Desicritics Category: Politics: China

What I Learned in China

smallsquirrel — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:09:26 EDT

Watching the opening ceremonies of the Olympics in Beijing brought back a lot of memories for me. Long ago, in what seems like another lifetime, I was once engaged to a Chinese man. All those endless rows of Chinese men beating their drums in perfect synchronization, tireless, faces showing what seemed like rehearsed emotion, reminded me of my strange adventures with that culture.

I met this man, we'll call him Zhong, in graduate school. We were peers. We dated and eventually planned to marry. During our relationship I tried very hard to understand his culture. He was from Beijing. Both parents were very successful. What I knew about China then I could fit in a single paragraph.

We eventually traveled to China so I could meet his family. I remember once Zhong had stringently told me that foot binding was a myth. It was "made up by the stupid Americans to shame China." So imagine my shock when his aunty answered the door to the family home tottering on teensy nubs. I learned later from a family friend with a penchant for chatter that she had been married off as a young girl to a successful Army man. As a symbol of his wealth, so that she would be forever reliant on servants, her feet were broken after the marriage, folded over on themselves and bound tightly in cloth. Not two months after they were wed, the aunty's husband was killed and she was shipped back to her family... crippled. When I tried to ask Zhong about the aunt, he ignored me. When I persisted, he wheeled around and hissed at me that we would never speak of it again.

This was my baptism into China.

China is an amazing place, full of beauty and preternatural grace. Walking through the streets of Beijing I felt as if I was in a movie. But just under the surface something was lurking. It made me uneasy. Now this was thirteen years ago, and I am sure that some things have changed. But I cannot imagine that the strict structure that girds that culture has shifted much at all.

I noticed that everything in China seemed to have a purpose. Nothing was random. No one said anything in an offhand manner. Words were measured. Even emotions seemed calculated. I started to be able to place a finger on what was causing the nagging doubts I had been feeling about my engagement. I wondered, also, when I would be given the script so I could at least play my part competently. It never came.

I did come to learn that everything in China revolves around appearances. I finally understood that I would need to ask Zhong to brief me on how to act before every meeting with a family friend or relative. The instructions would go something like: "Wear something conservative. Mention your Master's degree but only after he mentions his PhD, so he knows so are inferior to him. And make sure you look down when you talk to him. Also tell him that you like to garden and other simplistic tasks." Um, I hate gardening. No matter? Oh right, I have to create an image.

At one point we had to go visit an old friend of Zhong's father. I found out on the way there that he was a former ambassador. He would be serving us a certain kind of tea, which I despise, but I was to drink it. I was to drink two cups, actually, and praise it. I was to say the bare minimum, and I was to answer all the ambassador's questions in a deferential manner. Under no circumstances should I talk plainly with the man, and I should not mention my degree in Political Science. My hands should remain folded in my lap.

We got to the ambassador's house, and it all went wrong from the start. I am a terrible liar, and so when the ambassador asked me what my undergraduate degree was, in I stumbled. As a result he came to know I was a student of politics. Even though he seemed very friendly and eager for honest discussion, I tried to keep my views very benign. Then I excused myself to use the restroom, as I had begun to feel quite sick.

As soon as I was done spilling my guts into the toilet and tried to gracefully recover, I realized that the toilet would not flush. I was horrified. I stood in silent panic for what seemed like eons. I tried it again, begging it "please please please flush, dammit!" but nothing was happening. Finally I peeped my head out the door and whispered for Zhong. He could not hear me. But the ambassador saw me, and came to my aid.

"Oh!" he said jovially "the flush is broken, you must do this..." and began to fill a bucket with water. Zhong glared at me as if I had done this all purposefully. I stood by in horror as the ambassador worked to flush my vomit down the toilet, all with the same demeanor as he had when we had earlier been discussing the former Soviet Union.

In the taxi on the way home the only words that were spoken to me were: "Do you have any idea how much you have shamed me? My family? I cannot look at you. Do not speak. I asked you very simple things and you cannot even do that much."

Later I did not even bother to argue when his parents insisted that the whole "Tienanmen Square fiasco" was mostly invented by the American media. Interesting view, considering that the family's apartment was close enough to the Square that they would have heard the whole "misunderstanding" clearly. They actually would have been stuck inside because of police barricades in that whole area. Never mind that we all saw it live on TV. But we never spoke of that again, either.

The list of things I was never to speak of grew to epic proportions that month. Human rights, alternate sexuality, my views on democracy, my views on anything, really, except scholarly insights into neutral topics like linguistics. I was not even allowed to have an opinion on cooking, since each time I ventured into the kitchen I made terrible blunders. For example, once when chopping vegetables to help with the evening meal, I was met with strange sideways glances from Zhong's mother. When I was done, I noticed that she shooed me out, and threw the carrots away. When I asked Zhong what had happened he informed me that "everyone knows that the carrots for that chicken dish must be julienned. You made slices. And they were uneven."

When we returned home I broke the engagement. It was better for everyone. I simply do not know how to beat my drum exactly in rhythm with 2007 other people.

Interview: Michael Levin - The Next Great Clash

Desh — Mon, 5 May 2008 09:38:50 EDT

I very rarely find a book that I cannot keep down, specially when it comes to politics. The Next Great Clash: China and Russia vs. The United States by Michael Levin is a revelation. Not many analysts really do serious research before writing. Levin is different. He is a serious analyst who has had long stints in Soviet Union/Russia and China and he is currently Executive-in-Residence at the Thunderbird School of Global Management.

The introduction to the book starts in the most thoughtful manner. It is so gripping that you start believing in the power of book introductions once again - an art that had long vanished! He discusses his tough childhood and fight with disease as well as his struggle to learn about Russia and his success after some aimless times.

I love Levin's expression as it is profound, although it talks of some mundane things like global politics. Like he says:

"Reading is the collecting of intellectual income, writing is the spreading of it."

He uses a lot of research and the models of other researchers to test his conclusions that are based on his experience and knowledge.

Overall, a great book to read! Here is my interview with Michael Levin, the author.

1. You have talked of "One Radical Imbalance (American Debt) sustains another (Asian Surplus)". Just as the "rich" in the US are betting, foolishly, on a never ending stream of debt; aren't the Chinese, again foolishly, betting on unending stream of export wealth? And while talking of the aging US (and Western) population, we forget the same trend for China as well. So two questions:

(a) Is this a game of "who blinks first?" between the US and China and - in that sense - a repeat of the Star Wars tactic to destroy Soviet Union under its own weight?
(b) Is the Chinese "surplus" a notional surplus since it's invested in an instrument that it can best see ride down as the clash with the US increases?

LEVIN: Two things to keep in mind: if there is an economic break between the US and China, China has an ace in the hole: it can divert its attention to satisfying the demand of its domestic consumers as a replacement for export-led growth. The US seems to be at a disadvantage - it does not have an ace in the hole.

Second: You are right - both countries face demographic imbalances that will pose challenges in the future. It seems that America's advantage is its ability to absorb immigrants - recent protectionist sentiments aside. China also has some advantages: its social structure dictates that children take care of parents; it is a private, family matter - so the state is not, thus far, burdened with pension plans.

Imagine the additional wealth that China will have at its disposal as it implements pension schemes.

2. For the clash to tangibly occur as a military confrontation, a complete decoupling between China and US economies needs to occur. What will be that mechanism? Is it possible for either to voluntarily decouple from each other?

If there is outright war, the decoupling will be a byproduct. The whole global economy will go haywire.

But China is developing asymmetric capabilities that exploit US weaknesses. If China is able to prevent the US from protecting Taiwan during a military confrontation - it has won.

By the way - I would like to emphasize: I hope I am all wrong about the next great clash. As you see though, the evidence is quite compelling.

3. Like you said very well, Europe learnt to use the "Human Rights Imperialism" with telling effect. It is very true that all the major powers use a Utopian ideal to create surrogates and followers. Again, as you have very rightly said - the US has considerably weakened two major alliances (UN and NATO) in recent years (probably the worst foreign affairs folly of the last 8 years despite Iraq). So, the US has lost that romantic "Moral Imperialistic Ideal" that inspired other people in its "mission". China, on the other hand, has embraced capitalism and has also weakened its position in its strongest "base" - the Communists and Marxists! Predictably, China has also lost its "Moral Imperialistic Ideal". How will these two powers gather vassals and followers?

Not really. The Chinese have demonstrated that they are successful communists - unlike their Soviet brethren. The Beijing consensus of economic development seems to have more adherents than the current Washington consensus. And the Chinese have very skillfully honed their image (although the recent disturbances in Tibet have upset China's "charm offensive") in the Muslim world, in Africa, and in Latin America.

4. India's "fascination" for the USSR and Russia is mainly because of a consistent and uninterrupted arms flow as opposed to wavering US positions. In the last one and a half decades, India has sent more professional immigrants to the US than all the other countries put together (every year, Indians get 40-50% of all H1B visas). That creates an intellectual ripple effect over two generations that moves out to influence minds as opposed to lobbyists. At the same time, with the highest percentage of younger population in the major economies, English education, and an education system that is privately owned so it can adjust to the demand rapidly, India is positioned to become the provider of world's management and executive talent over the next few years. How does that change the dynamics of the world's economies in the coming centuries? (PS: Rajat Gupta, the CEO of McKinsey, for example was instrumental in opening a world class business school in India - ISB - and also has expanded McKinsey's presence in India. Same goes for the PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi).

You know way more about India than I ever will.

5. Does India's business elite have a great deal of influence within the corridors of political power, or are they simply one more lobby to contend with? It seems that India's leaders rise through political parties/families - they do not come from business circles. Also, the Indian business community in Russia is highly organized and very wealthy. I would imagine that they are very involved with the Congress party, whereas Indian business elites in the U.S. might identify more with the BJP. What do you think?

Undoubtedly India has a great competitive advantage in its English-language capability - but the Chinese are very determined and hard-working. And they seem to be much better organized politically and so could easily launch a national English-language campaign (Incidentally, there is a fascinating article about this in the most recent New Yorker).

6. Despite its earlier start and higher percentage rise in GDP over last 3 decades, China has less than half the number of billionaires (official wealth counted) than India. Does that tell a tale? Is China's economy a government-sponsored musical chairs of using money where it sees the best returns and forcing its decisions into enterprise-led initiatives? With rising paper surpluses and a challenge from the US and a private-government combine of Indian economy* apart from a slowly awaking Japanese military power, does the Chinese economy appear to you as a "House of Cards"?

(PS: the Kazakhastan deal for oil was greatly influenced by the Lakshmi Mittal - who owns large steel plants in that country and has a JV with ONGC - in India's favor against the Chinese bids.)

China's economy does have many weak points - chief amongst them, its high percentage of non-performing bank loans (which you point out elsewhere). But China also has many strengths that are not captured by statistics and economic data - such as its ability to mobilize the population and a fervent belief that their time has come. The Chinese are also used to deprivation and sacrifice - something that most westerners are not familiar with.

Regarding the number of billionaires - some thoughts: Do these statistics take into account the number of overseas Chinese who are billionaires?

Also, in China, political connections are more important than wealth (although that may start to change). It would seem that the massive levels of corruption also distort the wealth statistics.

In a sense, all of the members of the central committee (approximately 300) are billionaires of power. And they are not wanting for material comforts.

7. In World War II, the US was an Aaly of Western Europe for the most part. It did not START any war until the end, which many believe it ended in an immoral way. Since then, there have been very few, if any, wars which the US has started and won. Does the US have the ability to attract allies that can forge its position? China has created its vassal states like Pakistan and North Korea to fight its wars that it does not want to fight itself. It has chosen to use the poverty of these vassal states while arming them and providing them with a sense of self-esteem in the absence of actual wealth (a policy very fruitfully used by the British with Indian kings during colonial rule) to create a vast strong set of "allies". How do these two strategies (or otherwise) of the US and China in the recent decades affect the future dynamics?

No one likes a bully - all the kids gang up on the bully as soon as he is down. George Bush/the US is perceived as the bully, and China is skillfully exploiting this, but recent events in Tibet are a great threat to China's strategy of seeking a more "multipolar" world.

8. Finally, a rather small detail: You said that you would sell expensive editions of the Koran in Russia - where your contacts were "refuseniks" (Jews refused immigration to Israel) to earn money. Why were these Jews buying the Koran, and not the Torah?

Please note: i did not sell the Korans - i gave them to the refuseniks, who in turn sold them on the black market to muslims. Access to the Torah was not a problem.

Tibet - The Myth of Shangri-La

C R Sridhar — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 00:46:42 EDT

‘We ought not suffer ourselves to be deluded by unfounded theory or specious argument.’ -Abbe Felice Fontana.

The recent uprising in Tibet, which was crushed by China, reopened old wounds of the Tibetan struggle for independence from China. The international media was quick to highlight the traumatic events of the Chinese crackdown in 1959 in Tibet, which led to the exile of Dalai Lama to India. The international condemnation of the tough action taken on the Tibetan protesters was embarrassing to China as she was to play the host in the Beijing 2008 Olympics. The bad publicity came at an inopportune time and blunted the PR exercise mounted by China as an emerging Super Power.

The international coverage of the uprising was to a large extent uniform expressing moral outrage at the Chinese oppression but simplified the complex historical events of the Sino-Tibetan struggle. In the simplification lay the romantic notion that the Lamas (the priestly class) ruled wisely and with compassion. As the Dalai Lama himself stated that "the pervasive influence of Buddhism" in Tibet, "amid the wide open spaces of an unspoiled environment resulted in a society dedicated to peace and harmony. We enjoyed freedom and contentment.”¹

Hollywood version of Tibet

The romantic notion of idyllic Tibet where men, women and children lived in perfect harmony was reinforced in the West by Hollywood movies produced by talented directors such as Bernardo Bertolucci's Little Buddha (1993) and Martin Scorsese's Kundun (1997) and Jean-Jacques Annaud’s Seven Years in Tibet. In these excellently directed and lavishly produced films there are powerful messages suggesting ‘exaggerated reverence, with heavy-handed depictions of Tibetans, especially Tibetan monks, as solemn, holy and kind instead of as ordinary people who quarrel and joke around.’ The Western World also idealized Tibetan culture as pure and otherworldly. As Jamyang Norbu, a Tibetan immigrant and writer living in Tennessee, said: ''In the West, the response to Tibetan culture is so worshipful and romantic. There are elements in Tibetan culture that have all this magical, medieval stuff that Westerners love. The New Age thing. The Tibetan thing has style -- the color, the costumes. To a great extent, we exist only in the imagination of Western fantasists.''²

The slavish adoration of all things Tibetan finds articulation in the novel Lost Horizon, written by James Hilton who popularized Shangri-La – a place of perfect serenity. The novel tells a story of some Englishmen whose plane crashed in the Himalayas found peace and tranquility in the company of lamas who engaged them with philosophical conversation over endless cups of tea. This myth of Tibet – a veritable Shangri-La - entered Western consciousness and struck a sympathetic chord. This impression of Tibet as a Utopian world untainted by greed or corruption excited the imagination of western people and formed the basis of public opinion supporting the Tibetan struggle against China.

Exploitative class structure

But did the popular opinion about Tibet as a Shangri-La have any basis in reality? Were there any historical records to support the claim that it was Shangri-La ruled by the wise lamas? A careful and scrupulous reading of Tibetan History reveals a radically different picture. Far from being a Shangri-La Tibet was crushed from within by a viciously exploitative class structure. “Until 1959, when the Dalai Lama last presided over Tibet,” writes Michael Parenti, “ most of the arable land was still organized into manorial estates worked by serfs. “³ Even a writer sympathetic to the old order allows that "a great deal of real estate belonged to the monasteries, and most of them amassed great riches . . .. In addition, individual monks and lamas were able to accumulate great wealth through active participation in trade, commerce, and money lending."⁴

In old Tibet, there were a number of small farmers who eked out a living under extremely difficult circumstances. These were the lucky ones as they were free peasants. The middle class was in the region of ten thousand comprising small traders, merchants, and shopkeepers. Thousands were beggars and some slaves who owned nothing. But staggering parts of the population - some 700000 out of 1250000 were serfs.⁵ The serfs and other poor peasants had no education or medical care. They slaved for the lama and the secular landed aristocracy. They had no rights and were subject to the whims of the lords. The plight of the serfs is chronicled in the Timely Rain: Travels in New Tibet and also in other scholarly books such as Tom Grunfeld’s The Making of Modern Tibet, M.E. Sharpe, 1996; Anna Louise Strong, Tibetan Interviews, Peking New World Press, 1929.

Hell on Earth

The exploitative regime of the Lamas was enforced through terror and wide spread use of torture. For runaway serfs and thieves the summary punishments were given such as eye gouging, the pulling out of tongues, hamstringing, and amputation. Notes Parenti “ In 1959, Anna Louise Strong visited an exhibition of torture equipment that had been used by the Tibetan overlords. There were handcuffs of all sizes, including small ones for children, and instruments for cutting off noses and ears, gouging out eyes, and breaking off hands. There were instruments for slicing off kneecaps and heels, or hamstringing legs. There were hot brands, whips, and special implements for disemboweling.”⁶ The testimonies of the victims of torture are heart rending as they are enduring chronicles of man’s inhumanity to man.

The religious teaching of Karma was used to keep the iniquitous social order in place. The pernicious doctrine taught that the poor had themselves to blame as they justly suffered for their sins committed in past lives. The rich enjoyed the affluence and prosperity as a reward for their virtuous deeds in the past. This religious dogma prevented any challenge to the social order and preserved a status quo for the benefit of the Lama elites.

Enter the Red Dragon

In 1950 the Chinese communists occupied Tibet and crushed the ill-equipped Tibetan army. In 1951 the Seventeen Point agreement was signed and Tibet was officially incorporated into the People's Republic of China. Dalai Lama was given self- government in Tibet with the Chinese government retaining control over military and foreign relations. In Eastern Kham and Amdo (Quingai) considered being outside the purview of the Tibetan Government, the Chinese initiated land reforms. Most lands there were taken away from noblemen and monasteries and re-distributed to serfs. This aroused resentment among the landed class in Tibet. The Chinese accusation was that Tibet under the Dalai Lama was regressive in nature and opposed all attempts to modernize a serf society. The Chinese abolished serfdom and introduced social reforms by reducing usurious interest rates and built hospitals and roads. “Contrary to popular belief in the West," writes Goldstein, the Chinese "took care to show respect for Tibetan culture and religion. No aristocratic or monastic property was confiscated, and feudal lords continued to reign over their hereditarily bound peasants.”⁷

Meanwhile the relationship between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese communists worsened. In Eastern Kham and Amdo(Qinghai) the landed class with the monks started a rebellion in June 1956, which eventually spread to Lhasa. The Chinese crushed the Tibetan resistance with extreme violence in 1959. After the Lhasa rebellion in 1959, the Chinese government lowered the level of autonomy of Central Tibet, and implemented full-scale land redistribution in all areas of Tibet.

Tibet as a pawn in the Cold War

The American involvement in the Tibetan struggle arose due to geopolitical concerns about the ideology of communism that was hostile to interests of capitalism. American foreign policy strategists, less inspired by thoughts of benevolence, saw a golden opportunity to halt the spread of communism by actively supporting Dalai Lama. The CIA involvement with the bands of Tibetan fighters dates back to 1956 when the Tibetan fighters attacked the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army. The CIA gave this group military training, support camps in Nepal and supply of arms. A propaganda unit called the American Society for a Free Asia – a CIA front- espoused the cause of free Tibet.

The Dalai Lama’s eldest brother, Thubtan Norbu, played an active role in this society.⁸ The CIA bankrolled the exiled Tibetan community throughout the sixties to the tune of $1.7 million a year according to the documents released by the State Department in 1998. The CIA also gave the Dalai Lama annual payments of $186000. These facts were reported in the Los Angeles Times (15-9-1998) and also in New York Times (1-10-1998) by the publication of the article ‘CIA Gave Aid to Tibetan Exiles in '60s, Files Show’ written by Jim Mann. The documents released by the State Department are also analysed in a book written by Morrison titled The CIA's Secret War in Tibet.

The armed resistance movement petered out in 1972 when the CIA abruptly withdrew support. Both President Nixon and Dr. Henry Kissinger saw that rapprochement with China served US geopolitical interests. The Tibetans were left high and dry. There is another important reason, not discussed in mainstream media, why the resistance failed: because large sections of Tibetan society who were serfs did not join the armed struggle against the Chinese. Unlike other liberation struggles against imperial invasions, the Tibetan resistance was confined to the land owning aristocracy and monks who lost the most during the Chinese occupation. The non- involvement of the class of peasants/ serfs spelt the death knell of the resistance.⁹

The bitterness of the 14th Dalai Lama was evident, as he knew that the US involvement in Tibet was a game to thwart the expansion of Communist China. It had nothing to do with the plight of the Tibetan people. While thanking the CIA for its support in the Tibetan struggle he told John Kenneth Knaus, an ex-CIA official, that “the U.S. Government had involved itself in his country's affairs not to help Tibet but only as a cold war tactic to challenge the Chinese.''

Today the financial support for Dalai Lama flows from the National Endowment for Democracy and other conduits. The US Congress has allotted annually a sum of $2 million for Tibetans in India with additional budget of millions for the democratic activities for the Tibetan Exile Community. Heather Cottin, in "George Soros, Imperial Wizard," CovertAction Quarterly no. 74 (Fall 2002) has also alleged that the Dalai Lama also gets money from financier George Soros, who now runs the CIA-created Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and other institutes.

Writing on the Wall

Beneath the smiling face of the 14th Dalai Lama that we see on TV interviews and at public functions there is a worried man. The worries of Dalai Lama are founded on painful realities confronting Tibet. In recent times the Han Chinese constituting 95% of the immense Chinese population have settled in large numbers dominating the Tibetan economy. The Han Chinese views the Tibetans with contempt. The economic levers are in the hands of the Chinese, which has aroused the antagonism of the local Tibetans. The culture of Tibet is in danger of being effaced by the demographic shift in favour of the Han Chinese.

The dark shadow cast by China as an emerging super power has blunted the bargaining power of Tibet in her quest for independence. In recent times China has meshed with the globalised economy as a supplier of low cost goods to US and the world. With US slipping into recession and real wages declining, the flood of cheap goods to meet declining purchasing power in US may stem the consumer protest in that country. Hence, apart from posturing and making rhetorical speeches, the US establishment may find no reason to rock the Chinese boat. The US occupation of Iraq against international law, which has cost precious lives, has turned public opinion against military intervention in general. Moreover, the financial crisis in US and declining dollar has limited the capacity of US to militarily intervene in Tibet. The Government in exile of Dalai Lama has no support in US to overthrow the Chinese from Tibet and risk the prospect of a third world war.

The option of Dalai Lama is restricted to negotiate with China for autonomy while being a part of China. The conciliatory efforts made by the Dalai Lama to the Chinese leadership in Beijing would be the best step forward to ensure that the freedom of worship and human rights are restored in the best traditions of democracy.

“For every complicated problem,” said Mencken, “there is a solution that is simple, direct, understandable, and wrong.” For the people who support the Free Tibet movement the myth of the Shangri-La must be laid to rest and there must be international pressure to model Tibet as a democracy. Few Tibetans would like the return of the corrupt aristocratic clans who fled with the Dalai Lama in 1959. Many Tibetan farmers would not like to give up the land distributed to them during the Chinese land reforms. Slaves who suffered terribly under the feudal overlords would not like the return to slavery. These voices must be heard and respected. Otherwise the freedom loving people of Tibet would be replacing the yoke of Chinese Occupation with the yoke of theocratic despotism of the Lamas. A fate that must be avoided at any cost.

----------

1 Dalai Lama quoted in Donald Lopez Jr., Prisoners of Shangri-La: Tibetan Buddhism and the West (Chicago and London: Chicago University Press, 1998), 205.

2 Tibet (Hold the Shangri-La)- BARBARA STEWART Published: March 19, 2000- the New York Times.

3 Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth- Michael Parenti.

4 Pradyumna P. Karan, The Changing Face of Tibet: The Impact of Chinese Communist Ideology on the Landscape (Lexington, Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky, 1976), 64.

5 Stuart Gelder and Roma Gelder, The Timely Rain: Travels in New Tibet (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1964) page 110.

6 Anna Louise Strong, Tibetan Interviews (Peking: New World Press, 1929) quoted in Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth.

7 Melvyn C. Goldstein, The Snow Lion and the Dragon: China, Tibet, and the Dalai Lama (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995), page 52.

8 Kenneth Conboy and James Morrison, The CIA's Secret War in Tibet (Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas Press, 2002); 9 Hugh Deane, "The Cold War in Tibet," CovertAction Quarterly (Winter 1987).

Protests and Sport

Kartikeya — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 07:56:26 EDT

Major sporting occasions are high visibility showcases, and naturally invite attention from most interested agencies. International sport has always been fertile ground for political protest and dissent from Jesse Owens in 1936, to the Black Power salutes in the Mexico Olympics of 1968, to the current protests in cities around the world in support of Tibet in the lead up to the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

International Cricket has had its share of protests. India playing Cricket with Pakistan has always been a touchy political issue, both from the point of view of refraining from playing, and from the point of view of using a series as a political statement (the Friendship Series in 2004). Australia and the West Indies did not play in Sri Lanka in the 1996 World Cup, for security reasons. A combined team from India and Pakistan played an exhibition ODI against Arjuna Ranatunga's Sri Lankans in response to this. This was at the time when India and Pakistan were not playing bilateral series. The selection of Basil D'Oliviera in the MCC touring party for the Test tour of South Africa in the late 1960's caused the series to the cancelled after the South African government protested D'Oliviera's inclusion. This came to be known as the D'Oliviera Affair and led to South Africa being banned by the ICC until 1992.

The issues are many, and in the significantly less urgent, and less critical arena of popular sentiment, the question invariably seems to be - should politics and sport mix? Colin Cowdrey for example, writing about the D'Oliviera Affair in his autobiography, took the view that they were simply trying to play cricket, and that politics and sport ought not to have been mixed. Many have taken the view in the recent China-Tibet issue, that once the Olympics had been awarded to Beijing, it is incumbent upon the rest of the world to help China make it a success and not let it be disrupted. Richard Gere, Hollywood superstar turned activist, makes the counter argument succinctly. He suggests that the Olympics are China's opportunity to showcase their society and their country, and while the violent clampdown continues in Tibet they ought not to be allowed to produce their show unmolested.

Nasser Hussein wrote feelingly about the Zimbabwe controversy during the 2003 World Cup in his autobiography. In his view, at the time, there was a clear distinction between the British Government making a firm decision that the English team would not play in Zimbabwe, and the British Government merely suggesting that the English team not play in Zimbabwe, and leave the burden of the actual decision on the ECB. What actually happened was the latter with the result that Hussein's England were left in the lurch and lost valuable points through their Zimbabwe boycott.

Clearly, this is a complex issue, and as with most significant, charged issues, emotions run high. I remember being very upset that India's cricketers were being used for public relations purposes by the Indian Government in the hastily arranged 2004 tour to Pakistan - the so called Friendship series. But then again, why should they not be used for public relations purposes? This, as i think about it now, is not as clear cut as it once was. Public protest, as has been the case with the Tibet protests, adds another dimension to the whole thing.

How are the protesters disrupting the tour of the Olympic flame through the cities of the world by trying to extinguish the flame and or impede the bearer of the flame (Sachin Tendulkar is scheduled to be one in Delhi), different from the people who vandalized the Wankhede stadium pitch a few years ago to emphasize their disagreement about Pakistan and India playing cricket? Most of us will doubtless view the pro-Tibet protesters favorably (i do), while many (if not most) of us think that the people who dug up the pitch and poured oil into it to be vandals (i do). How do we reconcile these two things?

Many critical observers will jump at these comparisons, and indeed, this post does offer only an extremely short, extremely superficial and brief view of this complex issue. The Olympic Charter explains why Sport is important and there is little disagreement on this. Protest, in my view, and the principle of offering protest where injustice is observed or percieved, is equally important. If you think about it, Sport and Protest are two arenas which are remarkably similar, for both entail the expression and exposure of character - both are outward expressions (often direct and instinctive) of one's inner most, core being.

Something to think about...... for all of us. A great sportsman like Tendulkar should know better than to carry the Olympic torch when others like Kiran Bedi have refused to do so. We can blame the politics of it all, but the simple point is, that it is our Government, and it is our character which is revealed. We ought not to sacrifice it at the altar of "interest".

Torture Relay - Why Tibet Matters

The Buddha Smiled — Tue, 8 Apr 2008 00:17:29 EDT

It's been almost fifty years since the 1959 invasion of Tibet by China, an act of aggression which merely formalized the sustained political, military and social pressure that an increasingly strident Communist government had been applying for several years to the isolated country. The political and religious elite fled soon thereafter, crossing into India where they were granted political asylum, setting the precedent for a stream of over one million Tibetan refugees over the years. However, after capturing the attention of the world for a few brief years, the Tibetan struggle for independence soon fell by the wayside, as more and more governments sought to form stronger ties with a China that was growing at a sustained pace never recorded before in world economic history. Who cared about the concerns of a small minority, whose only claim to fame was that their temporal leader was also one of the most influential figures in Buddhism, itself a religion easily relegated by the more rigid of thought to a less than serious status as the manna of a hippie fringe seeking enlightenment?

And so it may have been - for over thirty years, the world turned a blind eye as the population of ethnic Tibetans remained stagnant at just over 5 million, while the number of ethnic Han Chinese in the territory has increased several fold. The world ignored Tianenmen Square, and also the brutal suppression of protests in Lhasa in 1989. The world ignored the Chinese crackdown on Falun Dafa, as it ignores the continued arrest, torture and detention of Chinese human rights activists; the recent imprisonment of Hu Jia is only one of many such acts. In fact, not only did the world ignore these excesses, it was often complicit in them: multinational companies, including Google and Yahoo, were too eager to bend over backwards and provide sensitive information to Chinese authorities regarding political dissidents in their attempts to avoid being kicked out of an increasingly attractive market. Economics, or so it appeared, had won the battle for the world's willingness to engage with China. The manner in which Chinese support for a regime supporting genocide against its own people in Darfur has stymied international intervention over the past two years seemed to indicate that the Red Dragon had won, and nobody would quite be willing to take a stand against what is most likely going to be the hegemon of this century.

So why bother? And does it matter whether or not the world takes up the Tibetan cause?

The answer is that it does matter. In fact, it is of crucial importance that the world engages with China (and when I say China I refer to both its government and its people) if we are to influence the the world we will live in tomorrow. Globalisation is often touted as a recent phenomenon, something that really only became a reality in the latter part of the twentieth century. This is, however, only partially true - the only thing that is recent about globalisation is its democratisation, and the flexibiltiy with which both human and financial capital can now be deployed around the world. Technological advances have made it much easier for individuals to move and travel, while access to information is increasing exponentially (provided you're not sitting behind a Chinese government firewall in Shanxi or Guangzhou).

What is a much older phenomenon is what I could call the authoritarian part of globalisation, where the fates of millions were decided by decision makers in places often thousands of miles away. Jewish populations in Lithuania and Italy were condemned to gas chambers by policies agreed in Berlin; millions of Indians died of famine during World War II thanks to Winston Churchill's economic policies, while Palestinians today live in refugee camps or in ghettos in the West Bank and Ramallah thanks to the Balfour Declaration made in London. Iraq is burning today thanks to decisions made in Washington DC, and even as we speak, it is difficult to guess where Iran will be in the next few years. The impact and influence at any given time that the world's current hegemonic power has over the rest of the globe is immense and often immeasurable; just watch the fascination with which media organisations cover US Presidential elections around the world; elections in which only a few hundred million will vote to choose a leader with the greatest global impact worldwide.

This is why Tibet matters. IR theorists have been debating whether or not America's role as the world's sole superpower, a position of preeminence that it has enjoyed since the collapse of the Soviet Union, is coming to an end or not. What is not being debated is China's inexorable rise as a military and economic power; as time goes by, the extent and strength of the influence it will exert in global discussions will only increase.

So the question we must ask ourselves is what sort of global power do we want to be active in the world over the next one hundred years? Do we want the worlds that we and our children will live in to be shadowed by the presence of a large, largely democratic state that values human rights, encourages dialogue and freedom of speech, and values the individual's right to life, liberty and property? Or will we be happy to have the greatest influence of global discourse on trade, defence and economy to be an authoritarian state, where torture in prisons continues to be an endemic issue, where arrests are sudden, unprovoked and where shrill government spokespersons are the only sources of information, where free speech does not exist, and where critical thinking is not tolerated?

So the issue of Tibet is now much more than how China chooses to engage with demonstrators in the territory. While the protests surrounding the Torture Relay are as much about the brutal crackdown on clergy and laity alike in Tibet and China's western provinces, the issues has magnified into something much less tangible, but with far greater repercussions on all of our lives. How China deals with Tibet has become part of a broader discussion of the shape and form of the world that we want to live in. Tibet is no longer an issue between two Asian countries. And if you think that Tibet is someone else's problem, you only need to look at the streets of London yesterday, where a large Chinese security detail, part of the government machinery that uses brutal methods against its population and the Tibetans, jogged with impunity through the streets, while protestors wearing "Free Tibet" t-shirts were ordered to leave the area. Democracy is a very fragile institution, and it does not take much to descend into authoritarianism (and if you disagree with that, I'd only point you towards Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib). The question is, at what point does it become important to speak out?

So, dear reader, if you live in a country where you will not be jailed for raising your voice, for wearing your beliefs on your t-shirt, where it is legal to stand in the street and chant, "Tibet will be free", and if you are in a city through which the Torture Relay is scheduled to pass, then as a citizen of the world, as a friend to those millions who cannot wave a simple cloth without fear of detention, torture and summary execution, in solidarity with the people of a country where it is illegal to have a photograph of the Dalai Lama, go and protest. Do so nonviolently, because violence only begets violence. Go and stand in peace, in harmony and in solidarity. Go and protest the rally, not just for your Tibetan brethren, but for the millions of Chinese citizens who are currently locked up in prison for having the courage to express their views in public, for challenging their regime through peaceful protest and dialogue. Go and protest to send a message to your government and that of China's, and other authoritarian regimes like it, that the voice of millions cannot be discounted. Do not despair - it was after all the student protests of the 1980's that finally forced an economic embargo onto the apartheid regime in South Africa, which crumbled in the following decade.

Do not be silent, because that is another name for complicity. Protest, for the millions in bondage around the world. Protest, but not just for the millions in bondage around the world.

Do it for yourself, and do it for your children.

China - Whose Problem Is It?

PerihelionFlux — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 02:49:53 EDT

I wrote this after reading Tarun Vijay's column "2 am Call" on TOI's Web site. Mr Vijay was commenting on the Chinese snubbing India by summoning India's ambassador to China in the wee hours of the morning to register their displeasure at the Tibetan protesters breaking through security outside the Chinese embassy in India.

I know what I am writing below does not directly relate to India-China relations but what it does relate to is the subterranean causal factors of the intransigence of the approach to intractable problems and malaise afflicting the Indian nation state. Failure to stand up to China in this particular instance is an example of this.

The response from the Indian government and people to this insult was practically non-existent. This is indicative of India's meekness in tackling difficult issues both on the home and external affairs fronts. In my opinion, the problem is not just incompetent and inert politicians but lots of other factors. India is a democracy where the people choose their representatives, so the people have to share the blame for the non-committal, comatose state India is in with regards to taking ownership of India's predicament.

Indians have to wake up and not vote along divisive lines of caste, profession and lineage. This lack of awareness is due to lack of education, which is one of the root causes of the problems in India. Real change will not come from articulating India's malaise and their solutions on blogs, Web sites and newspapers.

I don't believe the NRIs vote and neither do the intelligentsia who feel cynically detached from the Indian political system because they feel that no one is worthy of their vote. Ironic, isn't it, since I'm doing exactly what I decry but my purpose here is a "call to arms" if you will, to those who have the means to bring about change.

Real change will come by fostering and promoting an inclusive educational, political and economical system whereby the poor and disenfranchised (in all respects) Indians' faculties of discernment and self assertion (economic, cultural et al) are strengthened so that consequently they become the drivers of change by heralding in a new breed of administrators and leaders who have the interests of India in their hearts and minds instead of their own parochial and provincial interests.

Who will actuate and implement such initiatives? Definitely not the politicians as it will actually mobilise the people against the continued entrenchment of the incompetent and effete political clique and dynasties. The changes won't be brought about by reciting slokas from Bhagvad Gita, or quotes from the hoary literary repository of India's scriptures and Tagores, to weary and starving Indian masses.

The change has to come from the people - you and me; and yes, the corporations and the rich can help with the means at their disposal but it is really everyday Indians who have to lead the charge.

I am advocating adoption of a few of the initiatives below:

1. NRIs and other people with means should adopt at least one indigent Indian child or family and invest in their education.

2. In neighbourhoods and villages throughout India, the prominent citizens should bring about changes in their circle of influence. This could be as simplistic as asking your maid to bring her children to your house while she does her work so that you can provide tuitions to her kids. We have to erase notions of class consciousness from our minds and only then can all of India present a united front to bullies like China on the outside and criminal politicians on the inside.

3. Accept that the problems of India are the problems of every Indian - not just the politicians and the armed forces. Let this acceptance transform us from apathetic cynics to change agents.

4. Protest against injustices in the non-cyber world as well. When something like the '2am Call' was brought to light, were there any protests from the Indians? If not, then the problem is with our disdainful and injurious apathy, rather than with the politicians. The politicians will have to listen if there are large-scale protests. If the vote bank is creaking and moaning, surely the creditors (politicians) have to wake up and take notice.

5. Engage in the political process. Encourage the honest, intellectual, patriots and intelligentsia to contest in elections and then vote for them. If you fit these categories then stand up in the elections yourself.

China is like a livid mongrel hurtling towards the big bone it has seen others chew and grow fat on, without caring about whether it's mutated. Rabid saliva falls on its own feet or on others and does irreparable harm on the way. The response of the West and other countries like India to China's avaricious hopscotch is like that of a poodle yelping excitedly with its eyes covered by its own hairs and its tail wagging reflexively.

China's arrogance must be tempered by the firm stand of other countries who impress upon China with words and deeds that progress and respect is a collaborative two way process. China may smother the dignity and self respect of its own people but it should not be allowed to do the same with peoples outside the jurisdiction of its territories and governance. India, for its part, must assume its responsibility as an emerging regional and world power to counter China's reckless usurpation of the territorial and attendant cultural and economic wealth that is in the rightful possession of other peoples. For this to happen, Indians have to stand up to enable India to stand up.

If India does not stand up to China it stands to lose more than what it has already lost to China such as Aksai Chin, sizable parts of Arunachal Pradesh and Kashmir.

It will lose a place that Indians can call home. Just ask the Tibetans what that feels like.

Freedom for Tibet - Standing Up To China

Abhinandan Mishra — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:33:55 EDT

It's amazing how easily we forget and ignore issues that are not affecting our daily life even if the concern is about oppression and annihilation of a country, its citizens and its culture.

For all these years, we have chosen to ignore Tibet and its demand for freedom from China. To be seen as a politically correct democracy, our leaders have time and again said that they have done their bit by granting asylum to the Tibetan refugees. But does granting asylum absolves India of its responsibility? That responsibility which comes when you are celebrating 60 years of democracy - a responsibility which owes its existence to the freedom struggle that India itself witnessed and that responsibility which becomes due when you call yourself a South Asian superpower ?

China has for long used its economic and political power to arm twist the international community into toeing its line that what is happening in Tibet is not a freedom struggle but a violent separatist movement. Sadly every country, including India has nodded its head in approval and they have arrived at an international consensus that Tibet is China's internal matter and it should be left untouched to be dealt by China itself.

Feeble voice have been raised in various forums, voices that has words like 'restraint', 'constraint' but not even one of them has 'condemned' or 'condoned' the senseless killing of protesters.

In India the picture is no different. The Left which prides in calling itself the crusaders of human rights has remained shamefully mum in the parliament. These pseudo politicians, the so called intellectuals are the best example when it comes to the dirt that surrounds the Indian political system. The hypocrisy that they practice is too hard to swallow even in the Indian context. Yesterday, when the Congress and the BJP MPs were raking up the issue of Tibet in Parliament, the Left Front were still crying over the nuclear deal.

When it comes to the Third World countries, there are many laws and norms that govern their conduct. But when the greater countries are in question, then the same laws are thrown out of the window. Earlier it was the US who shocked the world community by ignoring the United Nations' call for not attacking Iraq and now it's China. The world community too has done its bit by rewarding China with the opportunity to host the Olympics so as to show gratitude to China for its effort in strengthening peace and restraint.

We have the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and we have the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) but history has time and again proved that these for the weak and not for the powerful.

China, often called the role model for the developing countries, is a neighbor that one wishes was not there. Simply put when it comes to China, India lacks the political will to stand up and protest the human rights violations.

We may call ourselves and Independent country, a South Asian giant but in the midst of all this euphoria we tend to forget we are also on the forefront when it comes to shrinking our responsibility whether its Tibet or Iraq.

China Wants to Repress Olympic Athletes

arZan — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 00:53:53 EST

China is asking all athletes of all nations to sign a contract that bans them from making political statements against China, or they will not be allowed to travel to China this summer.

The Daily Mail reports…

British Olympic chiefs are to force athletes to sign a contract promising not to speak out about China’s appalling human rights record – or face being banned from travelling to Beijing.

The move – which raises the spectre of the order given to the England football team to give a Nazi salute in Berlin in 1938 – immediately provoked a storm of protest.

In short, China is forcing athletes to sign a contract barring them from speaking against the country or else they won’t be allowed to Beijing and thus able to compete in the Olympics.

“The move – which raises the spectre of the order given to the England football team to give a Nazi salute in Berlin in 1938 – immediately provoked a storm of protest.”

This is chilling sinister stuff the likes of which the world has not seen in the sporting arena, since the Hitler Games of 1936. China has been a nation thriving on human rights violation, repressions of freedom, illegal occupation of Tibet and now this.

I have always maintained that it is one of the worst diplomatic decisions to award the Olympics to a country like China.

I wonder what India's stand will be with its athletes who represent the country at various sports. I hope that India does not force its athletes to do what the British are asking theirs.

The Law of Unintended Consequences in China

Dr Bhaskar Dasgupta — Fri, 1 Feb 2008 01:00:58 EST

China has a controlled economy. Well, some parts are controlled. Well, it tries to control them. The current situation illustrates the law of unintended consequences flow through.

The basic problem?

Sufficient power is not being generated by the power plants.

Why aren't they generating enough power?

Well, because power prices are controlled.

Why are power prices controlled?

Because in general, prices are going through the roof in China and the Communist controllers do not want inflation to go unchecked. They have to keep the great unwashed herd quiet, and there is nothing like inflation to get people excited. So they control prices.

But whose prices are not controlled?

Coal.

So what is happening to the coal price?

It is going through the roof and becoming very expensive. I quote:

"Global coal prices, in the meantime, have soared in recent months, by 50-60 per cent, with the largest rise occurring in recent weeks because of the Australian floods."

So why is that important?

Well, most of the power generators in China use coal to generate power, and if the final product - power - is price controlled and the inputs are not, then this happens: I quote:

"Against this background, power companies have been refusing to pay the prices they negotiated with the coal companies earlier this year. And the longer the delay in honouring these contracts, the higher the asking price for coal."

So, no coal, no power. Welcome to a controlled economy. What happens to inflation?

Well, that's still going to go through the roof. I quote:

Snow battering central China has dealt an "extremely serious" blow to winter crops, a top agriculture official warned Thursday, raising the likelihood that future shortages would exaggerate already surging food prices.

See here for what happens when food prices are too high. This is becoming a serious world problem.

Technorati Tags: China, Economics

China & India

C N Anand — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 00:38:09 EST

Two of the world's oldest, greatest and neighboring civilizations, India and China, never coveted other's lands. Both were culturally and materially rich and did not have to maraud to acquire wealth. Both exchanged ideas when Hien Tsang visited India in the 6 th century BC. Simple living, eschewing ostentation to live in harmony with nature, were ideas that both shared. While Copernicus and Galileo were reviled and incarcerated for their theories on heliocentricity, Indian and Chinese astronomers mastered it centuries ago.

Both India and China were seized with protecting what they had from the drooling hordes of Central Asia. While India had the Himalayas for protection, China built a wall. But both the obstacles were breached. A few of the hordes carted away riches to carry on with their nomadic and plundering way of life, but most stayed on to be assimilated by the rich cultures.

Before the 17th century, both countries produced steel the Western world could not match in strength and durability. Ideas on Paper currency and printing were brought to the western world by Marco Polo. Use of gunpowder for rockets in warfare was experimented with. There was nothing that Europe produced which was wanted by India and China, but there was plenty that India and China produced that Europe desired.

While the marauding raids from Central Asia had an immediate cathartic effect, it was not corrosive in the long term. It was the rapacious multinationals that came from the sea that poisoned both countries, the effects of which last till today. The most powerful was the British East India Company, armed with powers to wage war, sue for peace, make laws, and mint money in the lands they subjugated. They had nothing to offer China and India in exchange for tea, spices, silk, Indigo and muslin.

They had to show profit and with a sword in one hand and ledger in the other they cleared the decks in China by fight the opium wars. They subjugated Bengal and Bihar of India, the main opium growing states. They secured the sea route between China and India by acquiring Hong Kong and Singapore and dominating the Malacca straits. Free opium was distributed in China for the habit to take root and then opium from India was dumped in China.

The profits enabled the East India Company to take home indigo, tea, spices, silk and muslin. Some of this tea found its way to the Boston tea party. The dawning of industrial revolution led to the death of Indian and Chinese crafts. Chinese and Indian labor was indentured for work in the Americas, Malaya, and Africa. A near collapse of self esteem took root.

Subsequent overthrow of British influence left behind festering wounds. The India- China border was not clearly demarcated by the British. India and China which never coveted each other other's lands bickered over inhospitable land. However, good sense seems to be prevailing when leaders agreed to leave the dispute for later generations to find a solution. In the meantime, there are urgent economic problems to be attended to.

Non-renewable energy sources are depleting while the appetites of China and India are growing. If every Chinese and Indian consumes extra two liters per day of petroleum products to improve their standard of living, USA's daily oil consumption will be surpassed. If literacy rates improve and two extra paper sheets are used by every Chinese and Indian, whole forests will have to be hacked. A small improvement in standards of living will strain the world ecology. The first world will not give up an iota of the luxury they are wallowing in.

Enlightened cooperation between India and China is needed to save the world. Joint R&D efforts in renewable energy, water conservation, oil exploration, nuclear energy and space exploration is the need of the hour. A consortium of countries, many of whom fought each other in WWII, got together and established the Airbus. Why can't India and China jointly land a man on the moon? If China is willing to share its plutonium with India, many fast breeder reactors can be set up to convert thorium to Uranium 233 for satiating the energy needs of both countries. If only they can put aside the border dispute and reduce their defense expenditures…