An Eelam Peoples’ Democratic Front(EPDP) member and its French operational head Arumugam has threatened the Indian government for expressing its concern over Sri Lanka over the military pilling up arms to fight its long standing internal strife with the LTTE. EPDP is a partner in the present government and its leader Douglas Devananda is holding a cabinet portfolio.
In a political discussion programme of pro-government radio broadcasting from a European Country, these strong threatening comments have been made by the EPDP official.
During his comments he stated ‘piling up arms is a legitimate right of the sovereign government and India has no right to express opinion on it’. He had further said, ‘if India attempts to put pressure on Sri Lanka, we will burn and destroy the Indian investments in country and also we will help the Kasmiri extremists by supplying arms to them’.
Arumugam’s comments come just after EPDP’s calculated outburst following its utter defeat in the local elections in the East of Sri Lanka.
However, according Col. R.Hariharan, to a retired Head of Intelligence, Indian Peace Keeping Force in Sri Lanka 1987-90, “I would not attach too much importance to this statement of an overseas representative of the EPDP. We do not know whether it is the authorised view of the party on the issue. I expect the party leader Douglas Devananda to come out with a clarification. Or he may come out with a "misquoted" explanation to save face. It depends on the equation of the person who made the statement with his leader”
“I do not know what useful purpose will be served by the Indian PM's advisor MK Narayanan's statement. He made a similar statement sometime back also. Every nation has a right to consider its security priorities and take decisions. And Sri Lanka has no other options but to buy weapons from where they are available when it is fighting a war. After all India, for its own very valid internal reasons, is not meeting Sri Lanka's requirements. So MK Narayanan's statement is not likely to stop Sri Lanka from weapons procurement from sources it wants. I am sure MK Narayanan knows this. But we do not know what motivated him to make such statements. There could be a political and or diplomatic reason; otherwise a man in his position does not make statements like this. Both diplomacy and politics act upon indirect and direct drivers. So no point in getting hot under the collar on these statements. India-Sri Lanka relations have grown far too strong to be damaged by a few statements,” Col. R.Hariharan told the Sri Lanka Guardian.
“All these apart, every person has a right to make his views known and face its attendant consequences. Equally it is the right of those affected by it to respond to it as they perceive. This right applies more to sovereign nations like Sri Lanka to take important decisions affecting their national security in their own interest. And buying weapons is one such issue. This does not mean its neighbours who have different perceptions cannot air their views. And such friendly sparring between nations continue. It is all part of the great game of diplomacy. So sit back and enjoy the theatricals,” he added.- Sri Lanka Guardian
Monday, March 31, 2008
Thursday, March 20, 2008
The Kosovo Effect
By R.Swaminathan
The recent Declaration of Independence by the legislature of Kosovo and the prompt "recognition" of the new State by USA and many EU governments have the potential for far-reaching and not-too-desirable effects on many other similar situations and "separatist" movements around the world. Of immediate international consequence would be the effect on Taiwan (which is holding its referendum on 22 March 2008). The effect on LTTE in Sri Lanka would be of great significance to India. This paper will consider only these two issues and not the entire scene that would include the effects on other "separatist" movements.
Kosovo and Taiwan
Historical
Kosovo had been the battleground where contesting entities had been fighting (for centuries) for sovereignty over the territory. The fight was between the Turkish Ottoman Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Empire at one time, then between the Turks and the Serbs and later between the Albanians and the Serbs. When the victor-imposed Treaty of Versailles (28 June 1919) created the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, Kosovo was made a part of Serbia. The Kingdom was renamed in 1929 as the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. During World War II, Kosovo was a strong base for Tito-led AVNO (Anti-Fascism Council of National Liberation of Yugoslavia). After the war, when the new state of SFRJ (Socialist Federated Republics of Jugoslavia) was proclaimed, Kosovo (along with Vojvodina) became one of two �autonomous� provinces of the Republic of Serbia. Many places in Kosovo are of religious and cultural significance to the Serbs; and Kosovo has many important landmarks (like Jajce) of the Partisan struggle during World War II.
The first "foreign" or "outside" presence in Taiwan (also known as Formosa, or beautiful island) could be traced to the establishment of a commercial base on the island by the Dutch, in 1624. Troops from southern Fujian defeated the Dutch in 1662 and the Qing dynasty formally annexed the island to the Fujian Province of China, in 1683. In 1887, Taiwan was upgraded into a regular province of China. Imperial Japan, which had been trying to since 1592 to control Taiwan, defeated China in the First Sino-Japanese War in 1894-95; and Taiwan was ceded to Japan �in perpetuity� by the Treaty of Shinonoseki. Around 1935, Japan started the process of assimilation and appointed tens of thousands of Taiwanese in the Japanese Army.
During 1942-45, Japan based a massive camp for Allied Prisoners of War in Taiwan; and the Japanese Navy used it as an operational base. The signing of the (victor-imposed) Instrument of Surrender on 15 August 1945 signalled the end of the Japanese occupation of Taiwan. The KMT-ruled Republic of China accepted the surrender of Japanese forces in Taihoku on 25 October 1945. Since that date till now, Taiwan has been in the possession of the �Republic of China�. By the time the Civil War (Maoist Revolution) ended with the proclamation of the People�s Republic of China on 1 October 1949, the KMT had moved the seat of government of the �Republic of China� from Nanjing to Taipei; and about 1.3 million refugees had moved from the mainland to Taiwan.
Changing Status
The resentment of the Albanian majority in Kosovo against discrimination caused by Serbian nationalism and chauvinism was held in check during the Tito (who hailed from Croatia) era, mainly because of his iconic status. However, when SFRJ ultimately broke up into its component units, the demand and justification for an independent Kosovo became stronger. The Declaration of Independence by Kosovo could, in effect, be termed as a reversal of the earlier non-consensual and externally-imposed inclusion in Serbia. An independent status for Kosovo had been recommended in 1997 by the Special Envoy of the UN Secretary General, but was not accepted by Security Council.
The status of Kosovo since 1999 has been of a territory under UN administration and NATO (read EU in recent years) protection. Even now, Kosovo�s Declaration of Independence may not get the approval of UNSC, because of possible veto by Russia and China. The new state, however, has received and would receive recognition from many powerful states. Kosovo is a new addition to the list of religion (Islam) based states; and is the first such one in Europe. It is likely to remain non-viable (politically, economically and militarily) for a long time. A realistic assessment would be that it would effectively be an EU protectorate for the foreseeable future.
Since the establishment of the PRC in 1949, Taiwan has been the only remnant of the erstwhile Republic of China. USA continued to have diplomatic, commercial and military relations with Taiwan for more than two decades considering it to be the legitimate government of China. Even now, some governments continue with that policy; and many countries have commercial relations with Taiwan, without having diplomatic relations. In effect, the present effort at asserting an identity separate from China (based on a resolution passed by the Democratic Progressive Party on 30 September 2007) is aimed at accepting the reality of the past six decades. The referendum on 22 March 2008 is about seeking admission to the UN as "Taiwan" instead of as "China". It is about giving up the fantasy of being the "sole" government of China and living with the reality of being a small remnant of old China; and changing the name of the country from "Republic of China" to "Taiwan".
"Recognition"
In a different era, diplomatic recognition of a State was normally based on whether or not that entity had the attributes of a nation-state. However, recognition has increasingly become a political act rather than a legal determination. Governments decide on the recognition of a new state (or of a state which has undergone a systemic change) on the basis of self-interest and not of any prescribed values. This self-interest is considered from two angles, i.e. whether according recognition would further one's interests with the new entity and whether such act would adversely affect one's relations with other countries; and a balance is struck between the two considerations. To expect value-based decisions on �recognition� is to ask for a utopian international order.
In the case of Kosovo, USA and some major EU countries seem to have determined that the recognition of Kosovo as an independent (Islamic) state would further their overall interests. The anger aroused in Serbia may be considered inconsequential and the opposition of Russia (and China, because of implications to the Taiwan situation) would not, in their determination, detract from the advantages. That Russia would feel marginalized and that China may feel offended may be considered to be additional bonus.
However, in the case of Taiwan, though it would more be a case of the change of name (in accordance with reality) of an independent country than of a declaration of independence, recognition of the changed entity may be more difficult to come by. Recognition of Taiwan would offer very little extra commercial benefits and would lead to direct confrontation with PRC. Very few major countries may want to take that risk. I doubt if the people of Taiwan want this and if the referendum would give a clear mandate in favour of the change in name and status of their country. They may find it difficult to live with being spurned even after such a change.
L T T E
The historical facts relating to the claims of Kosovo and Taiwan to be independent states would not apply to many guerrilla movements, including LTTE. It would therefore not be easy for these to become valid precedents for them to follow. The Declaration of Independence by Kosovo and the change of name by Taiwan are very different from the LTTE�s demand for a separate Tamil State.
The sovereignty over Tamil majority areas in Sri Lanka has never been contested in history. Tamil and Sinhala peoples had been living in reasonable harmony for centuries, till the post-independence phenomenon of aggressive Sinhala nationalism and chauvinism imposed severe discrimination against the Tamils. Essentially, this may be the only common feature between Kosovo and the Tamils in northern and eastern Sri Lanka. The concept of Tamil Eelam is very different from the concept of an independent Kosovo. A Unilateral Declaration of Independence by Pirabhakaran is very unlikely to find any supporters in the international community, as recognition of an independent Tamil Eelam may not pass the dual tests of self-interest. If one looks at the analogies of Kosovo and Taiwan, I doubt if the Tamils in Sri Lanka would appreciate the idea of their homeland becoming a 'vassal' or 'client' of any external state or group of states.
[Mr. R.Swaminathan, Vice President of the Chennai Centre for China Studies can be contacted at rsnathan@gmail.com]
The recent Declaration of Independence by the legislature of Kosovo and the prompt "recognition" of the new State by USA and many EU governments have the potential for far-reaching and not-too-desirable effects on many other similar situations and "separatist" movements around the world. Of immediate international consequence would be the effect on Taiwan (which is holding its referendum on 22 March 2008). The effect on LTTE in Sri Lanka would be of great significance to India. This paper will consider only these two issues and not the entire scene that would include the effects on other "separatist" movements.
Kosovo and Taiwan
Historical
Kosovo had been the battleground where contesting entities had been fighting (for centuries) for sovereignty over the territory. The fight was between the Turkish Ottoman Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Empire at one time, then between the Turks and the Serbs and later between the Albanians and the Serbs. When the victor-imposed Treaty of Versailles (28 June 1919) created the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, Kosovo was made a part of Serbia. The Kingdom was renamed in 1929 as the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. During World War II, Kosovo was a strong base for Tito-led AVNO (Anti-Fascism Council of National Liberation of Yugoslavia). After the war, when the new state of SFRJ (Socialist Federated Republics of Jugoslavia) was proclaimed, Kosovo (along with Vojvodina) became one of two �autonomous� provinces of the Republic of Serbia. Many places in Kosovo are of religious and cultural significance to the Serbs; and Kosovo has many important landmarks (like Jajce) of the Partisan struggle during World War II.
The first "foreign" or "outside" presence in Taiwan (also known as Formosa, or beautiful island) could be traced to the establishment of a commercial base on the island by the Dutch, in 1624. Troops from southern Fujian defeated the Dutch in 1662 and the Qing dynasty formally annexed the island to the Fujian Province of China, in 1683. In 1887, Taiwan was upgraded into a regular province of China. Imperial Japan, which had been trying to since 1592 to control Taiwan, defeated China in the First Sino-Japanese War in 1894-95; and Taiwan was ceded to Japan �in perpetuity� by the Treaty of Shinonoseki. Around 1935, Japan started the process of assimilation and appointed tens of thousands of Taiwanese in the Japanese Army.
During 1942-45, Japan based a massive camp for Allied Prisoners of War in Taiwan; and the Japanese Navy used it as an operational base. The signing of the (victor-imposed) Instrument of Surrender on 15 August 1945 signalled the end of the Japanese occupation of Taiwan. The KMT-ruled Republic of China accepted the surrender of Japanese forces in Taihoku on 25 October 1945. Since that date till now, Taiwan has been in the possession of the �Republic of China�. By the time the Civil War (Maoist Revolution) ended with the proclamation of the People�s Republic of China on 1 October 1949, the KMT had moved the seat of government of the �Republic of China� from Nanjing to Taipei; and about 1.3 million refugees had moved from the mainland to Taiwan.
Changing Status
The resentment of the Albanian majority in Kosovo against discrimination caused by Serbian nationalism and chauvinism was held in check during the Tito (who hailed from Croatia) era, mainly because of his iconic status. However, when SFRJ ultimately broke up into its component units, the demand and justification for an independent Kosovo became stronger. The Declaration of Independence by Kosovo could, in effect, be termed as a reversal of the earlier non-consensual and externally-imposed inclusion in Serbia. An independent status for Kosovo had been recommended in 1997 by the Special Envoy of the UN Secretary General, but was not accepted by Security Council.
The status of Kosovo since 1999 has been of a territory under UN administration and NATO (read EU in recent years) protection. Even now, Kosovo�s Declaration of Independence may not get the approval of UNSC, because of possible veto by Russia and China. The new state, however, has received and would receive recognition from many powerful states. Kosovo is a new addition to the list of religion (Islam) based states; and is the first such one in Europe. It is likely to remain non-viable (politically, economically and militarily) for a long time. A realistic assessment would be that it would effectively be an EU protectorate for the foreseeable future.
Since the establishment of the PRC in 1949, Taiwan has been the only remnant of the erstwhile Republic of China. USA continued to have diplomatic, commercial and military relations with Taiwan for more than two decades considering it to be the legitimate government of China. Even now, some governments continue with that policy; and many countries have commercial relations with Taiwan, without having diplomatic relations. In effect, the present effort at asserting an identity separate from China (based on a resolution passed by the Democratic Progressive Party on 30 September 2007) is aimed at accepting the reality of the past six decades. The referendum on 22 March 2008 is about seeking admission to the UN as "Taiwan" instead of as "China". It is about giving up the fantasy of being the "sole" government of China and living with the reality of being a small remnant of old China; and changing the name of the country from "Republic of China" to "Taiwan".
"Recognition"
In a different era, diplomatic recognition of a State was normally based on whether or not that entity had the attributes of a nation-state. However, recognition has increasingly become a political act rather than a legal determination. Governments decide on the recognition of a new state (or of a state which has undergone a systemic change) on the basis of self-interest and not of any prescribed values. This self-interest is considered from two angles, i.e. whether according recognition would further one's interests with the new entity and whether such act would adversely affect one's relations with other countries; and a balance is struck between the two considerations. To expect value-based decisions on �recognition� is to ask for a utopian international order.
In the case of Kosovo, USA and some major EU countries seem to have determined that the recognition of Kosovo as an independent (Islamic) state would further their overall interests. The anger aroused in Serbia may be considered inconsequential and the opposition of Russia (and China, because of implications to the Taiwan situation) would not, in their determination, detract from the advantages. That Russia would feel marginalized and that China may feel offended may be considered to be additional bonus.
However, in the case of Taiwan, though it would more be a case of the change of name (in accordance with reality) of an independent country than of a declaration of independence, recognition of the changed entity may be more difficult to come by. Recognition of Taiwan would offer very little extra commercial benefits and would lead to direct confrontation with PRC. Very few major countries may want to take that risk. I doubt if the people of Taiwan want this and if the referendum would give a clear mandate in favour of the change in name and status of their country. They may find it difficult to live with being spurned even after such a change.
L T T E
The historical facts relating to the claims of Kosovo and Taiwan to be independent states would not apply to many guerrilla movements, including LTTE. It would therefore not be easy for these to become valid precedents for them to follow. The Declaration of Independence by Kosovo and the change of name by Taiwan are very different from the LTTE�s demand for a separate Tamil State.
The sovereignty over Tamil majority areas in Sri Lanka has never been contested in history. Tamil and Sinhala peoples had been living in reasonable harmony for centuries, till the post-independence phenomenon of aggressive Sinhala nationalism and chauvinism imposed severe discrimination against the Tamils. Essentially, this may be the only common feature between Kosovo and the Tamils in northern and eastern Sri Lanka. The concept of Tamil Eelam is very different from the concept of an independent Kosovo. A Unilateral Declaration of Independence by Pirabhakaran is very unlikely to find any supporters in the international community, as recognition of an independent Tamil Eelam may not pass the dual tests of self-interest. If one looks at the analogies of Kosovo and Taiwan, I doubt if the Tamils in Sri Lanka would appreciate the idea of their homeland becoming a 'vassal' or 'client' of any external state or group of states.
[Mr. R.Swaminathan, Vice President of the Chennai Centre for China Studies can be contacted at rsnathan@gmail.com]
Tibetan agitation: Some larger issues
By Col R Hariharan (retd.)
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's statement about the willingness of Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao "to enter into a dialogue with the Dalai Lama" in the light of the Tibetan leader's assurance that he did not support total independence for Tibet and that he renounced violence, adds a new dimension to the agitation of Tibetans world over against Chinese rule in Tibet.
The agitation started on March 10, 2008 with a protest march by monks reminiscent of the saffron agitation last year in Myanmar against military dictatorship. This snowballed into a public protest two days later and spread outside among Tibetan community living in adjacent provinces of China and among Tibetan refugees the world over. Violence in Lhasa resulted in deaths estimated around 100, though the official figures are less. Between March 17 and 20, the Chinese came down hard on the protestors. They have made arrests and foreigners including tourists have been asked to leave Tibet.
Despite the Dalai Lama's repeated appeal to his followers to desist from violence, it does not seem to be having the desired effect on them. So the focus will now be on how fast the Chinese control the agitation without courting further adverse publicity. This becomes a prestige issue for the Chinese as the Olympic flame is to travel through parts of the troubled region to put the Beijing Olympics on its first paces in two months. Even if the agitation is quelled or subsides, it has brought to the surface the simmering issue of Tibet. The timing of this agitation is critical as international media focus is shifting to Beijing for the Olympics. It also invites attention to a number of other issues impinging upon not only Tibet and China, but their neighbours and China's global power equation.
Dalai Lama's status
The violence unleashed on Han population and on public assets by the Tibetan agitators despite the Dalai Lama's repeated appeals have raised a question mark over the Dalai Lama's monolithic influence over the Tibetan population living both at home and abroad. In particular, the agitators spearheaded by the Tibetan Youth Congress were clamouring for independence as against the Dalai Lama's emphasis on autonomy for Tibet. The virulence of the agitation appears to have surprised the Dalai Lama and the Chinese. Is the Dalai Lama losing control over the younger generation of expatriates? The answer to this question would decide the fate of the institution of the Dalai Lama in the future. Any uncertainty in the future of Tibetan leadership is going to be a significant issue not only for China but also for countries like India, Nepal, and even Europe which have provided sanctuaries to large number of Tibetans.
The talks to resolve the Tibetan issue between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese Premier could be a long drawn affair. There are basic differences between the two sides on the territorial limits of Tibet as understood by them. Their perceptions on the scope and extent of autonomy are also different. The Chinese strategy in such talks is to stretch them as long as long as possible as seen from our own experience. During this period, if there are institutional changes in Tibetan leadership how far it would be acceptable to the younger generation of Tibetans? What if the Chinese try to identify an incarnation of the Dalai Lama on their own and install him as they did in the case of the Panchen Lama? These issues would affect the durability of any formulation worked out in the talks.
Strategic issues
Next to China, historically India had been having the closest links with Tibet. So turbulence in Tibet or Tibetan leadership could create problems for India both internally and internationally. Both India and China are slowly inching towards building a peaceful relationship between them as dictated by their own economic and diplomatic interests. This burgeoning relationship could be tested if Tibet remains unstable. This is perhaps the reason for the Indian Foreign Minister to carefully nuance his statement on the agitation and India's stand on the Tibet question.
However, if China increases its force levels in Tibet it would become a matter of strategic concern for India. With a strongly pro-Chinese partner in the Maoists in the ruling Nepalese coalition any such large Chinese troop movements even in India's neighbourhood could trigger further concerns for India.
Apart from that, India's continuing dispute with China on the Tibetan boundary question has connotations for India's coalition politics. Memories India's war with China in 1962 over the disputed border still rankle the mind of large sections of Indian public, who consider it an act of betrayal by the Chinese leadership. This feeling will continue to condition Indian political perceptions to a certain extent. So if the Tibetan agitation persists it could find support among the Indian public and polity.
Similarly, the U.S. and the European Union had been taking special interest for a long time on the Tibet issue for various reasons ranging from strategic interests to the right of Tibetans to practice their religion, culture and language, to their human rights. They have been financially supporting Tibetans living overseas that had helped preserve their identity. The Chinese had always been keeping a watchful eye on such links, particularly with non-governmental organisations of these countries.
The U.S. – China relations are perhaps the closest than ever before. China's export economy is largely dependent upon the U.S. markets. The U.S. had been a major investor in the Chinese growth story. However, there is mutual suspicion on both sides due to the unarticulated intentions that drive this relationship. The U.S. moves in recent years to build strategic linkages with India and bring it into a quadrilateral relationship with Japan and Australia as well, has been a source of some security concern for China.
The Tibetans have a strong lobby in the U.S. seats of power. In the early years of Chinese occupation of Tibet, the U.S. had financed and sponsored revolt by sections of Tibetans against the Chinese forces. This historic memory could aggravate latent suspicions of the Chinese leadership about the U.S. stand on the Tibetan agitation and its resolution. So the U.S. actions in the coming weeks would come under careful Chinese scrutiny.
India is unlikely to allow any move of Tibetan activists across its borders with Tibet, particularly if Chinese troops are moved into the autonomous region to control internal situation. In such a situation, Nepal becomes a vulnerable region. However, the Chinese appear to have forced the Nepalese rulers to toe the Chinese line to quell any build up of agitation. The Chinese intelligence representatives are probably operating in border areas to sanitize the Nepalese side of the border also.
Given this situation, Myanmar's troubled northern borders with China become vulnerable to activities of anti-Chinese elements. With loose government control, this region is a haven for operation of insurgent groups, drug smugglers and gunrunners. In the past the U.S., either directly or through NGOs acting as proxies, has armed and infiltrated tribal insurgents to fight the Chinese incursions in the region. This option would always be available for any international sponsor of the Tibetan agitation. While this is in the realms of possibility only at present, the Chinese with long memories are unlikely to ignore it.
In this setting, China would probably like the present client regime of military dictatorship to continue to be in power in Myanmar rather than have democratic parties (which have strong U.S. links) as rulers. With a referendum of suspicious intent on the cards looming in Myanmar in the coming months, China's role in Myanmar is likely to be more firm and in support of the Than Shwe regime in the coming months.
Of course, there are tertiary fall outs as well. The Tibetan agitation close on the heels of an "independent" Kosovo engineered by the NATO allies has larger implications. In the run up to the Taiwan elections, where the opposition Kuomintang party is rooting for closer links with China, the Tibetan agitation and Chinese crackdown have drawn strong reaction. There is even talk of Taiwanese athletes not participating in the Olympics. However, these are early days for the public opinion to gather mass in protest against the Chinese. Only the future will tell whether this happens or not. That would also depend upon how well the Chinese handle a tricky situation without loss of face when the Olympic flame lights up.
Lastly, the Buddhist monks appear to be increasingly asserting their political role in many countries. In Sri Lanka, already the monks' party is an important factor of right wing politics to be counted among the hawks. In Myanmar, the Saffron agitation saw monks leading from the front triggering a nationwide agitation against military regime's oppression. In Tibet, again the saffron clad monks are in the front lines of national confrontation. Is there a latent Buddhist fundamentalist upsurge in the offing, after Islamic, Christian, Jewish, and Hindu fundamentalists? Unlikely, but only time can tell.
(Col. R Hariharan, a retired MI officer, is associated with the South Asia Analysis Group and the Chennai Centre for China Studies. E-mail colhari@yahoo.com)
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's statement about the willingness of Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao "to enter into a dialogue with the Dalai Lama" in the light of the Tibetan leader's assurance that he did not support total independence for Tibet and that he renounced violence, adds a new dimension to the agitation of Tibetans world over against Chinese rule in Tibet.
The agitation started on March 10, 2008 with a protest march by monks reminiscent of the saffron agitation last year in Myanmar against military dictatorship. This snowballed into a public protest two days later and spread outside among Tibetan community living in adjacent provinces of China and among Tibetan refugees the world over. Violence in Lhasa resulted in deaths estimated around 100, though the official figures are less. Between March 17 and 20, the Chinese came down hard on the protestors. They have made arrests and foreigners including tourists have been asked to leave Tibet.
Despite the Dalai Lama's repeated appeal to his followers to desist from violence, it does not seem to be having the desired effect on them. So the focus will now be on how fast the Chinese control the agitation without courting further adverse publicity. This becomes a prestige issue for the Chinese as the Olympic flame is to travel through parts of the troubled region to put the Beijing Olympics on its first paces in two months. Even if the agitation is quelled or subsides, it has brought to the surface the simmering issue of Tibet. The timing of this agitation is critical as international media focus is shifting to Beijing for the Olympics. It also invites attention to a number of other issues impinging upon not only Tibet and China, but their neighbours and China's global power equation.
Dalai Lama's status
The violence unleashed on Han population and on public assets by the Tibetan agitators despite the Dalai Lama's repeated appeals have raised a question mark over the Dalai Lama's monolithic influence over the Tibetan population living both at home and abroad. In particular, the agitators spearheaded by the Tibetan Youth Congress were clamouring for independence as against the Dalai Lama's emphasis on autonomy for Tibet. The virulence of the agitation appears to have surprised the Dalai Lama and the Chinese. Is the Dalai Lama losing control over the younger generation of expatriates? The answer to this question would decide the fate of the institution of the Dalai Lama in the future. Any uncertainty in the future of Tibetan leadership is going to be a significant issue not only for China but also for countries like India, Nepal, and even Europe which have provided sanctuaries to large number of Tibetans.
The talks to resolve the Tibetan issue between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese Premier could be a long drawn affair. There are basic differences between the two sides on the territorial limits of Tibet as understood by them. Their perceptions on the scope and extent of autonomy are also different. The Chinese strategy in such talks is to stretch them as long as long as possible as seen from our own experience. During this period, if there are institutional changes in Tibetan leadership how far it would be acceptable to the younger generation of Tibetans? What if the Chinese try to identify an incarnation of the Dalai Lama on their own and install him as they did in the case of the Panchen Lama? These issues would affect the durability of any formulation worked out in the talks.
Strategic issues
Next to China, historically India had been having the closest links with Tibet. So turbulence in Tibet or Tibetan leadership could create problems for India both internally and internationally. Both India and China are slowly inching towards building a peaceful relationship between them as dictated by their own economic and diplomatic interests. This burgeoning relationship could be tested if Tibet remains unstable. This is perhaps the reason for the Indian Foreign Minister to carefully nuance his statement on the agitation and India's stand on the Tibet question.
However, if China increases its force levels in Tibet it would become a matter of strategic concern for India. With a strongly pro-Chinese partner in the Maoists in the ruling Nepalese coalition any such large Chinese troop movements even in India's neighbourhood could trigger further concerns for India.
Apart from that, India's continuing dispute with China on the Tibetan boundary question has connotations for India's coalition politics. Memories India's war with China in 1962 over the disputed border still rankle the mind of large sections of Indian public, who consider it an act of betrayal by the Chinese leadership. This feeling will continue to condition Indian political perceptions to a certain extent. So if the Tibetan agitation persists it could find support among the Indian public and polity.
Similarly, the U.S. and the European Union had been taking special interest for a long time on the Tibet issue for various reasons ranging from strategic interests to the right of Tibetans to practice their religion, culture and language, to their human rights. They have been financially supporting Tibetans living overseas that had helped preserve their identity. The Chinese had always been keeping a watchful eye on such links, particularly with non-governmental organisations of these countries.
The U.S. – China relations are perhaps the closest than ever before. China's export economy is largely dependent upon the U.S. markets. The U.S. had been a major investor in the Chinese growth story. However, there is mutual suspicion on both sides due to the unarticulated intentions that drive this relationship. The U.S. moves in recent years to build strategic linkages with India and bring it into a quadrilateral relationship with Japan and Australia as well, has been a source of some security concern for China.
The Tibetans have a strong lobby in the U.S. seats of power. In the early years of Chinese occupation of Tibet, the U.S. had financed and sponsored revolt by sections of Tibetans against the Chinese forces. This historic memory could aggravate latent suspicions of the Chinese leadership about the U.S. stand on the Tibetan agitation and its resolution. So the U.S. actions in the coming weeks would come under careful Chinese scrutiny.
India is unlikely to allow any move of Tibetan activists across its borders with Tibet, particularly if Chinese troops are moved into the autonomous region to control internal situation. In such a situation, Nepal becomes a vulnerable region. However, the Chinese appear to have forced the Nepalese rulers to toe the Chinese line to quell any build up of agitation. The Chinese intelligence representatives are probably operating in border areas to sanitize the Nepalese side of the border also.
Given this situation, Myanmar's troubled northern borders with China become vulnerable to activities of anti-Chinese elements. With loose government control, this region is a haven for operation of insurgent groups, drug smugglers and gunrunners. In the past the U.S., either directly or through NGOs acting as proxies, has armed and infiltrated tribal insurgents to fight the Chinese incursions in the region. This option would always be available for any international sponsor of the Tibetan agitation. While this is in the realms of possibility only at present, the Chinese with long memories are unlikely to ignore it.
In this setting, China would probably like the present client regime of military dictatorship to continue to be in power in Myanmar rather than have democratic parties (which have strong U.S. links) as rulers. With a referendum of suspicious intent on the cards looming in Myanmar in the coming months, China's role in Myanmar is likely to be more firm and in support of the Than Shwe regime in the coming months.
Of course, there are tertiary fall outs as well. The Tibetan agitation close on the heels of an "independent" Kosovo engineered by the NATO allies has larger implications. In the run up to the Taiwan elections, where the opposition Kuomintang party is rooting for closer links with China, the Tibetan agitation and Chinese crackdown have drawn strong reaction. There is even talk of Taiwanese athletes not participating in the Olympics. However, these are early days for the public opinion to gather mass in protest against the Chinese. Only the future will tell whether this happens or not. That would also depend upon how well the Chinese handle a tricky situation without loss of face when the Olympic flame lights up.
Lastly, the Buddhist monks appear to be increasingly asserting their political role in many countries. In Sri Lanka, already the monks' party is an important factor of right wing politics to be counted among the hawks. In Myanmar, the Saffron agitation saw monks leading from the front triggering a nationwide agitation against military regime's oppression. In Tibet, again the saffron clad monks are in the front lines of national confrontation. Is there a latent Buddhist fundamentalist upsurge in the offing, after Islamic, Christian, Jewish, and Hindu fundamentalists? Unlikely, but only time can tell.
(Col. R Hariharan, a retired MI officer, is associated with the South Asia Analysis Group and the Chennai Centre for China Studies. E-mail colhari@yahoo.com)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)