weapons states.

The privatisation of the CIA

Reading this long article one understand better the blunders of the CIA and the wrong policies of the successive US Administrations. When you privatize your intelligence services, this is bound to happen. 
Agents are no more working for the highest values/interests of the State but for their own pocket.
The latest wrong move is the foolish Af-Pak policy: the Obama's Administration pretends to fight terrorism in the West (Af) while defending terrorism in the East (Pak). This will lead nowhere. It is however in the 'contractors' interest' that the tamasha continues. They are getting richer by the day. In the meantime, Beijing is enjoying its 'all-weather' relation with Islamabad.  
And India will keep being squeezed. The problem is that New Delhi has also its own 'contractors', often based in Washington. It is what was called the Great Game during the 19th century.

National Security Inc.
Top Secret America: A Washington Post Investigation
By DANA PRIEST AND WILLIAM M. ARKIN
The Washington Post
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
In June, a stone carver from Manassas chiseled another perfect star into a marble wall at CIA headquarters, one of 22 for agency workers killed in the global war initiated by the 2001 terrorist attacks.
The intent of the memorial is to publicly honor the courage of those who died in the line of duty, but it also conceals a deeper story about government in the post-9/11 era: Eight of the 22 were not CIA officers at all. They were private contractors.
To ensure that the country's most sensitive duties are carried out only by people loyal above all to the nation's interest, federal rules say contractors may not perform what are called "inherently government functions." But they do, all the time and in every intelligence and counterterrorism agency, according to a two-year investigation by The Washington Post.
What started as a temporary fix in response to the terrorist attacks has turned into a dependency that calls into question whether the federal workforce includes too many people obligated to shareholders rather than the public interest -- and whether the government is still in control of its most sensitive activities. In interviews last week, both Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and CIA Director Leon Panetta said they agreed with such concerns.
The Post investigation uncovered what amounts to an alternative geography of the United States, a Top Secret America created since 9/11 that is hidden from public view, lacking in thorough oversight and so unwieldy that its effectiveness is impossible to determine.
To read the entire article (5000 words) click here.

The New Great Game

In the past, Great empires have rarely been built for philanthropic reasons. The British did not ‘civilize’ the Indian subcontinent for the good of the natives, ditto for the French in Africa. Most of the time, the ‘colonized’ countries happened to be rich in raw materials badly required to feed the economic engine of the paramount powers.
The recent happenings in Afghanistan seem to follow the same pattern?
For the past nine years, we have heard of the war against terror forcing more than a lakh of American (and NATO) jawans to risk their lives in the far-away Central Asian land to fight for the good of humanity and destroy asuric Talibans roaming around the country.
Remember. A month after the tragedy of 9/11, the United States supported by the United Kingdom and several other countries from the NATO alliance began bombing Taliban (more nebulously known as Al Qaeda) forces. The military operations’ objective was to grab the power out of fundamentalist hands and prevent the use of Afghanistan’s territory as a terrorist base. Nobody in Washington thought at that time, that ‘terrorism’ could also have some roots in Afghanistan’s neighbouring country; Pakistan was THE ally per excellence.
Early October 2001, the CIA's elite Special Activities Division landed in Kabul; it was the beginning of the ‘cleansing’ operation to flush out the agents of terror. Eventually, the Taliban regime of Mollah Omar fell and the NATO forces started to ‘control’ the country. Till then, things were rather simple to understand. Unfortunately for the Pentagon strategists, the ‘control’ is still missing nine years later.
But there is now a new angle to the Afghan imbroglio.
Washington disclosed recently that its surveyors have discovered more than one $1 trillion in mineral deposits in Afghanistan. The New York Times noted: “it is far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself.”
It appears that an internal Pentagon memo even mentions that Afghanistan could become the ‘Saudi Arabia of lithium’, a very useful mineral to manufacture batteries for electronic gadgets.
Gen. David H. Petraeus, commanding the United States Forces declared: “There is stunning potential here …There are a lot of ifs, of course, but I think potentially it is hugely significant.”
Jalil Jumriany, an adviser to the Afghan Minister of Mines told The New York Times: “This will become the backbone of the Afghan economy.”
But everybody is not convinced by the ‘new’ discovery.
Stephen Walt in an article entitled Is Afghanistan really the next El Dorado?, published in Foreign Policy wrote: “So today -- surprise, surprise -- comes news that Afghanistan isn't a poor country whose primary strategic asset is its ability to grow opium poppies. Nope, turns out Afghanistan is just brimming with iron ore, lithium, cobalt, copper, and other strategic minerals. This report -- which comes from ‘a small team of Pentagon officials and American geologists’ may well be completely correct, but isn't the timing of the release a mite suspicious? This looks to me like an attempt to provide a convincing strategic rationale for an effort that isn't going well.”
Not surprisingly, one of the first countries to react was China. Xinhua commented the Pentagon announcement: “it may function as a double-edged sword for the Central Asian country, and it will likely justify continuous US engagement in Afghanistan's rebuilding process.”
Xinhua quotes Wu Dahui, a scholar with the Institute of Russian, East European and Central Asian Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, who believes that “the well-timed report will help justify the US' presence in the country” He added: “Washington has insisted that the stability of Afghanistan relies on its economic rebuilding. The announcement was timed to prove that the US can gain strategically from its involvement in rebuilding the war-torn country. The resources in Afghanistan would feed the US' demand to boost its economy.”
The Chinese probably have a point. They themselves are interested to get a share of the cake. In April, Christian Le Mière, the Editor of Jane's Intelligence Review in Foreign Affairs put it thus: “The possibility of cheap resources on its border is of significant interest to Beijing. China has already made the largest single foreign direct investment in Afghanistan: $3.5 billion in the Aynak copper field in Logar province.”
Kabul knows that the Americans and their NATO partners are to withdraw in July 2011. Though Beijing is not interested in Afghanistan for security reasons, there is a place to take in the future economy of Afghanistan.
A few months back President Hu declared that the development of the western region is a priority of China's twelfth Five-Year Plan (2011 to 2015).
In the words of Le Mière: “Trade and development assistance form an even larger part of the burgeoning Afghan-Chinese relationship.”
The security aspect is however not negligible, as the leadership in Beijing would not like to see its Western provinces, particularly the restive Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region (XUAR) destabilized.
It was another reason for President Hamid Karzai to visit China in March 2010. It was his fourth trip to China as President and according to analysts a sign that Kabul has wanted to diversify its patrons and not bank entirely on the US.
In January 2010, Russell Hsiao and Glen E. Howard in The China Brief of the Jamestown Institute mentioned some Chinese moves in the strategic Wakan Corridor: “A recent Chinese report has shed light on three major Chinese developments along the Wakhan Corridor that reportedly began in 2009, which highlight preparations in regional infrastructure along that border.”
The report speaks of a 75 kilometers-long road, extending up to 10 kilometers from the China-Afghanistan border. The road, built by Chinese Ministry of Defense is badly needed for the transportation of military supplies to Chinese frontier guards. Then, the Chinese have constructed a supply depot to improve the “food quality standard for the police forces”.
The third development is a mobile communications center which would permit the operation of mobile devices along the border. Earlier border troops had to depend on satellite communications.
However for Russell Hsiao, China is not ready to play a ‘strategic’ or military role in Afghanistan. He quotes the Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Qin Gang: “Except for the U.N. peace-keeping missions approved by the U.N. Security Council, China never sends a single troop abroad”, adding: “At the same time, there are also those [in the Chinese government] who view NATO operations in Afghanistan more cynically and see them as part of a U.S. strategy to gain control over Central Asia.”
With the ‘discovery’ that Afghanistan is a rich country (not only for its poppies) cynicism is bound to increase. Many believe that we are witnessing the beginning of a new Great Game like during the 19th century.
One could ask: where does India fit in this new political and economic order?
Delhi has a big problem. Were India to get a stake in the minerals, how to bring them home?
Indrani Bagchi rightly explains in The Times of India: “Pakistan's India blockade and an international sanctions regime in Iran may put a spanner in Indian companies' drive to exploit the mineral bonanza in Afghanistan.”
Technically, Indian companies like Arcelor-Mittal or Vedanta could have a chance, for example when the bid for Hajigak iron ore mines opens up, but will Pakistan let the raw materials transit through its territory. Certainly not.
The other road through Iran is also doubtful in view of the new UN sanctions against the Islamic Republic. Manmohan would certainly not like to antagonize his American friends.
In a near future, the Chinese are bound to win the raw materials market in Afghanistan. While the NATO forces are fighting an unwinnable war, Beijing has quietly started tapping the wealth of the country. India, may be highly considered by the people of Afghanistan, but in the end, business  is business and China is better prepared, with the infrastructure in particular. One question remains, is this newly discovered wealth a bane or a blessing for the people of Afghanistan?
I still remember when as a young student I visited Afghanistan with a backpack; it was at the end of 1960’s. I was in love with this country; it was so peaceful (one would say ‘cool’ now). I remember the beauty of Herat, the fabulous Buddhas of Bamyan (today no more, courtesy some fanatical Talibans) or the extraordinary blue lakes of Band-i-Amir. More than anything else, the hospitality of the different tribes, whether Pashtus, Tajiks or Uzbeks. People seemed so relaxed and content. What has happened?
The US ‘discovery’ will certainly not help to bring the old peace and harmony back.

The Axis Mundi tilting

Will America lead once more?
“Time and again in our Nation’s history, Americans have risen to meet — and to shape — moments of transition. This must be one of those moments. We live in a time of sweeping changes” thus spoke Barak Obama, stressing the strategic choices of the US in the latest National Security Strategy Report.
The President of the United States believes that his country is today: “part of a dynamic international environment, in which different nations are exerting greater influence, and advancing our interests will require expanding spheres of cooperation around the word.” He cites China, India, and Russia as being “critical to building broader cooperation on areas of mutual interest.”
Obama’s conclusion is: “America’s greatness is not assured… in a young century whose trajectory is uncertain, America is ready to lead once more.”
The US President is certainly right in saying that America’s top slot in world leadership is not assured.
The first indication came in Copenhagen. On April 18, some of world's most powerful heads of State had assembled in Copenhagen's Bella Center to work out a solution for the future of the planet.
Most of the top shots were there: Obama, Sarkozy, Merkel, Manmohan Singh, Lula. The meeting was dubbed the ‘mini-summit of the 25’. But there was an anomaly: facing the US President was seated China's deputy foreign minister, He Yafei. His boss, the Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao had remained in his Hotel room. He had not been ‘properly’ invited, he said.
It took a few months to get a clearer picture as to what happened during the last day of the Climate Change Conference. But it is now clear that the UN climate conference in Copenhagen will go down in history as a turning point. New forces emerged while old were sidelined.
The Spiegel was able to get a recording of the last meeting. According to the German magazine, it reveals “how China and India prevented an agreement on tackling climate change at the crucial meeting. The powerless Europeans were forced to look on as the agreement failed.”
I was in France at the time of the Conference. During the preceding days, the French President was upbeat, explaining on TV and in the newspapers that France and Europe would lead the World towards a better future.
Unfortunately for him, during the final meeting, it did not happen that way: the Chinese Premier was not even present. Sarkozy used strong arguments to present the position of Europe which had pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent, but "in return, China, soon be the biggest economic power in the world, told the world: commitments apply to you, but not to us." Sarkozy shouted, “ce n’est pas acceptable” (it is not acceptable); he even spoke about hypocrisy (from the Chinese side), but this did not change anything.
The Spiegel says: “As if viewed through a magnifying glass, the contours of a new political world order become visible, one shaped by the new self-confidence of the Asians and the powerlessness of the West.”
The next day China convened a last-minute meeting of the BASIC countries (South Africa, Brazil, India and China). Beijing did not want to be alone to carry the blame for the failure of the Conference. The four countries managed to take a common position despite Obama dropping in uninvited at the end of the meeting. The Europeans were nowhere to be seen.
This explains Jairam Ramesh’s recent statement: “following an ambush by the West”, India’s support was ‘absolutely essential’ for China. The Environment Minister added: “The Chinese know, in their heart of hearts, that we saved them from isolation. It is not an exaggeration to say that the top Chinese leadership acknowledges the Copenhagen spirit”.
This, I believe, marked a turning point in the influence of Europe in the World affairs. In the years to come, the slide can only accelerate.
It deteriorated further with the Greek crisis. You must have heard about the PIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain).
The rising government deficits and debt levels of these countries triggered a wave of panic on the European (and later world) financial markets. It began in Greece, with serious concerns about the cost of financing the public debt; it then spread across other States of the Euro Zone. Finally, on 2 May 2010, the Eurozone and the IMF had to decide to grant a €110 billion loan to Greece, while Athens had to implement extremely harsh Greek austerity measures (which may in turn trigger a recession). On 9 May 2010, Europe's Finance Ministers approved a package worth nearly a trillion dollars to insure European financial stability. Will it help?
The point is that when Obama says “America’s greatness is not assured”, the European Union and its member-States are also not at all assured of their future role in a changing world.
The situation on the world scene is moving tremendously fast. In April, two important meetings were held in Brazil. Siddharth Vadharajan of The Hindu wrote: “At this week's summits of IBSA and BRIC nations, India and Brazil were the lucky two who had overlapping membership in both forums. But South Africa, which is only part of the former, would very much like BRIC to become BRICS, while China, which is part of the latter — as well as of the climate change ginger group of BASIC with India, Brazil and South Africa — would not be averse to IBSA becoming CHIBSA.”
A senior Indian official accompanying the Prime Minister explained: “What makes BRIC a good fit today is that the four countries have complementary factor endowments and national skills.”
But that is not all. We are witnessing the birth of a new world order. Russian President Dmitri Medvedev said that the four countries could collaborate in fields such as nuclear and space technologies, aircraft manufacturing, nanotechnology and other fields.
But more importantly, these strange acronyms represent a challenge to the United States’ domination. And India knows it well, treading carefully with its newly-found partners.
Another example: after Turkey and Brazil announced a deal with Iran which would see Iran send some of its low-enriched uranium to Turkey (a previous IAEA proposal which Tehran had earlier refused), Zhai Dequan wrote in The People’s Daily an article, Iran deserves a break: “The recent tripartite agreement on nuclear-material swapping among Iran, Turkey and Brazil shows that influential countries other than major Western powers have started helping resolve sensitive global issues. Such efforts should be applauded and encouraged.”
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reacted strongly. Reuters quotes her saying that actions taken by countries like Brazil to help find a diplomatic solution to Iran's nuclear program have made the world more dangerous. She affirmed: "We think buying time for Iran, enabling Iran to avoid international unity with respect to their nuclear program, makes the world more dangerous not less."
Without entering into the merits of the deal, it becomes more and more obvious that we are no longer living in a unilateral world and new players, the so-called emerging countries have come to have a say in world affairs.
A small, though significant news items demonstrates the way the new world players try to sideline America. On 13 May, Novosti, the Russian state-owned news agency, quoted the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov: “Russia is ready to help settle the conflict between China and the Tibetan spiritual leader, Dalai Lama.”
During a speech in the Federation Council, Russia’s Upper House of Parliament, Lavrov affirmed: “We are following carefully what is happening between the leadership of China and the Dalai Lama and we know that the Chinese leadership is deeply committed to the Dalai Lama dissociating himself from any kind of political activity and separatist tendencies in regard to one or another territory in China.”
According to Lavrov: “If all the parties make attempts to separate clearly pastoral contacts from political associations, this would be a solution to the problem. We are ready to assist in this.”
Clearly, the move was triggered by the visit of President Hu Jintao to Moscow a week earlier.
During his stay, Hu called upon Russia and China to consolidate their strategic partnership and promote ‘multipolarity’ in the international system as well as ‘democratization of international relations’. In other words, the United States cannot continue to rule the world unilaterally.
Moreover, Hu spoke of China’s ‘new security concept’. For Beijing, this means “to rise above one-sided security and seek common security through mutually beneficial cooperation … and promote the democratization of the international relations.” The surprising announcement about Tibet was clearly in line with Beijing’s new policies who feels Washington is interfering in its dealing with the Dalai Lama.
When asked about Lavrov’s declaration, China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Ma Zhaoxu stated: “as China's strategic partner, Russia has always firmly supported China's positions and principles on Tibet-related issues. China has highly praised Russia's position.”
For Beijing, it was a way to show its unhappiness with the US before the visit of Hilary Clinton who was scheduled to reprimand China about human rights and Tibet. To ask Moscow to be the intermediary is one way to pull the carpet out from under Washington’s feet.
The Axis Mundi is undoubtedly slowly tilting towards the East.
“We live in a time of sweeping changes”, rightly said Obama.