After the Dalai Lama - Will Tibet Move From Theocracy To Democracy?

My article After the Dalai Lama -  Will Tibet Move From Theocracy To Democracy? was published in The Statesman on June 7. Click on the title to read.

Between a rock and a hard place

On May 27, The Pioneer published my article Between a rock and a hard place in its Edit Page. Click on the title to read.

Again Diverting the Brahmaputra

Li Ling and Gao Kai, the proponents of the Brahmaputra diversion

The last time we officially heard about the diversion of the Brahmaputra was in November 2006 when President Hu Jintao was about to visit India.
At that time, China decided to cool down the legitimate worries of the Indian State.
Water Resources Minister Wang Shucheng, a hydraulic engineer, affirmed  that the proposal was "unnecessary, unfeasible and unscientific. There is no need for such dramatic and unscientific projects." 
He however admitted that there a plan in the drawers, but "the project involves major financial and technical difficulties".
Wang explained: "For example, we must keep an eye on possible floods when the Yellow River has 58 billion cubic metres of water. If another 50 billion cubic metres, not to mention 200 billion, is poured in, I am sure all the dams and protection embankments will be destroyed immediately."
Further, he said: "the cost of diverting water from the Yarlung Zangbo would be much more expensive than any of the current water projects."
At that time, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao also confirmed: "The Chinese government has no plans to build a dam on the Yarlung Zangbo River (the China part of the Brahmaputra) to divert water to the Yellow River." 
The Chinese media criticized Li Ling's book Tibet's water will Save China.

As President Hu was arriving, other Chinese 'experts' were engaged to denounce the plans of Li Ling and Gao Kai. 
Qin Hui, a professor in School of Humanities and Social Sciences of Tsinghua University declared: "Without international co-operation it is impossible to launch any major water project for an international river like this. ...Plus, we have to take the international response into consideration. It is undoubted that the lower reaches of Yarlung Zangbo River are within India's Assam Province, where it is a lifeline for local agriculture and backbone of the economy, just as it is further downstream in Bangladesh." 
Qin added: "It is so obvious that the proposed damming project will have a cascading effect leading to a natural disaster in the lower foreign reaches of the Yarlung Zangbo, Lancang (Salween) and Nujiang (Mekong) rivers."
Liu Changming, a hydrologist at the Chinese Academy of Sciences who has advised the government on these proposals declared: "It's just an idea that has floated around society, in books and media reports. People are confusing the two plans, the smaller Western Route and the Great Western Route, and they're mistaking private enthusiasm for official support."
Liu also confirmed that a team of water experts from the Chinese Academy of Engineers, an advisory group of prominent scientists had concluded that the proposal to tap the Brahmaputra River would be far too expensive, technologically unfeasible and  ...too controversial.
He however knew that: "There may be some retired officials that support the plan, but they're not the experts advising the government." 
Now, Prof Wang Guangqian of the Chinese Academy of Sciences seems to say that China has no choice, but to do it. It is what I always argued.
However, there is a big difference between 2006 and now: with the opening of the tunnel to Metok (Motuo), the Chinese engineers have today the possibility to start the mega power plant which could provide the necessary energy to the diversion scheme, planned a couple of hundred kilometers upstream the Yarlung-Tsangpo, near the town of Tsetang.

China to Consider Diverting the Brahmaputra River
2point6billion.com In Science & Technology
June 8
Faced with severe challenges brought by reduced water resources and a severe drought [1] that has affected a large portion of the country, China has started to consider diverting water from the Brahmaputra River, the watercourse that originates upstream from southwestern Tibet (where it is known as the Yarlung Zangbo River) and finally enters India, a recent report by Xinhua News Agency says.
Wang Guangqian, a scholar at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, said on June 3 that Chinese experts have raised a new proposal to divert water from the upper reaches of the Brahmaputra River to the country’s northwestern province of Xinjiang. The water diversion route in the proposal, named the “Grand Western Canal,” is slightly different from the “western canal” mentioned in China’s well-known South-North Water Diversion Project approved by the State Council in December 2002.
While the previous canal aims to alleviate water shortages in Qinghai, Gansu, and Ningxia and plans to divert water from three rivers in the Yangtze River’s upper reaches – namely the Tongtian River (Qinghai), the Yalong River (Sichuan) and the Dadu River (Sichuan) – the newly proposed route is expected to start from the Brahmaputra River, from which China can reroute the water to Xinjiang along the Qinghai-Tibet Railway and the Hexi Corridor – part of the Northern Silk Road located in Gansu Province.
Wang admitted the serious water crisis across China has forced experts to think about the new water diversion scheme earlier than they had wanted to.
“We thought this would be a plan 50 years later,” he said.
Due to the increasing demand for water along the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River and the Yellow River – China’s two largest and most heavily-exploited domestic watercourses – the upper reaches of the two rivers have seen a significant decline in their water reserves. What is worse, as a result of surface water deficiency, almost all of China’s first and second-tier cities have the problem of groundwater overdraft and are threatened by potential risks brought by the lowering of the water table (the level at which the submarine pressure is far from atmostpheric pressure).
In fact, experts originally brought up various plans to reroute water from the largest river in Tibet a long time ago. One of the most famous proposals was raised in 1990 by Guo Kai, a water expert, suggesting a project that diverts 200.6 billion cubic meters of water every year from the Brahmaputra River to the Yellow River. However, according to a 2009 Xinhua report, Wang Shucheng, the previous minister of the Ministry of Water Resources, somewhat denied the feasibility of the plan.
At the time, Wang Shucheng believed the water diversion from the Yangtze River is enough for North China’s water supply and redirecting so much water from the Brahmaputra River every year is not even practical, because such a huge flush will destroy all the dams over the Yellow River.
Presently, Chinese experts and governmental officials are still studying the feasibility and possible impacts of distinct proposals.
Although China has claimed first-use-rights over the Brahmaputra and all of the other rivers in Tibet, the water resource exploitation of those international rivers is not only a domestic issue. Downstream, the Brahmaputra flows through India as well as Bangladesh and serves as a major fresh water source for a myriad of people. While China finally confirmed the construction of a dam project [2] over the Brahmaputra last year, India’s Minister of State for Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh already commented that the project is “unacceptable” [3] and stressed the “great fear in India” would be China’s water diversion of the Brahmaputra, which may impact Northeastern India ecologically and bring the threat of drought to the region.

Article printed from 2point6billion.com – Foreign Direct Investment in Asia: http://www.2point6billion.com/news
URL to article: http://www.2point6billion.com/news/2011/06/08/china-to-consider-diverting-the-brahmaputra-river-9430.html
URLs in this post:
[1] severe drought: http://www.2point6billion.com/news/2011/05/25/chinas-yangtze-river-faces-worst-drought-in-50-years-9354.html
[2] confirmed the construction of a dam project: http://www.2point6billion.com/news/2010/04/22/china-confirms-brahmaputra-river-projects-5423.html
[3] Jairam Ramesh already commented that the project is “unacceptable”: http://www.2point6billion.com/news/2010/05/10/india%E2%80%99s-ramesh-comments-on-brahmaputra-project-in-beijing-5614.html
[4] China Begins Construction on Brahmaputra Dam in Tibet: http://www.2point6billion.com/news/2010/11/17/china-begins-construction-on-brahmaputra-dam-in-tibet-8012.html
[5] Uncertainty over China’s Aims for Brahmaputra River: http://www.2point6billion.com/news/2009/10/19/uncertainty-over-china%E2%80%99s-aims-for-brahmaphutra-river-2652.html

What you need to start a war now is not a trigger, but a mouse

My article What you need to start a war now is not a trigger, but a mouse appeared in today's edition of the DNA. Click on the title to read.

Will China dam the Indus?

An article in The Financial Times affirms that China’s Three Gorges Project Corporation has offered to Pakistan to build a $15 billion hydropower scheme to dam the Indus.
There is no doubt that the Chinese company is able to deliver the goods, but will it benefit Pakistan? 
Has India a say in the matter?
In a previous posting, I mentioned the serious problems facing the Three Gorges Dam. These problems were even recently acknowledged by the State Council. Now China wants to export similar difficulties to Pakistan. 
Peter Bosshard of International Rivers wrote on a blog yesterday: 

It is undisputed that dams can influence local rainfalls. Humidity evaporates from reservoirs and irrigated fields and gets recycled as rainfall. Evaporation from reservoirs can also cause more frequent storms. On the other hand, dams and levees can reduce evaporation and rainfalls when they drain wetlands and open up woodlands for deforestation.

The Niger Delta in West Africa illustrates how dams can influence rainfalls. In September, the delta’s wetlands extend to an area of 30,000 square kilometers – roughly the size of Belgium – and feed rainfalls over a much larger region. Yet upstream dams on the Niger have reduced the flows into the delta by 10-15%, and a major proposed hydropower project upstream on the river would reduce inflows by a further 33%. “Such a change would significantly reduce the window in the seasonal cycle when the wetland can influence rainfall,” warns Christopher Taylor of the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Great Britain.

Of course, the Three Gorges Dam Corporation is a powerful lobby with a lot of money to distribute and Pakistan needs money. And Pakistan leadership has other issues to think about than climate change! Remember the European 'business' tour of President Zardari during the devastating floods last year.
For India, the construction of a series of dams raises serious security issues, as part of the project will probably be undertaken in POK. 
It is bound to bring thousands and thousands of migrant workers from China in this 'disputed' area, legally a part of the Indian territory.
Along with the dam, the Chinese will built roads, townships, airports, etc. and established a permanent presence in the area.
Nothing good for India.

China proposes $15bn Indus dam scheme
By William MacNamara in London
June 7 2011
China’s Three Gorges Project Corporation has proposed a $15bn hydropower scheme to Pakistan to dam the Indus river valley at several points, in a project aimed at controlling floods and tackling electricity shortages, Pakistan’s natural resources minister said on Tuesday.
The deal, pitched by the builders of the Yangtze River dam, the world’s largest, is the latest example of Chinese interest in Pakistan, as the latter tries to develop natural gas, oil, coal and hydropower resources to boost its flagging economy.
Asim Hussain, Pakistan’s minister for petroleum and natural resources, told the Financial Times that Three Gorges had met with the government and proposed a $15bn hydroelectric master plan for the Indus, and to fund a $50m survey to lay the groundwork.
Devastating floods last year highlighted the benefits of dams on the Indus. The country’s electricity shortage and need for irrigation are also behind Pakistan’s focus on hydroelectric power, which the opposition party also supports.
Last year Pakistan and China agreed to an investment deal to build the Bunji dam. The $15bn proposal would cover Bunji and other sites on the upper and lower Indus including Kohala and Dashu, a government representative confirmed.
Click on the link to read the full article

Promotion of Democracy?

In August 2010, in an article in The South China Morning Post, John Garnaut asserted: "A Chinese two-star general has warned his conservative Communist Party masters and firebrand People's Liberation Army colleagues that China must either embrace US-style democracy or accept Soviet-style collapse."
Lt General Liu Yazhou was then Political Commissar of the PLA's National Defense University. His declarations caused quite a stir in China.
Ten months later, an article in the China Brief of the Jamestown Foundation speaks of the probable promotion of General Liu.
Dr Zhang, an Associate Professor in the Department of Leadership and Strategy at the Air War College (USAF), in an article The Leadership of the PLAAF after 2012 said that General Lui "is inline as the next Political Commissar of the entire PLAAF."
Dr. Zhang explained: "As one of the few PLA generals who have had Western experience, Liu spent one and half years at Stanford University as a visiting scholar in 1986 and 1987. He has written extensively about PLAAF strategy, having been recognized by many Chinese analysts as the 'Douhet of China' [Douhet was an Italian general, proponent of strategic bombing in aerial warfare] because of “his reputation as a daring forward thinker of air power theory” against the PLAAF’s traditional mindset."
The China Defence Blog commented: "If Dr Zhang's prediction is correct, expect to see a different PLAAF five years from now under General Liu's new leadership."
According to Dr Zhang: "As early as 2000, Lt General Liu Yazhou proposed that Chinese military authorities consider reorganizing the PLAAF into functional air commands by separating the air force from the PLA military region (MR) system to become a true independent service. Ostensibly to make the PLAAF a more offensively oriented air force, he further recommended the use of the U.S. Air Force’s “expeditionary force” model to organize air force units into air strike groups with a mix of fighters, bombers, and early warning aircraft. His advocacy for eliminating the ground force dominated military system, however, has received little support from the PLA military establishment." 
We have recently seen the limits of this theory in Libya, but the other issue is: what will happen to General Liu Yazhou's ideas about democracy, if he makes it to his new post? Will he try to implement them?
Let us watch. 

China must reform or die
JOHN GARNAUT
August 12, 2010
A Chinese two-star general has warned his conservative Communist Party masters and firebrand People's Liberation Army colleagues that China must either embrace US-style democracy or accept Soviet-style collapse.
As officers of similar rank rattle their sabres against US aircraft carriers in the Yellow and South China seas, General Liu Yazhou says China's rise depends on adopting America's system of government rather than challenging its dominance off China's eastern coast.
''If a system fails to let its citizens breathe freely and release their creativity to the maximum extent, and fails to place those who best represent the system and its people into leadership positions, it is certain to perish,'' writes General Liu Yazhou in Hong Kong's Phoenix magazine, which is widely available on news stands and on the internet throughout China.
The fact of General Liu's article suggests China's political and ideological struggles are more lively than commonly thought, ahead of a rotation of leaders in the Central Military Commission and then the Politburo in 2012.
''The secret of US success is neither Wall Street nor Silicon Valley, but its long-surviving rule of law and the system behind it,'' he says. ''The American system is said to be 'designed by genius and for the operation of the stupid'.
''A bad system makes a good person behave badly while a good system makes a bad person behave well. Democracy is the most urgent thing, without it there can be no sustainable rise.''
General Liu was promoted recently from deputy political commissar of the PLA Air Force to political commissar of the National Defence University. His father was a senior military officer and his father-in-law was Li Xiannian, one of Chinese communism's ''Eight Immortals'' - and a one-time president of China.
While many of China's ''princelings'' have exploited their revolutionary names to amass wealth and power, General Liu has exploited his pedigree to provide protection to push his contrarian and reformist views.
But General Liu's latest writings are extraordinary by any standards. His article urges China to shift its strategic focus from the country's developed coastal areas, including Hong Kong and Taiwan - ''the renminbi belt'' - towards resource-rich Central Asia.
But he argues that China will never have strategic reach by relying on wealth alone. ''A nation that is mindful only of the power of money is a backward and stupid nation,'' he writes. ''What we could believe in is the power of the truth.
''The truth is knowledge and knowledge is power.''
But such national power can only come with political transformation. ''In the coming 10 years, a transformation from power politics to democracy will inevitably take place,'' he says.
General Liu inverts the lesson that Chinese politicians have traditionally drawn from the collapse of the Soviet Union - that it was caused by too much political reform - by arguing that reform arrived too late.
Since 2008 the Communist Party has steadily tightened the political screws to stifle dissent.
Many Chinese are concerned that reforms have been blocked by powerful military, security, corporate and family groups that benefit from the status quo.
General Liu was famously outspoken until he stopped publishing his essays about five years ago.
It is unclear how his latest article appeared and whether he has backing within the system.
Last year Hong Kong's Open magazine published a leaked report of one of General Liu's internal speeches which raised the taboo topic of how some generals refused to lead troops into Tiananmen Square in 1989.
General Liu returned to the subject of Tiananmen in his Phoenix article, saying ''a nationwide riot'' was caused by the incompatibility of traditional power structures with reform.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/china-must-reform-or-die-20100811-11zxd.html#ixzz1OduHJZDw

'We are always ready for dialogue with Chinese officials'

The second part of my interview with Dr Lobsang Sangay We are always ready for dialogue with Chinese officials is posted on Rediff.com

After the Dalai Lama

For the past three months, Tibetans in exile have gone through a political and historical tsunami, the most serious since March 1959 when a young Dalai Lama decided to cross the highest Himalayan peaks to take refuge in India. At that time, he abandoned his homeland along with some 85,000 of his countrymen; this was the beginning of long and traumatic years as refugees.
Today when the Tibetans are considered to be one of the most successful exiled communities, the Dalai Lama has decided to change the three-century old governance system of the Land of Snows and quit politics to consecrate his energy on other pursuits.
On March 10 in a public statement, the Tibetan leader explained the background for his decision: "As early as the 1960s, I have repeatedly stressed that Tibetans need a leader, elected freely by the Tibetan people, to whom I can devolve power. Now, we have clearly reached the time to put this into effect.”
In June 1991, the Tibetan Parliament in exile (also known as the Assembly of Tibetan People's Deputies) had adopted a ‘Charter’, a sort of Constitution providing a separation of power between the judiciary, legislature and executive powers of the Central Tibetan Administration (or Government in exile). The Charter assigned specific functions to the Dalai Lama as the Head of the State.
Penpa Tsering, the Assembly’s Speaker explained that on March 14 the Dalai Lama addressed the Deputies: “The message of His Holiness was very firm, very determined. It was very difficult for most of the members to digest the decision of His Holiness”. For a long time, the Deputies had had inklings of the Dalai Lama’s intention to retire, but “nobody could image that it would be so encompassing and so sudden”, noted Tsering.
After the Dalai Lama had officially rejected an appeal of the 14th Assembly to reconsider his decision, it became clear that there was no choice but to amend the Charter and adapt the provisions to the new situation.
It was a difficult task, though the Dalai Lama said: "It is to benefit Tibetans in the long run. It is not because I feel disheartened. Tibetans have placed such faith and trust in me."

A five member 'Constitutional Amendment Drafting Committee' was formed, with representatives from the Kashag (Cabinet) and the Assembly to suggest a legal solution to the tricky situation.
In an interview in 2006, the Dalai Lama had told me: "I have three commitments in life: promotion of human values, promotion of religious harmony and promotion of awareness of the Tibetan cause."
He had further elaborated: "Out of three commitments, number one and two are mostly on volunteer basis. Till my death I committed myself to these causes. Regarding the third one (Tibet), in a way it not a voluntary commitment, it is due to past history and to the Dalai Lama institution.”
Now he has decided to withdrawal from this historic commitment.
While making a proposal, the Drafting Committee kept in mind both aspects of the issue: the past historical role of the Dalai Lamas and their special place for the Tibetan Nation as well as his request to be relieved of his political responsibilities.
The Committee finally presented the outcome of its deliberations to a National General Meeting held at Dharamsala from May 21 to 24. This enlarged consultative sesssion was attended by 418 ‘senior’ Tibetans such as ‘former ‘prime ministers’, members of the Cabinet, former ministers, present and former members of Parliament, representatives from the Tibetan settlements and eminent members of the civil society.
Everyone was overwhelmed by the momentous occasion, sensing that the Tibetan nation was at an important turning point of its history. Could Tibet smoothly walk from theocracy to democracy?
A large majority of the delegates favoured a constitutional system with the Dalai Lama as an honorific Head of State, (many spoke of the British system, though the example of the Queen was not a happy one). He refused.
Though the 'draft' provided the historical background of the previous dual role of the Dalai Lamas; it was decided that in the changed situation, the Dalai Lama should remain ‘Protector and the Symbol of the Tibetan Nation’: “[as] human manifestation of Avaloketeshvara, is the guardian and protector of the Tibetan nation. He is the guide illuminating the path, the supreme leader, the symbol of the Tibetan identity and unity, and the voice of the whole Tibetan people.” In one way, he could fulfill his historical role, without dealing with day-to-day issues.
While many nations, particularly in the Arab world try hard to overthrow by force their unelected leaders through ‘flower revolutions’, here is the example of a leader wanting to quit all his responsibilities and the masses begging him to remain at the helm in one way or another.
The ‘retirement’ has some serious implications.
First, there is undoubtedly a larger political dimension to the Dalai Lama’s retirement; it put the political leadership in Beijing in an awkward position. Beijing has no clue about a democratic process, having only known the dictatorship of a one-party rule since 1949.
Second, it solves the issue of a successor for the Dalai Lama; now constitutionally the political successor will be the elected Kalon Tripa.
The Deputies wanted the Dalai Lama to continue to provide guidance in various forms “in matters of importance to the Tibetan people, including the community and its institutions in exile”. The Dalai Lama did not agree, he knows perfectly well that his ‘advice’ is always considered as an ‘order’ by the Tibetans.
Dr Lobsang Sangay, the elected Prime Minister explained to us: “We were left to amend the Charter with a Preamble and 3 provisions [Article 1] which have been accepted with some dilution or explanations: The Dalai Lama, our most revered leader, will continue to represent the Tibetan people, he has accepted to ‘share his opinions’ with the Cabinet and the Assembly and now the Cabinet will appoint representatives and envoys, who will be allowed to use his name.”
The Dalai Lama will however continue to meet with world leaders and other important individuals and bodies; in international fora, he could continue o speak on behalf of the Tibetan people.
Another issue is the negotiations with Beijing. When we asked Dr. Sangay if he believes that the Chinese who have always said that they will only speak to the Dalai Lama’s Representatives, will now accept to meet Envoys nominated by him, he said: “They should talk both with His Holiness the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Administration. We are for dialogue, for genuine autonomy. The [Chinese] are sometimes too much obsessed with technicalities.”
The Chinese have repeatedly stated that they would only discuss with the Dalai Lama “his own future and that of some of his supporters.”
The Dalai Lama has always countered this argument saying that he is not bothered by his status, but is only interested in the welfare of the 6 million Tibetans in Tibet.
It is perhaps because the situation has not moved forward for the past 30 years and that the future seems rather bleak that the Dalai Lama has decided to withdraw at this point in time.
After one week of suspense and several back and forths between the ‘Palace’ and the Assembly, the Dalai Lama has finally accepted the changes proposed by the Assembly and the amendments have now been ratified.
What an example for the world, a leader giving up his historically bestowed powers on his own, without a bloody revolution or even a flower revolution!

The Kalon Tripa interview

My interview with the new Tibetan Prime Minister (Kalon Tripa) Dr. Lobsang Sangay is posted on Rediff.com. Click here to read.

On March 10, the Dalai Lama dropped a bombshell: he had decided to stop all political activities. In one way, it solved the problem of 'succession' as all the executive powers were now to be concentrated in the elected prime minister.
A few days after the announcement, the ballot box spoke out: Dr Lobsang Sangay, born in India 43 years ago and educated first in India and then at Harvard Law School, was elected as the new Kalon Tripa (prime minster).
Many in the Tibetan community saw Sangay as a Tibetan Obama.
'Change' was the buzz word in Dharamsala, home of the Dalai Lama in Himachal Pradesh. Even the Tibetan charter (constitution) had to be amended to reflect the change: Article 1 of the charter now terms the Dalai Lama as the "human manifestation of Avaloketeshvara, the guardian and protector of the Tibetan nation," but with no political power.
Claude Arpi travelled to Dharamsala to record the newly elected prime minister's views on the election campaign, his objectives, his government's relation with China and the changes he would like to bring about in Tibetan society. Dr Lobsang Sangay candidly answered all the questions put forth to him.

Can you say a few words about yourself; your 'Indian' life and your 'American' life?

Both my parents fled Tibet in 1959 along with His Holiness the Dalai Lama. My father was a monk during the guerilla resistance; he fought some battles, then he came to India.
All his family members were left behind in Lithang in Kham province. From my mother's side, all the family members managed to come to India, with the exception of one, who went back to Tibet to fight the Chinese army; he never returned.
I grew up in a very small Tibetan refugee settlement between Darjeeling and Sonada in West Bengal. From there, I went to the Central Tibetan Schools of Sonada and Darjeeling. Then, I attended school at St Stephen's in Darjeeling and later went to University of Delhi where I obtained degrees in arts and law.
In 1995, I left for the United States as a Fulbright scholar (it was originally for two years, but later I got other scholarships). I pursued MA at Harvard Law School and completed my PhD in 2004.
While I was in Delhi, I was elected as a Tibetan student leader, and later joined the Tibetan Youth Congress as a member of the National Central Committee (CENTREX).
When did you decide to start campaigning for the post of Kalon Tripa?
At first, I did not have plans to run for the post of Kalon Tripa. Till the fall of 2009, I did not attend any special course. I remained in Harvard Law School, with the East Asian legal studies programme, mostly working on China-related programmes.
In early 2009, the Tibetan community started talking about the election of the Kalon Tripa, even a website was created. By fall 2009, I started to take courses in leadership, communication, election campaign and so on.
By spring 2010, it became serious; some national organisations began nominating me. I thought, "OK, why not give it a try". On Radio Free Asia, they had this weekly programme on democracy and the rule of law. I was often asked questions like, 'how to improve our legislative system?'
My answer was, "Candidates should go to the people, candidates should debate amongst themselves; they should share their policies and platforms, they need to be well-informed".
I said this all along. When this platform for the Kalon Tripa elections was offered to me, I thought I should do what I always preached: "Go to the people and debate about policies".
This was really appreciated by the people. Sometimes thousands turned out in monasteries, in schools, refugee settlements, everywhere. It was a first. I never asked for votes, I just said, these are my ideas, "If you don't like them, sorry to have wasted your time".

Continue to read

Cyber attack: an act of war?

The Wall Street Journal reports: "Pentagon Sets Stage for U.S. to Respond to Computer Sabotage With Military Force".
It is not an easy proposal to decide when computer sabotage is serious enough to constitute an act of war. Apparently the Pentagon has now defined some criteria which will be partially released next month.
Still, how to be sure of the origin of the attack? 
What should be the degree of retaliation, even if the notion of 'equivalence' is introduced.
It is true that most of the attacks have been coming from China or appear to be coming from China, does it mean that the US is ready to go to war with China if, for example its power grid is attacked?
Last month, I posted an article on the weakness of the Chinese cyber defense system. Instead of going to war, the Pentagon should launch a massive cyber attack on China which could be a deterrent against future hacking.
Missiles can not solve any problems. Just look at the situation in Libya, after 3 months of bombarding, Gaddafi is going strong. 
If the State Council's servers were down, the Chinese leadership would perhaps start thinking of the consequences of their actions.  

Cyber Combat: Act of War
Pentagon Sets Stage for U.S. to Respond to Computer Sabotage With Military Force
By SIOBHAN GORMAN And JULIAN E. BARNES
WASHINGTON
Wall Street Journal
The Pentagon has concluded that computer sabotage coming from another country can constitute an act of war, a finding that for the first time opens the door for the U.S. to respond using traditional military force.
The Pentagon's first formal cyber strategy, unclassified portions of which are expected to become public next month, represents an early attempt to grapple with a changing world in which a hacker could pose as significant a threat to U.S. nuclear reactors, subways or pipelines as a hostile country's military.
In part, the Pentagon intends its plan as a warning to potential adversaries of the consequences of attacking the U.S. in this way. "If you shut down our power grid, maybe we will put a missile down one of your smokestacks," said a military official.
Recent attacks on the Pentagon's own systems—as well as the sabotaging of Iran's nuclear program via the Stuxnet computer worm—have given new urgency to U.S. efforts to develop a more formalized approach to cyber attacks. A key moment occurred in 2008, when at least one U.S. military computer system was penetrated. This weekend Lockheed Martin, a major military contractor, acknowledged that it had been the victim of an infiltration, while playing down its impact.
The report will also spark a debate over a range of sensitive issues the Pentagon left unaddressed, including whether the U.S. can ever be certain about an attack's origin, and how to define when computer sabotage is serious enough to constitute an act of war. These questions have already been a topic of dispute within the military.
One idea gaining momentum at the Pentagon is the notion of "equivalence." If a cyber attack produces the death, damage, destruction or high-level disruption that a traditional military attack would cause, then it would be a candidate for a "use of force" consideration, which could merit retaliation.

The War on Cyber Attacks
Attacks of varying severity have rattled nations in recent years.
The Pentagon's document runs about 30 pages in its classified version and 12 pages in the unclassified one. It concludes that the Laws of Armed Conflict—derived from various treaties and customs that, over the years, have come to guide the conduct of war and proportionality of response—apply in cyberspace as in traditional warfare, according to three defense officials who have read the document. The document goes on to describe the Defense Department's dependence on information technology and why it must forge partnerships with other nations and private industry to protect infrastructure.
The strategy will also state the importance of synchronizing U.S. cyber-war doctrine with that of its allies, and will set out principles for new security policies. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization took an initial step last year when it decided that, in the event of a cyber attack on an ally, it would convene a group to "consult together" on the attacks, but they wouldn't be required to help each other respond. The group hasn't yet met to confer on a cyber incident.
Pentagon officials believe the most-sophisticated computer attacks require the resources of a government. For instance, the weapons used in a major technological assault, such as taking down a power grid, would likely have been developed with state support, Pentagon officials say.
The move to formalize the Pentagon's thinking was borne of the military's realization the U.S. has been slow to build up defenses against these kinds of attacks, even as civilian and military infrastructure has grown more dependent on the Internet. The military established a new command last year, headed by the director of the National Security Agency, to consolidate military network security and attack efforts.
The Pentagon itself was rattled by the 2008 attack, a breach significant enough that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs briefed then-President George W. Bush. At the time, Pentagon officials said they believed the attack originated in Russia, although didn't say whether they believed the attacks were connected to the government. Russia has denied involvement.
The Rules of Armed Conflict that guide traditional wars are derived from a series of international treaties, such as the Geneva Conventions, as well as practices that the U.S. and other nations consider customary international law. But cyber warfare isn't covered by existing treaties. So military officials say they want to seek a consensus among allies about how to proceed.
"Act of war" is a political phrase, not a legal term, said Charles Dunlap, a retired Air Force Major General and professor at Duke University law school. Gen. Dunlap argues cyber attacks that have a violent effect are the legal equivalent of armed attacks, or what the military calls a "use of force."
"A cyber attack is governed by basically the same rules as any other kind of attack if the effects of it are essentially the same," Gen. Dunlap said Monday. The U.S. would need to show that the cyber weapon used had an effect that was the equivalent of a conventional attack.
James Lewis, a computer-security specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies who has advised the Obama administration, said Pentagon officials are currently figuring out what kind of cyber attack would constitute a use of force. Many military planners believe the trigger for retaliation should be the amount of damage—actual or attempted—caused by the attack.
For instance, if computer sabotage shut down as much commerce as would a naval blockade, it could be considered an act of war that justifies retaliation, Mr. Lewis said. Gauges would include "death, damage, destruction or a high level of disruption" he said.
Culpability, military planners argue in internal Pentagon debates, depends on the degree to which the attack, or the weapons themselves, can be linked to a foreign government. That's a tricky prospect at the best of times.
The brief 2008 war between Russia and Georgia included a cyber attack that disrupted the websites of Georgian government agencies and financial institutions. The damage wasn't permanent but did disrupt communication early in the war.
A subsequent NATO study said it was too hard to apply the laws of armed conflict to that cyber attack because both the perpetrator and impact were unclear. At the time, Georgia blamed its neighbor, Russia, which denied any involvement.
Much also remains unknown about one of the best-known cyber weapons, the Stuxnet computer virus that sabotaged some of Iran's nuclear centrifuges. While some experts suspect it was an Israeli attack, because of coding characteristics, possibly with American assistance, that hasn't been proven. Iran was the location of only 60% of the infections, according to a study by the computer security firm Symantec. Other locations included Indonesia, India, Pakistan and the U.S.
Officials from Israel and the U.S. have declined to comment on the allegations.
Defense officials refuse to discuss potential cyber adversaries, although military and intelligence officials say they have identified previous attacks originating in Russia and China. A 2009 government-sponsored report from the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission said that China's People's Liberation Army has its own computer warriors, the equivalent of the American National Security Agency.
That's why military planners believe the best way to deter major attacks is to hold countries that build cyber weapons responsible for their use. A parallel, outside experts say, is the George W. Bush administration's policy of holding foreign governments accountable for harboring terrorist organizations, a policy that led to the U.S. military campaign to oust the Taliban from power in Afghanistan.

From Nomad to Nobody

This new film by Michael Buckley explores the Chinese policy of forcefully resettling Tibetan nomads in concrete barracks.
The Communist leadership believes that it could also apply the same policy to Inner Mongolia where Mongols have become a tiny minority in their homeland (less than 20% of the population). 
As reported in this article, Inner Mongolia recently witnessed its first known mass protest incident.
Resentment has created such a serious situation that martial law had to be imposed in the region. Like in the case of Tibet or Xinjiang, the authorities in Beijing will blame it on 'terrorist' elements in the ethnic 'nationality' community, but this not solve the problems created by some local Communist satraps (with Beijing's support).
Unless China starts respecting its own Constitution in which the place of the 'nationalities' is clearly defined, situation like the one at Kirti monastery (Gansu province) or in Inner Mongolia are bound to happen. 
Today, the only answer that the regime in Beijing knows is 'clampdown', beat and arrest local people, unfortunately it can only increase resentment, not dissolve it. 

Martial law imposed in protest-hit Inner Mongolia
TibetanReview.net
May30, 2011
China imposed martial law in the nomadic region of northern Inner Mongolia where thousands had staged protests over several days after the death on May 11 of a Mongolian herder who was run over by Chinese coal mine truckers. While Reuters May 29 said the herder, named as Mergen, was a hit-and-run victim, Radio Free Asia online May 26 cited New-York-based Southern Mongolian Human Rights Information Center as saying he died following clashes between Mongolian herders in Abag banner (Chinese: Abagaqi) and Chinese mining company truck drivers.
The government was reported to have ordered a sweeping crackdown, shutting off universities and arresting at least 40 people. In regional capital Hohhot, all schools and universities were reported to be under police guard. All bus services were also reported to have been stopped in the affected banners, the equivalent of counties in Inner Mongolia. Shuluun Huh Banner's main town was reported to be "under complete control of riot police and army”.
It was not clear when the first mass protest by ethnic Mongolians, a rare occurrence, took place. But the one on May 25 was reported to involve more than 2,000 students and herders in Xilinhot city. More protests followed in more areas in the coming days in the Shuluun Huh Banner, or Zheng Lan Qi in Chinese, and West Ujimqin Banner, or Xi Wu Qi in Chinese.
China had said two ethnic Chinese truck drivers had been held over the death of the Mongolian herder whose family had already been compensated. However, the local Mongolian’s grievances ran deeper and their protests demanded action on larger issues. Radio Free Asia online said protesters held banners and posters saying "Defend the Rights of Mongols" and "Defend the Homeland" as they marched towards the government buildings of their respective banners. They were reported to have urged "the Chinese authorities to respect the Mongolian herders' right to their land and right to maintain their traditional way of life.”
As in Tibet, China had begun relocating more than 250,000 nomads from Inner Mongolia's grasslands in recent years, saying the move was necessary to protect the fragile ecosystem of the region. But the policy has been seen by ethnic Mongolians as further marginalization of Mongolian nomadic herders, who are already vastly outnumbered by Chinese immigrant peasants.
Inner Mongolia covers more than a tenth of the land mass of the People’s Republic of China but due to government engineered Chinese immigration over the decades, ethnic Mongolians now make up less than 20 per cent of the roughly 24 million population of what is called the Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region.
Reuters said national-level state media had not reported on the unrest and the government, wary of any signs of instability, had moved to block discussion of the incidents on the Internet, though some pictures and comments had gone through.

Pakistan’s China Pavilion

This article appeared in The Statesman under the title Pakistan’s China pavilion, After the USA’s ‘Package Of Tangible Inducements’ 

May 21,
Kolkatta
Claude Arpi
WHY does Islamabad, Washington’s best ally, so often give sleepless nights to US officials? One can argue that it is a question of reciprocity.
The latest one: the Americans made fools of the Pakistani Army and its Intelligence agencies by dropping silently into the centre of one of their most secured cantonments to kill Osama bin Laden. It has obviously upset Pakistan!
In this case, Islamabad has found the way to take revenge: they have invited another ‘friend’ to the Game, the Chinese. A report from Pakistan suggests that Beijing is interested in studying the remains of the US top-secret Stealth helicopter abandoned during the Abbottabad raid. A Pakistani official even admitted, “We might let them [the Chinese] take a look.”
It conveys the message: “The Chinese are waiting at our door, don’t mess with us, our ‘all-weather friend’ can replace you”.
An article in the Chinese-language Shanghai Evening Post explains that although the US wants the pieces of the chopper back, “Pakistan may invite China to participate in the study. Based on the pictures, aeronautics and military experts believe it is a modified Stealth helicopter.”
The PLA intelligence has probably already received a few pieces of the chopper as a ‘souvenir’ (or a ‘reward’).
After all, Pakistan can’t refuse this to a friend. On 11 May, when Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani opened Pakistan’s second Chinese-made nuclear reactor, he praised the ‘unwavering’ support from its ally at a time when the rest of the world pounced on Pakistan for having hosted the dreaded Saudi terrorist for so long in a comfortable safe house.
Gilani hammered the nail in: “It is yet another illustrious example of Pakistan-China cooperation in the field of nuclear science and technology. The high level of friendship that the two countries enjoy continues to be a source of strength for Pakistan,” the Prime Minster said. This may not help to smoothen out the already strained relations with Washington.
The new 330 MW reactor, built in Chashma (Punjab) should be followed by two other units, also made-in-China, at the same plant.
China’s nuclear ties with Pakistan have always been a source of tension for Washington. First, Pakistan has a very poor track record as far as proliferation is concerned; one remembers the saga of Abdul Qadeer Khan, Pakistan’s top nuclear scientist; and there is always a risk of nuclear weapons falling in the wrong hands.
Though the government in Islamabad maintains that nuclear weapons are safe in Pakistan and that it is impossible for militants or terrorists to get hold of them, Washington does not often trust Islamabad’s utterances (as in the case of the bin Laden operations).
It is not the first time that Washington is nervous. In 2009, soon after President Obama announced that Pakistan’s nuclear materials “will remain out of militant hands”, the US ambassador in Islamabad sent a secret message to Washington. Anne W Patterson was deeply worried. Her concern was a stockpile of highly enriched uranium kept near an aging research nuclear reactor in Pakistan. There was enough material to produce a nuclear bomb.
In her cable, sent on 27 May 2009, Ms Patterson reported that the Pakistani government was dragging its feet on an agreement reached two years earlier wherein Islamabad had agreed that the United States would remove the material. The US Ambassador had been told by a Pakistani official: “If the local media got word of the fuel removal, they certainly would portray it as the United States taking Pakistan’s nuclear weapons”.
   The WikiLeaks cable does not tell us the end of the story. Hopefully the fuel has been removed since then. It, however, remains a fact that the Pakistani nuclear programme recurrently gives ‘sleepless’ nights to successive US Presidents.
Perhaps even more interesting than the WikiLeaks cables is a series of US documents published by the National Security Archives (NSA) of George Washington University on how Pakistan acquired the bomb in the 1970’s.
This period witnessed the military coup by General Zia-ul-Haq who imposed martial law on 5 July 1977. The documents show that though the Carter Administration was deeply upset with the Zia regime, the arrival of the Soviets in Afghanistan at the end of the seventies, made the US officials ‘forget’ that Pakistan had become nuclear. Later, it was too late to stop the nuclear train.
Already in the Seventies, the Pakistani nuclear weapons programme was a source of anxiety for US officials; especially when they discovered AQ Khan’s network. The Carter Administration would have been even more worried if they had known that Khan and his team were spreading nuclear weapons technology to Libya, Iran and North Korea with the help of China, but that is another story.
The entire nuclear process had started after Pakistan’s defeat during the 1971 Bangladesh liberation war. President Bhutto realised that Pakistan would never be able to defeat India in a conventional war. He decided to secretly go in for nuclear weapons. In 1973, Pakistan began negotiations to buy a nuclear reprocessing facility (used for producing plutonium) from a French firm.
In August 1974, US intelligence agencies estimated that Pakistan would not have nuclear weapons before 1980, even with ‘extensive foreign assistance’. But a year later, the CIA predicted that Pakistan could produce a plutonium-fuelled weapon as early as 1978, as long as it had access to a reprocessing source. They, therefore, thought that it was enough to stop the transfer of reprocessing plant to end the process. Unfortunately, the US intelligence agencies made some wrong assumptions.
The US documents also confirm that Zia’s main objective was the consolidation of the nuclear programme initiated by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto who had bragged “we are ready to eat grass” to possess the coveted weapon.
Thanks to Abdul Qadeer Khan, who managed to steal the blueprints for a gas centrifuge uranium enrichment facility, the Pakistani dream became a reality right under the eyes of the Americans who “wanted to maintain good relations with that country, a moderate state in an unstable region”.
Reading these historical documents, one realizes that Secretary of State Cyrus Vance and his colleagues believed that ‘a package of tangible inducements’ would dissuade Pakistan from taking drastic steps. With China remaining Pakistan’s main support to acquire the bomb, even ‘tangible inducements’ were not enough. Though the Carter Administration worked hard on a non-proliferation policy, Pakistan still managed to build its nuclear arsenal. It certainly brought deep frustration to Carter and his team.
Another US document admits that 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”.
One moral of the story is that when a State is desperate to get nuclear technology, it is difficult to stop it, with either sticks or carrots. More than the growing rift between Pakistan and the US, what worries the US officials in Washington is the growing Chinese influence in Islamabad. Whenever there is a problem between the two ‘allies’, Beijing is not far away and always ready to ‘help’.
A piece of a chopper’s tail is a small reward for such support.

Tibet's new PM has large shoes to fill while walking the middle path

My article Tibet's new PM has large shoes to fill while walking the middle path on the new Tibetan Prime Minister was published by DNA sometime ago.

60 years of Tibetan 'liberation': From what? From whom?

My article 60 years of Tibetan 'liberation': From what? From whom? is posted on Rediff.com as slide-show. Click on the title to read.

Communist China and Democracy

Though sad, certain historical ironies tend to make me smile.
On May 23, the People’s Republic of China celebrates the 60th anniversary of the ‘Liberation’ of Tibet. According to Beijing, on that day in 1951, Tibet was ‘liberated peacefully’.
In October 1950, the Second Field Army of Marshal Lui Bosheng and Deng Xiaoping, his Political Commissar, entered Eastern Tibet and captured the city of Chamdo. That was a forced ‘liberation’.
On May 23 1951 in Beijing, a Tibetan delegation had no choice but to sign an “Agreement on Measures for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet”; the Tibetans later said that they had to affix ‘under duress’ fake seals prepared for the occasion by the Communists. Even the China-enamoured Indian Prime Minister wondered in the Lok Sabha, ‘liberation from what, from whom, it is not clear?’
And now the irony: on the day Beijing celebrates the strange ‘liberation’ of Tibet, the Tibetan community in exile will undergo its largest ‘democratic’ experiment. A National General Meeting of a few hundred exiled Tibetans is held in Dharamsala, the seat of the Dalai Lama in Himachal Pradesh.
On May 21, the Tibetan website Payul.com announced: "418 Tibetans from various parts of the world gathered at the Tibetan Children Village school auditorium for the second Tibetan General Body Meeting which had been called by the Tibetan Parliament in exile after the Tibetan leader Dalai Lama announced his decision on March 10 this year to devolve his 'political authority' to an elected leadership."
This enlarged consultative group comprises of ‘senior’ Tibetans, serving and former officials and eminent members of the civil society.The meeting will ‘democratically’ discuss a draft for amending the Tibetan ‘constitution’ (known as ‘Charter’) which will provide the legal framework for the Dalai Lama’s proposed retirement.
The Meeting is also supposed to advise Dr Lobsang Sangay, the newly elected Prime Minister. Sangay born 43 years ago in India and educated at Harvard Law School will be Kalon Tripa (or Prime Minister of Tibet’s government-in-exile) for the next 5 years.
Already one month before the results were announced, an editorial of The People’s Daily assailed Sangay: “In 1992, Lobsang Sangay rose to fame and became the youngest leading member of Tibetan Youth Congress, a terrorist organization in nature. …The crimes made the organization look like a kin member of Al-Qaida, Chechnyan armed terrorists and ‘East Turkistan’ separatists.”
The fact is that the democratic process started by the Dalai Lama (which culminated in his retirement) exasperates Beijing. The very word ‘democracy’ makes the Communist leadership see red.
In a recent interview, Zhu Weiqun, Executive Vice Minister of the United Front Work Department of the CPC Central Committee and interlocutor of the Dalai Lama’s Envoys asserted: “The Peaceful Liberation of Tibet not only marked the crash of the attempt of the imperialism and a minority of Tibetan reactionary upper class to separate Tibet from the whole country, but also realized the complete liberation and reunification of the whole China.”
Unfortunately for Mr. Zhu, 60 years later, Tibet is not peaceful.
On 16 March 2011, the self-immolation of Phuntsok, a Tibetan monk belonging to Ngaba Kirti Monastery in Sichuan province triggered violent protests by several thousand monks in Eastern Tibet.
According to the Tibetan Center for Human Rights and Democracy: “Chinese security forces have cordoned the monastery and additional contingents of armed security forces (estimated to be around 800) have been brought in on 9 April 2011 to reinforce security clampdown in Ngaba County. The movement of the monks is totally restricted with no one being allowed to go in or come out of the monastery.”
Since then, more depressing news has emerged: the presence of Chinese security forces in all Tibetan areas of Sichuan, Gansu and Yunnan has increased; several monks have been arrested and tortured while Communist cadres roam around villages ‘talking about harmony and patriotism’.
Interestingly, modern Chinese historians concur to say that the Tibet issue has been the factor which provoked the 1962 Sino-Indian conflict in NEFA and Ladakh. After having ‘liberated’ Tibet in 1950, Mao and his colleagues could not swallow the fact that, in March 1959, Tibetan masses revolted against the Chinese occupiers and the India gave refuge to the Dalai Lama.
In November 1962, in a long diatribe, The People’s Daily accused Nehru of having “instigated and backed up the treason and rebellion of the reactionary clique of the upper social strata in the Tibet region”. The fact that the so-called ‘upper strata’ was mainly composed on ‘common men’ was hard to digest for the Communist Party.
China has now decided to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the ‘Liberation’ of Tibet. Sixty years, a full circle in the Tibetan (and Chinese) calendar makes the commemoration highly symbolic.
The Communist regime however keeps its aversion for democracy; one of their arguments is that democracy is an American invention.
The Communist publication Red Flag Manuscript recently analyzed what it terms ‘the chaos of democracy’ in most Asian countries: “The expansion of democracy that the US promotes has not brought about an economic boom or social development in these regions. On the contrary, it has led multiple countries or regions to fall into political instability and even chaos. In some areas and countries, with the progress of so-called democratization, ‘chaotic symptoms’ have developed such as ethnic conflict, splitting the nation, social turmoil, massive corruption, and an unstable political situation.”
For Beijing, these countries have blindly used Western democratic values without taking into consideration the local social and cultural environment.
Beijing is also unhappy with the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In a recent interview, she dared to make a parallel between the recent turmoil in the Arab world and China's tough response to its opponents (a ‘fool's errand’, Beijing was attempting to stop the course of history, she said).
The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu reacted strongly. She accused Clinton of using inappropriate language: the US had no business “to put China on a par with countries in Western Asia and North Africa."
Already on April 8, after the release by the US State Department's 2010 Annual Human Rights Report, Beijing had asked Washington to stop being a self-styled 'human rights preacher'; the Chinese leadership then went on to criticize the US human rights record.
Is it not a good tactical move to defame an opponent on his Achilles' heel?
Huanqiu, a publication in Chinese language answered the Western countries' criticism of Beijing's arrest of artist Ai Weiwei: “The interference in Ai Weiwei’s case is a total negation of China’s law”. Huanqiu described the Law in China as “the skeleton of this country”.
The harsh treatment inflicted on those who do not support the Communist Party (such Weiwei or Lui Xiabao, the Nobel laureate) is a sign that the ‘harmonious society’ often mentioned by President Hu is still far away in Communist China, which prefers to keep quiet on the ‘Indian experiment’.
We all witnessed the voters’ enthusiasm during the recent Legislative Assembly’s elections. It demonstrated once again that the people of India are not scornful of ‘democracy’. And the astounding results, particularly in West Bengal and Tamil Nadu vindicated the vibrant ‘system’; ultimately is it not by ‘democratically’ getting rid of the villains (at least temporarily) that one can hope to create a more harmonious and contented society?

Sixty Years Ago

Sixty year years, a Tibetan delegation led by Ngabo Ngawang Jigme was forced to sign a Seventeen-Point Agreement in Beijing.
I have already written about the conditions under which the Agreement was signed. 
Read about it in my previous postings.
I am posting today an extract from the biography of the Dalai Lama (Freedom in Exile). He was in Dromo in Chumbi valley near the Indian border (Sikkim). 
He vividly recalls these dramatic events.
Article One says: "The Tibetan people shall unite and drive out imperialist aggressive forces from Tibet; the Tibetan people shall return to the big family of the Motherland-the People's Republic of China".
It was a capitulation for the Tibetans. 
The Chinese call it 'liberation'. 
The recent events of Kirti monastery demonstrate that 60 years later the Tibetans have not capitulated.

(From Freedom in Exile)
From my rooms in the monastery, I could look down towards the river where farmers came to graze their sheep, yaks and dzomos. And I could watch, enviously, the groups of picnickers that came almost daily to build a little fire and cook down by the water's edge. I was so enchanted with all that I saw that I felt brave enough to ask Ling Rinpoche for some time off. He must have felt the same way as, to my surprise, he granted me a holiday. I could not remember being happier as I spent several days roaming around the area. On one of my excursions I visited a Bon monastery. My only sadness was that I knew that troubled times lay ahead. It could not be long now before we heard from Ngabo in Peking. I half expected bad news, but nothing could have prepared me for the shock when it came.
At the monastery I had an old Bush radio receiver which ran off a six-volt battery. Every evening, I would listen to the Tibetan language broadcasts of Radio Peking. Sometimes I did so with one or other official, but often I listened alone. The majority of the broadcasts were taken up with propaganda about the 'Glorious Motherland', but I must say that I was very impressed with much of what I heard. There was constant talk of industrial progress and of the equality of all China's citizens. This seemed like the perfect combination of material and spiritual progress. However, one evening, as I sat alone, there was a very different sort of programme. A harsh, crackling voice announced that a Seventeen Point 'Agreement' for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet had that day been signed by representatives of the Government of the People's Republic of China and what they called the 'Local Government' of Tibet.
I could not believe my ears. I wanted to rush out and call everybody in, but I sat transfixed. The speaker described how 'over the last hundred years or more' aggressive imperialist forces had penetrated into Tibet and 'carried out all kinds of deceptions and provocations'. It added that 'under such conditions, the Tibetan nationality and people were plunged into the depths of enslavement and suffering'. I felt physically ill as I listened to this unbelievable mixture of lies and fanciful clichés.
But there was worse to come.
Clause One of the 'Agreement' stated that 'The Tibetan people shall unite and drive out imperialist aggressive forces from Tibet. The Tibetan people all return to the big family of the Motherland - the People's Republic of China.'
What could it mean? The last foreign army to have been stationed on Tibetan soil was the Manchu army in 1912.
As far as I was aware (and now know), there was no more than a handful of Europeans in Tibet at that time. And the idea of Tibet 'returning to the Motherland' was shameless invention. Tibet had never been part of China. In fact, as I have mentioned already, Tibet has ancient claims to large parts of China. On top of which, our respective peoples are ethnically and racially distinct. We do not speak the same language, nor is our script anything like the Chinese script. As the International Commission of Jurists stated subsequently in their report:
'Tibet' s position on the expulsion of the Chinese in 1912 can fairly be described as one of de facto independence ...it is therefore submitted that the events of 19 II - 12 mark the re-emergence of Tibet as a fully sovereign state, independent in fact and in law of Chinese control.'
What was most alarming, however, was that Ngabo had not been empowered to sign anything on my behalf, only to negotiate. I had kept the seals of state with me at Dromo to ensure that he could not. So he must have been coerced. But it was several more months before I heard the whole story. In the meantime, all we had to go on was the radio broadcast (repeated several times), together with a number of self-congratulatory sermons about the joys of Communism, the glory of Chairman Mao, the wonders of the People's Republic of China and all the good things that the Tibetan people could look forward to now that our destinies were united. It was quite silly.
The details of the Seventeen-Point 'Agreement' were chilling all the same.
Clause Two announced that the 'Local Government' of Tibet would 'actively assist the People's Liberation Army to enter Tibet and consolidate the national defence'. This meant, so far as l could judge, that our farces were expected to surrender at once.
Clause Eight continued the theme by saying that the Tibetan army was to be absorbed into the Chinese army - as if such a thing were possible. Then in Clause Fourteen we learned that, from now on, Tibet was to be deprived of all authority aver the conduct of her external affairs. Interspersed with these more telling clauses were others assuring Tibet of religious freedom and protecting my position and the present political system. But far all these platitudes one thing was clear: from now on, the Land of Snows answered to the People’s Republic of China.
As the unhappy reality of our position began to sink in, several people, notably Taktser Rinpoche in a long letter from Calcutta, urged me to leave far India at once. They argued that the only hope for Tibet lay in finding allies to help us fight the Chinese. When l reminded them that our missions to India, Nepal, Great Britain and the United States had already been turned back, they countered that once these countries realised the gravity of the situation, they would be sure to after their support. They painted out that the United States was implacably opposed to Communist expansionism and was already fighting a war in Korea far that very reason. l could see the logic of their arguments, but somehow felt the fact that America was already engaged in fighting an one front lessened the likelihood of her wanting to open up a second.
A few days later, a long telegram arrived from the delegation in Peking. It did not say very much beyond repeating what we had already heard on the radio. Obviously Ngabo was being prevented from telling the truth. Recently, same members of the delegation have related in their memoirs the full story of how they were forced to sign the 'Agreement' under duress and use counterfeit seals of the Tibetan state. But from Ngabo's telegram I could only guess at what had happened. However, he did say that the new Governor-General of Tibet, General Chiang Chin-wu [Zhang Jingwu], was en route to Dromo via India. We should expect him shortly.

China has to be careful

My article on the Chinese reaction to bin Laden's death appeared in today's The New Indian Express.


China has to be careful
The New Indian Express
21 May 2011
Operation Geronimo created a geopolitics tsunami not only in South Asia, but in the entire world. Was Osama bin Laden’s elimination the end of terrorism? His death was commented, analysed and the consequences examined all over the planet. On the eastern horizon, the Chinese leadership was not indifferent to Osama’s ‘elimination’ and more particularly, to the way the operation was conducted. Beijing hailed Osama’s death as a positive step, while keeping it low key. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu said: “We believe his death is a milestone and a positive development of the international anti-terrorism effort. Terrorism is the world public enemy and China has also fallen victim to it.” She was probably hinting at the 2009 Xinjiang events.
The Global Times commented that “it should have been much easier”, considering that the US and its allies are so powerful. The Communist newspaper believed that “lack of justice in Washington’s policies toward the Middle East and neighbouring regions”, was one of the reasons for the long delay in catching bin Laden. A day after the Operation, Zhang Xin, the director of the military channel at China Central Television wrote on Sina.com (China’s most active microblogging site): “(bin Laden) single-handedly confronted the world’s sole superpower, the US… He is the greatest national hero in the history of the Arab world.”
Some comments were more extreme: “Comrade bin Laden... dedicated his youth and life to the greatest undertaking in this world—struggle against American imperialism. His sacrifice will only inspire countless people who are against world hegemony to continue forth!” It has to be noted that this type of remark is not censored by Beijing’s Great Firewall; the Communist leadership is probably not unhappy to send indirect messages to Washington. Many Chinese citizens also celebrated bin Laden’s death on microblogging sites such as Sina Wibo. They believed that he was responsible for the deaths of Han people in Xinjiang.
On May 7, an article in China Review News predicted that China will be the next target of US anti-terrorism ‘war’. It argued that before 9/11, President Bush viewed China as the main strategic rival and then when “Osama bin Laden gave a vicious blow to the US, Bush became a different person and turned to cooperate with China”. The conclusion was “9/11 changed the foundations of Sino-US relations and gave China a 10-year golden opportunity to regain strength.”
Though it was not officially stated, one factor has deeply disturbed Beijing: the US commandos intervention in a foreign country without the permission, or the knowledge, of the country. China fears that one day a similar intervention (overt or covert) could occur there. What if World Power No. 1 or the ‘world community’ were to decide, like in the case of Libya, that China does not behave properly with its people (in Tibet and Xinjiang for example), can they intervene?
True, China is larger than Libya, but this explains Jiang’s reaction to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s comparison between the recent turmoil in the Arab world and China’s tough response to its opponents. Jiang accused Clinton of using inappropriate language: US had no business “to put China on par with countries in western Asia and north Africa”. Beijing has always taken refuge behind the Panchsheel declaration which asserted “mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, mutual non-aggression and non-interference in each other’s internal affairs”.
In the immediate future, the quarrel between Washington and Islamabad leaves some place for Beijing to maneuver and reinforce its presence in the AfPak region (let us not forget that Afghanistan is extremely rich in coveted minerals). Pakistan Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani’s four-day visit to Beijing from May 18 should be seen in this context. Stratfor strategic website affirms: “Shortly after the US raid that killed Osama bin Laden and violated Pakistani sovereignty, (the visit) is intended to send Washington a message that Islamabad has other patrons it can turn to for help.” However, to replace the US by China is not an easy proposition: “Pakistan will find its leverage over Washington dramatically reduced at a time when its dependence on China has grown, which will lead to tensions in that relationship as well.” Beijing is in a dilemma: sending army personnel to PoK and discreetly supporting some terrorist groups may only help China’s interests in the region in a short term.
Osama’s death will, however, not change the terrorist scenario in Pakistan. If Beijing decides to use the LeT or JeM to destabilise India, it may not be easy to ‘manage’ these groups in a way that their actions do not spill over into Uyghur-inhabited areas which witnessed ethnic clashes in July 2009. Ultimately, it could be to Beijing’s disadvantage, though in 2009 the CCP signed a formal agreement with the Jamaat-i-Islami in which Pakistan’s main Islamic party agreed ‘not to become involved with Uyghur Muslims of Xinjiang’. The Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal has a similar understanding.
For Beijing, the real dilemma is that if it wants to be a responsible ‘world power’, it needs to be careful while supporting an unreliable ‘all-weather friend’; it’s a risky game which may not bring stability in the region. Is it Beijing interest? Probably not.

Large Dams, large problems

It is probably the first time that the State Council (the Chinese Cabinet) acknowledges serious problems for the Three Gorges Dam. "Urgent problems must be resolved regarding the smooth relocation of residents, ecological protection, and geological disaster prevention", affirms the Statement of the Council chaired by Premier Wen Jiabao. 
This article of Reuters quotes Dai Qing, an environmental activist who said the damage caused by the dam in some cases is irreversible.
In the post Fukushima era, one can expect that all governments will honestly study the geology around these mega plants: "The most serious threat is that of geological disasters. Now that the dam is in place, no amount of money can fix the problem. It fundamentally cannot be resolved," said Dai.
Will this trigger new researches into the most seismic region of the planet: the Tibetan plateau? 
One can hope so. The construction of myriads of dams on the Tibetan rivers should take into account this issue which cannot solved once the dams are built. 

China acknowledges downside to Three Gorges dam
Reuters, Wed May 18, 2011
Michael Martina
BEIJING May 18 (Reuters) - China's landmark Three Gorges Dam project provides benefits to the Chinese people, but has created a myriad of urgent problems from the relocation of more than a million residents to risks of geological disasters, the Chinese government said on Thursday.
The statement from China's State Council, or cabinet, marked a rare acknowledgment of the issues that have shadowed the world's largest dam, an engineering feat designed to tame the Yangtze River that snakes from the Tibetan plateau to Shanghai.
"At the same time that the Three Gorges project provides huge comprehensive benefits, urgent problems must be resolved regarding the smooth relocation of residents, ecological protection, and geological disaster prevention," the statement said, which appeared on the government's website (www.gov.cn).
Premier Wen Jiabao presided over the meeting that produced the statement, which also said problems existed for down-river transport, irrigation and water supplies.
Problems emerged at various stages of project planning and construction but could not be solved immediately, and some arose because of "increased demands brought on by economic and social development", the statement said.
The government said it would continue to address the problems caused by the dam, and vowed to set-up disaster alert systems and increased funding for environmental protection.
Enormously expensive and disruptive, the dam has cost over 254 billion yuan ($37.47 billion) and forced the relocation of 1.3 million people to make way for the reservoir. [ID:nTOE66M01Q]
Towns, fields and historical and archaeological sites have been submerged, just as pollution and geological threats have risen around the slopes around the 660-km (410-mile) reservoir.
Last year, China's media began fretting about whether the dam could meet one if its long-term objectives of flood control and officials have since been toning down claims of its flood-taming abilities.
Dai Qing, an environmental activist who has opposed the Three Gorges project said the damage caused by the dam is in some cases irreversible, and in other cases would require vast sums of money to resolve.
"The most serious threat is that of geological disasters. Now that the dam is in place, no amount of money can fix the problem. It fundamentally cannot be resolved," she said.
Dai said that Wen and President Hu Jintao, trained in geological and hydraulic engineering respectively, did not appear at a celebration ceremony for the opening of the dam because as industry insiders they were aware of the risks of the project.
"There is no question that the problems with the dam are extremely serious, but this statement is likely just an attempt to shirk responsibility," she said. (Editing by Alex Richardson)

US won’t give up on Pakistan

My article on Pakistan, US won’t give up on Pakistan appears in the Edit Page of The Pioneer today.

For America, Pakistan is a vassal state which is paid to toe its line. Given Pakistan’s strategic location, the US will never abandon its ‘ally’.

Click on the title to read.

The Singapore Model and the Party

In this article, Willy Lam quotes Chen Kuiyuan, the President of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences  as saying "the nature of the party and state will be changed if Marxism were to degenerate into 'democratic socialism' or 'new liberalism'."
Chen was earlier Party boss in Tibet. He took over from Hu Jintao in 2002 and remained in Lhasa for 8 long (long for the Tibetans).
Last year, the Dalai Lama mentioned the Chen's era in Tibet: 

More than 10 years ago, when Chen Kuiyuan was Party Secretary in Tibet, at a Party meeting, he mentioned that the ultimate threat to China is the Buddhist faith of the Tibetans.
…As mentioned earlier, officially, there is a lot of restrictions about Tibetan studies. When Chen Kuiyuan was there, whatever had a religious meaning was removed [from the curriculum]. Then when Jiang Zemin came, new restrictions [were put in place]. Before Party officials could have [in their house] an altar with some Buddha statues; they usually had an excuse like, “my old mother likes this statues”; although they are supposed to be genuine Communists, non-believers. When Jiang Zemin became Chairman, it was not possible anymore. In the meantime, some very high Chinese Party officials, including from the PLA had my picture on their mobile, the Demon’s picture! [Zhang Qingli had called the Dalai Lama 'a wolf in monk's robes']

Willy Lam rightly says that "political insiders in Beijing say the just-ended general elections [in Singapore] have convinced Beijing that even a slight liberalization of the political system could translate into the empowerment of the nation's disparate power blocs."
This explains the nervousness of the regime in Beijing and the harsh treatment of so-called dissidents as well as minorities like the Tibetans and Uyghurs.

Beijing has second thoughts about 'Singapore model after island republic's watershed elections
East-Asia-Intel.com
INSIDE CHINA
Willy Lam
May 11, 2011
It was nothing less than a stunning triumph of people power.
Given the ruling Singapore People's Action Party's (PAP) near-total domination of the island republic's politics since the 1960s, a motley group of poorly funded opposition parties garnered fully 40 percent of the votes during last weekend's general elections.
Although the PAP managed to win 81 out of the 87 seats in parliament, the party's share of the ballots fell from 75 percent during the 2006 polls to a mere 60 percent.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien-loong, center, joins hands with some of his candidates as they celebrate victory in the general election in Singapore. AFP/Mohd Fyrol
Foreign Minister George Yeo, one of the most senior members of Prime Minister Lee Hsien-loong's cabinet, had to leave politics because he lost his seat to the candidate fielded by the unheralded Worker's Party, which has emerged as the country's virtual opposition party.
Despite Singapore's small size and population, the results of its general elections have a significant impact on political developments in China. For decades, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has been a big fan of the so-called Singapore Model, a reference to the coexistence of a market economy with stern one-party rule.
Each year, Chinese authorities send a few thousand mid- to senior-ranking civil servants to learn from the Singapore experience in areas ranging from public housing to governmental public relations.
The apparent viability of the Singapore approach has also furnished Beijing with a ready answer to Western critics — and reformist intellectuals at home — who want the CCP has to adopt universal values such as multi-party politics and freedom of the media.
The relative relaxation of political control in Singapore — which seemed to have made possible the growth of opposition parties — was a conscious decision by the PAP administration to gradually adapt to fast-shifting changes in political values especially among the young.
As Prime Minister Lee said the day after the polls, the PAP recognized that many voters want the authorities to "adopt a different style and approach to government"; the latter also "desire to see more opposition voices in Parliament to check the PAP government."
The CCP leadership has been reticent with reactions to the sea-change in Singapore politics. Yet political insiders in Beijing say the just-ended general elections have convinced Beijing that even a slight liberalization of the political system could translate into the empowerment of the nation's disparate power blocs. They range from human-rights lawyers and activist NGOs to farmers who want to form political organizations to lobby for higher produce prices and to prevent their land from being grabbed by greedy developers.
Beijing also sees parallels between the "color revolution" sweeping North Africa and the Middle East and the display of people power in Singapore.
An article in the China Daily said: "It is noteworthy that social networking vehicles such as Facebook and Twitter, which played an important role in the turmoil in North Africa, have been widely used by opposition parties in Singapore."
It is therefore likely that the arrest and harassment of dissidents such as Ai Weiwei — who could one day become potent underground opposition leaders — would be exacerbated in the near future.
Earlier this month, the government set up a new department, the State Internet Information Office, to coordinate various State Council units that are responsible for policing the information superhighways. Moreover, crypto-Maoist cadres have increased their opposition to adopting "Western political norms." For example, President of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences Chen Kuiyuan last week reiterated that "the nature of the party and state will be changed" if Marxism were to degenerate into "democratic socialism" or "new liberalism."
Chen also made an impassioned plea to stop the U.S. from further infiltrating and subverting China's political order.