“The Afghan government and NATO deeply regret the incident, and our message to the insurgents is not to use civilians as a human shield,” said the Afghani Defense Ministry spokesman, Gen. Zaher Azimi.
The tribal leaders ofMusa Qala, a town in southern Afghanistan, recently rescinded their hospitality of the Taliban, and so combined NATO and Afghan forces were able to come root out the extremists. Two children were killed and five civilians injured during the battle.
I can only imagine the difficulty of waging battle in such a setting, where tribal leaders (as often elders) of a particular village decide whether or not the harbor extremists. The Marine Corps was going to take over the Afghan mission, but Gen. Robert Gates put the nix on that.
NATO - and the US with it - still have their work cut out for them.
11.30.2007
The Situation in Pakistan: What Now?
Pakistan is a nuclear nation of 164 million people. It shares borders with India, Afghanistan and Iran, making a stable Pakistan key to U.S. interests in the South Asia.
President Pervez Musharraf announced he would lift the state of emergency on Dec. 16. On Wednesday, he took off the uniform, relinquishing his position as the head of the army. He had been a part of the military for 46 years.
On Thursday, November 29, he was sworn in as president.
“No destabilization or hurdle will be allowed in this democratic process,” he said on state television and radio, reported by the New York Times. “Elections, God willing, will be held on Jan. 8 according to the Constitution and no one should create any hurdles.”
Musharraf's political moves have left some experts unconvinced.
“If you don't have an effective leadership, it doesn't matter if he's wearing a uniform or not,” said Professor Derrick Frazier, a political scientist specializing in third-party international action at Illinois.
“He's a military man,” he said. “He'll have his tentacles still firmly attached (to the military).”
The U.S. has had a Musharraf centered policy over the last five years, said Lisa Curtis, senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. Policy has shift over the past six to eight months, with the return of Benazir Bhutto, a liberal, pro-Western twice prime minister; and Nawaz Sharif, conservative, nativist twice prime minister; the former CIA analyst said.
These political developments have distracted Musharraf, she said. The handing of the bamboo rod (a symbol of military leadership) to General Ashfaq Kiyani should allow the civic and military spheres to focus on their respective goals. The military will be able to focus its attention in the tribal areas in northwest Pakistan, where many Taliban and Taliban-related groups inhabit, Curtis said.
Pakistan is divided outside of its major cities, Derrick Frazier said. Rural areas have a conservative, Sharif-sympathetic population. Appearance of American interaction – in the democratic process or in military action – will swing sympathy rightward, he said.
American operations in those outlying provinces would be problematic for pro-Western candidates, Frazier said.
The Taliban and al-Qaeda are entrenched and may have sympathy in areas like the Swat Valley, Curtis said. Cooperation between Pakistani and U.S. forces will be necessary.
“This is not something the Pakistanis want to advertise,” she said. Political blowback sometimes comes with counter-terrorism successes in Pakistan, she said.
“We have to assume that our military and political strategists are looking at how we can get at this terrorist safe haven. It's the number one counter-terrorism problem today,” Curtis said. “Pakistani forces have not had success on their own.”
Pakistan's recent history is complicated.
“The big change was going from elected government to army rule in 1999,” said Rajmohan Gandhi, a South Asia expert at Illinois. “Not that the democratic rule was good – it was corrupt.”
Musharraf, then army chief, deposed Nawaz Sharif. Sharif went into exile in Saudi Arabia and Britain. He has since returned to challenge Musharraf's rule, declaring that he will boycott elections.
Corruption festered in both cases, Gandhi said. Politicians enabled close relatives to make vast sums of money by giving land or certain licenses.
By 2003, military rule had lost its impulse. The economy improved and the media blossomed, but the government wasn't acting by the will of the people, one of the key causes of the current discord, Gandhi said.
When the politicians failed, the public favored the army in 1999. The army has now failed to serve the people, and Pakistanis are looking for civic leadership.
“In the end, everyone wants a say,” he said. “The voter wants a say in running the show, but the military was not able to make a transition. It was a failure of military rule, to not give back the government to the people.”
And with the change in leadership, be it in Bhutto, Sharif, or a de-uniformed Musharraf, U.S. interests are at play.
The Americans have not taught the Pakistanis smart responses to terrorism, he said. The bombing strategy may kill terrorists, but it certainly kills many non-terrorists. When people lose family members to their own government's bombing campaign, they are shocked, driving up terrorist sympathy.
Afghanis say the Taliban take shelter in Pakistan and Musharraf has seemed unable to do much about it, Gandhi said. America thinks Musharraf has not delivered, he added.
Bhutto has seized on the issue. She said she will be better at coping with terrorists than Musharraf. America bought the line, Gandhi said. U.S. diplomacy has triangulated, emphasizing Bhutto's possible role as a liberal leader.
“There was a rising democratic movement to want that change,” Gandhi said. “It is easy for America to be seen as responding to that wish. America can earn some plaudit for some effort to bring democracy back,” he said.
America has encouraged joint rule, with diminishing prospects. America should focus on the Pakistani people, not manipulating leaders, Gandhi said.
Musharraf has stated plans to move to democratic rule. He said he wants Pakistani democracy, not that in the form of Western diplomats, as reported by the Washington Post. This may be a prudent decision, Derrick Frazier said.
In the long run, democracies are most stable form of government, he said, but in the transitional phase, they are very vulnerable.
Frazier compared Pakistan with the case study of Russia, where democratic changes happened incrementally. Pakistani democracy may not be what America would want for itself, but it might be all that can be expected, he added.
U.S. interests will be served should open democracy take root, Gandhi said.
“It won't happen overnight, it won't be magical – Osama Bin Laden won't be immediately handed over to the U.S. with a democratically elected government – but prospects will improve.”
President Pervez Musharraf announced he would lift the state of emergency on Dec. 16. On Wednesday, he took off the uniform, relinquishing his position as the head of the army. He had been a part of the military for 46 years.
On Thursday, November 29, he was sworn in as president.
“No destabilization or hurdle will be allowed in this democratic process,” he said on state television and radio, reported by the New York Times. “Elections, God willing, will be held on Jan. 8 according to the Constitution and no one should create any hurdles.”
Musharraf's political moves have left some experts unconvinced.
“If you don't have an effective leadership, it doesn't matter if he's wearing a uniform or not,” said Professor Derrick Frazier, a political scientist specializing in third-party international action at Illinois.
“He's a military man,” he said. “He'll have his tentacles still firmly attached (to the military).”
The U.S. has had a Musharraf centered policy over the last five years, said Lisa Curtis, senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. Policy has shift over the past six to eight months, with the return of Benazir Bhutto, a liberal, pro-Western twice prime minister; and Nawaz Sharif, conservative, nativist twice prime minister; the former CIA analyst said.
These political developments have distracted Musharraf, she said. The handing of the bamboo rod (a symbol of military leadership) to General Ashfaq Kiyani should allow the civic and military spheres to focus on their respective goals. The military will be able to focus its attention in the tribal areas in northwest Pakistan, where many Taliban and Taliban-related groups inhabit, Curtis said.
Pakistan is divided outside of its major cities, Derrick Frazier said. Rural areas have a conservative, Sharif-sympathetic population. Appearance of American interaction – in the democratic process or in military action – will swing sympathy rightward, he said.
American operations in those outlying provinces would be problematic for pro-Western candidates, Frazier said.
The Taliban and al-Qaeda are entrenched and may have sympathy in areas like the Swat Valley, Curtis said. Cooperation between Pakistani and U.S. forces will be necessary.
“This is not something the Pakistanis want to advertise,” she said. Political blowback sometimes comes with counter-terrorism successes in Pakistan, she said.
“We have to assume that our military and political strategists are looking at how we can get at this terrorist safe haven. It's the number one counter-terrorism problem today,” Curtis said. “Pakistani forces have not had success on their own.”
Pakistan's recent history is complicated.
“The big change was going from elected government to army rule in 1999,” said Rajmohan Gandhi, a South Asia expert at Illinois. “Not that the democratic rule was good – it was corrupt.”
Musharraf, then army chief, deposed Nawaz Sharif. Sharif went into exile in Saudi Arabia and Britain. He has since returned to challenge Musharraf's rule, declaring that he will boycott elections.
Corruption festered in both cases, Gandhi said. Politicians enabled close relatives to make vast sums of money by giving land or certain licenses.
By 2003, military rule had lost its impulse. The economy improved and the media blossomed, but the government wasn't acting by the will of the people, one of the key causes of the current discord, Gandhi said.
When the politicians failed, the public favored the army in 1999. The army has now failed to serve the people, and Pakistanis are looking for civic leadership.
“In the end, everyone wants a say,” he said. “The voter wants a say in running the show, but the military was not able to make a transition. It was a failure of military rule, to not give back the government to the people.”
And with the change in leadership, be it in Bhutto, Sharif, or a de-uniformed Musharraf, U.S. interests are at play.
The Americans have not taught the Pakistanis smart responses to terrorism, he said. The bombing strategy may kill terrorists, but it certainly kills many non-terrorists. When people lose family members to their own government's bombing campaign, they are shocked, driving up terrorist sympathy.
Afghanis say the Taliban take shelter in Pakistan and Musharraf has seemed unable to do much about it, Gandhi said. America thinks Musharraf has not delivered, he added.
Bhutto has seized on the issue. She said she will be better at coping with terrorists than Musharraf. America bought the line, Gandhi said. U.S. diplomacy has triangulated, emphasizing Bhutto's possible role as a liberal leader.
“There was a rising democratic movement to want that change,” Gandhi said. “It is easy for America to be seen as responding to that wish. America can earn some plaudit for some effort to bring democracy back,” he said.
America has encouraged joint rule, with diminishing prospects. America should focus on the Pakistani people, not manipulating leaders, Gandhi said.
Musharraf has stated plans to move to democratic rule. He said he wants Pakistani democracy, not that in the form of Western diplomats, as reported by the Washington Post. This may be a prudent decision, Derrick Frazier said.
In the long run, democracies are most stable form of government, he said, but in the transitional phase, they are very vulnerable.
Frazier compared Pakistan with the case study of Russia, where democratic changes happened incrementally. Pakistani democracy may not be what America would want for itself, but it might be all that can be expected, he added.
U.S. interests will be served should open democracy take root, Gandhi said.
“It won't happen overnight, it won't be magical – Osama Bin Laden won't be immediately handed over to the U.S. with a democratically elected government – but prospects will improve.”
11.20.2007
3k
Pakistan frees 3,000 political prisoners, but things still aren't great.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,,2214002,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,,2214002,00.html
11.08.2007
Mush
With my step-father being an attorney, I have heard (and told) an incredible amount of lawyer jokes, as well as heard every proclamation of the civic and civil necessity-cum-privilege of lawyership. The recent crises in Pakistan have raised an awkward question, what happens when the most outright demonstrators in a nation take to the streets in a suit and tie? It's like a riot on Wall Street, with stockbrokers railing against the Fed. Quite simply, things are weird in Islamabad.
So why was the neck-tied silhouette of a man throwing back a teargas canister the top photo on yesterday's New York Times? President and General Pervez Musharraf – unpopular with the Pakistani judicial system – dissolved the Pakistani supreme court and declared emergency rule in the volatile nation. This come on the heels of Bhutto's return from self-imposed exile, and the subsequent assassination attempt. Indeed, there is much instability in Pakistan. This is unsurprising, even though Bush has described Musharraf as a stabilizing force.
“In fact, Western diplomats here said, each step the president takes to strengthen his hold on power in the name of stability generates instability of its own,” said David Rohde in a piece of news analysis for the Times. Rohde also wrote a straight news account of the lawyers protest, a double identity that would make me uncomfortable as a journalist.
Juan Cole writes with insider attitude on Salon, describing the two crises than moved Musharraf to act: an emboldened supreme court, which had rebuked Musharraf's effort to fire Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. The court was going evaluate the legitimacy of Musharraf's office, Cole said. The opposite pressure comes from Muslim fundamentalists, including the Taliban, who have challenged Musharraf's secular rule.
Many U.S. interests in the Middle East and Central Asia are contingent upon Pakistan and its regime. Most of the war materials needed for the war in Afghanistan come through Pakistan. America has bankrolled the Pakistani military with $10 billion – with a B – in aid since 2001, the Times reports.
Musharraf seems less than concerned about those interests, such as the War on Terror, than about his political survival, Rohde reports, regarding a meeting between Musharraf and Western diplomats. “There was serious concern that terrorism and security was not front and center. What was really amazing was him going on and on and on about how bad the judiciary was,” one diplomat said.
The poltically aware classes in Pakistan, including academics, students and obviously the lawyers, are rightly upset with Pervez's actions. Emily Wax did the codfish reporting for the Washington Post, ...
Many of have been arrested in the imposition of emergency rule, including attorneys and human rights activists. Over 2,000 have been arrested or place under house arrest since the suspension of the constitution last Saturday, the Chicago Tribune reports.
What we have here is a case of authoritarian action without the benefits of authoritarianism, including stability, which has become one of Musharraf's talking points. Across the country, police that would be hunting terrorists are instead hunting lawyers, Rohde reports. Between this trend and the regime's preoccupation with the judiciary, the increasingly lawless northwestern frontier territory bordering on Afghanistan has grown nigh-ungovernable. Musharraf's actions may increase militancy in those areas, the Tribune reports.
Pakistan is not ready for democracy, Musharraf said, and anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't understand the country. Even the decorum of Western democracy is absent from Pakistan. Musharraf – and U.S. interests in the region – are in a quagmire. Musharraf faces challenges from the left as well as extremists on the right. More and more, it seems America has ventured into a forest of which she knew little, with a general in the most precarious of positions.
So why was the neck-tied silhouette of a man throwing back a teargas canister the top photo on yesterday's New York Times? President and General Pervez Musharraf – unpopular with the Pakistani judicial system – dissolved the Pakistani supreme court and declared emergency rule in the volatile nation. This come on the heels of Bhutto's return from self-imposed exile, and the subsequent assassination attempt. Indeed, there is much instability in Pakistan. This is unsurprising, even though Bush has described Musharraf as a stabilizing force.
“In fact, Western diplomats here said, each step the president takes to strengthen his hold on power in the name of stability generates instability of its own,” said David Rohde in a piece of news analysis for the Times. Rohde also wrote a straight news account of the lawyers protest, a double identity that would make me uncomfortable as a journalist.
Juan Cole writes with insider attitude on Salon, describing the two crises than moved Musharraf to act: an emboldened supreme court, which had rebuked Musharraf's effort to fire Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. The court was going evaluate the legitimacy of Musharraf's office, Cole said. The opposite pressure comes from Muslim fundamentalists, including the Taliban, who have challenged Musharraf's secular rule.
Many U.S. interests in the Middle East and Central Asia are contingent upon Pakistan and its regime. Most of the war materials needed for the war in Afghanistan come through Pakistan. America has bankrolled the Pakistani military with $10 billion – with a B – in aid since 2001, the Times reports.
Musharraf seems less than concerned about those interests, such as the War on Terror, than about his political survival, Rohde reports, regarding a meeting between Musharraf and Western diplomats. “There was serious concern that terrorism and security was not front and center. What was really amazing was him going on and on and on about how bad the judiciary was,” one diplomat said.
The poltically aware classes in Pakistan, including academics, students and obviously the lawyers, are rightly upset with Pervez's actions. Emily Wax did the codfish reporting for the Washington Post, ...
Many of have been arrested in the imposition of emergency rule, including attorneys and human rights activists. Over 2,000 have been arrested or place under house arrest since the suspension of the constitution last Saturday, the Chicago Tribune reports.
What we have here is a case of authoritarian action without the benefits of authoritarianism, including stability, which has become one of Musharraf's talking points. Across the country, police that would be hunting terrorists are instead hunting lawyers, Rohde reports. Between this trend and the regime's preoccupation with the judiciary, the increasingly lawless northwestern frontier territory bordering on Afghanistan has grown nigh-ungovernable. Musharraf's actions may increase militancy in those areas, the Tribune reports.
Pakistan is not ready for democracy, Musharraf said, and anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't understand the country. Even the decorum of Western democracy is absent from Pakistan. Musharraf – and U.S. interests in the region – are in a quagmire. Musharraf faces challenges from the left as well as extremists on the right. More and more, it seems America has ventured into a forest of which she knew little, with a general in the most precarious of positions.
11.01.2007
More on Pakistan
As last week's Newsweek will tell you, the world's most dangers nation is not Iran, but Pakistan. It is a picture of instability. In recent weeks, it's current head of state (Musharraf and the exiled leader Bhuttu) have each survived assassination attempts, by way of explosion.
Violence continued today when an air force bus was destroyed, again by detonation. The explosion, near the central city of Sarghoda, killed eight and wounded 27 others. It is not a good time to be a symbol of state authority in Pakistan.
The attack was the first on air force personnel, but not the first on the armed forces. The standing army has been attacked numerous times. The attack on the air force is a sign of growing challenge to Musharraf, the New York Times reports:
“His authority has been undermined by growing unrest in tribal regions near the border with Afghanistan, where there has been a rising number of deadly attacks on military targets by militants sympathetic to the Taliban and Al Qaeda.”
“This is an extremely serious situation now,” said Talat Masood to the Times, a retired army general and military analyst. “The militants are trying to overpower, overwhelm the government. It is the military versus the militants, and the people are mere spectators.”
I'll be taking this from two perspectives: historic use of terror and contemporary discord.
This sort of insurgency is an interesting one. The propaganda by the deed here has historical parallels, including, quite obviously, terror in the Middle East. This brand of terrorism has its roots in turn of the century Europe, specifically France and the two rim countries – Spain and Russia.
Violence continued today when an air force bus was destroyed, again by detonation. The explosion, near the central city of Sarghoda, killed eight and wounded 27 others. It is not a good time to be a symbol of state authority in Pakistan.
The attack was the first on air force personnel, but not the first on the armed forces. The standing army has been attacked numerous times. The attack on the air force is a sign of growing challenge to Musharraf, the New York Times reports:
“His authority has been undermined by growing unrest in tribal regions near the border with Afghanistan, where there has been a rising number of deadly attacks on military targets by militants sympathetic to the Taliban and Al Qaeda.”
“This is an extremely serious situation now,” said Talat Masood to the Times, a retired army general and military analyst. “The militants are trying to overpower, overwhelm the government. It is the military versus the militants, and the people are mere spectators.”
I'll be taking this from two perspectives: historic use of terror and contemporary discord.
This sort of insurgency is an interesting one. The propaganda by the deed here has historical parallels, including, quite obviously, terror in the Middle East. This brand of terrorism has its roots in turn of the century Europe, specifically France and the two rim countries – Spain and Russia.
10.25.2007
Burmese Business
Burma and Sudan. Two nations that have recently – as in, hour by hour = had a history of human rights abuses. What do they have in common, beyond grinding away at a beleaguered population? China, an Asiatic giant that is inviting the world to its door in less than a year.
In fact, as was noted in the Washington Post, China's start date for the Olympics is August 8, which happens to be the same date in 1988 that the Burmese junta brutally put down a student-led protest, killing an estimated 3,000 people, not exactly the historical precedent Chinese PR might be looking for.
In fact, as was noted in the Washington Post, China's start date for the Olympics is August 8, which happens to be the same date in 1988 that the Burmese junta brutally put down a student-led protest, killing an estimated 3,000 people, not exactly the historical precedent Chinese PR might be looking for.
10.19.2007
Peril in Pakistan
An exiled female head of state returns to her home country, an Islamic state. Ten hours later, explosions rack her return procession in Karachi, with 134 dead and 150 to 300 injured, according to various sources.
Bombs marked Benazir Bhutto's homecoming. The Musharraf regime blames the bombings on Islamic militants. However, you've got to think about who benefits from the act. Plans for power-sharing between Musharraf and Bhutto were in the works. With this sort of unrest, Musharraf has stated that he may impose marshal law.
The first explosion was the work of a grenade. People rushed to the scene. A suicide bomber struck, killing many more. Bhutto escaped unscathed, but Bhutto thinks she has the beat on who is trying to kill her.
"I know exactly who wants to kill me," she told the French magazine Paris-Match. "They are dignitaries of General Zia's former regime who are behind extremism and fanaticism."
She suspects officials "who had belonged to the government of the former president, Gen. Mohammad Zia ul-Haq, who seized power in 1977 when he arrested and hanged Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Ms. Bhutto’s father," the Times reports.
Long before her return to Pakistan, Taliban leaders had made threats on her life. They thought she may cooperate with the U.S. in the pursuit of the War on Terror, the Guardian reports.
Militants were responsible for the attack, Bhutto said at a press conference today, and they must have had some sort of accomplice.
“(They) cannot act on their own,” she said in the interview. “They need logistics, food, weapons and someone to supervise them.”
“We believe democracy alone can save Pakistan from disintegration and a militant takeover,” she said in a press conference. “We are prepared to risk our lives and we are prepared to risk our liberty, but we are not prepared to surrender our great nation to the militants.”
Pakistan is in an interesting geopolitical situation. Afghanistan rests precipitously upon the postcolonial state. The borders don't quite match the ethnic groups. Afghani sectarian conflict often spills over to the Pakistan border.
Bombs marked Benazir Bhutto's homecoming. The Musharraf regime blames the bombings on Islamic militants. However, you've got to think about who benefits from the act. Plans for power-sharing between Musharraf and Bhutto were in the works. With this sort of unrest, Musharraf has stated that he may impose marshal law.
The first explosion was the work of a grenade. People rushed to the scene. A suicide bomber struck, killing many more. Bhutto escaped unscathed, but Bhutto thinks she has the beat on who is trying to kill her.
"I know exactly who wants to kill me," she told the French magazine Paris-Match. "They are dignitaries of General Zia's former regime who are behind extremism and fanaticism."
She suspects officials "who had belonged to the government of the former president, Gen. Mohammad Zia ul-Haq, who seized power in 1977 when he arrested and hanged Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Ms. Bhutto’s father," the Times reports.
Long before her return to Pakistan, Taliban leaders had made threats on her life. They thought she may cooperate with the U.S. in the pursuit of the War on Terror, the Guardian reports.
Militants were responsible for the attack, Bhutto said at a press conference today, and they must have had some sort of accomplice.
“(They) cannot act on their own,” she said in the interview. “They need logistics, food, weapons and someone to supervise them.”
“We believe democracy alone can save Pakistan from disintegration and a militant takeover,” she said in a press conference. “We are prepared to risk our lives and we are prepared to risk our liberty, but we are not prepared to surrender our great nation to the militants.”
Pakistan is in an interesting geopolitical situation. Afghanistan rests precipitously upon the postcolonial state. The borders don't quite match the ethnic groups. Afghani sectarian conflict often spills over to the Pakistan border.
10.11.2007
Trouble in Turkey
In my younger years I was relentlessly amused by Turkey and Hungary being nations that exist near one another. Obviously, my seven year old mind thought, one would consume another. Of course, as I have grown older, my understanding of Turkey has grown to be more nuanced. Evidently, Congress has not.
United States legislators have begun what has been called the “genocide vote.” The Turkish government said that a congressional committee vote labeling the mass killings of Armenians as genocide would endanger U.S. relations with the transcontinental nation, according to the Washington Post.
The Foreign Affairs Committee passed the nonbinding resolution on a 27 to 21 bipartisan vote. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has promised she will bring the resolution to the full House for a vote, the Post reports. Turkey had spent millions in a lobbying campaign to quell the vote.
Turkey rose out of the ruins of the Ottoman Empire. The nation is largely thought of as an axis between the East and West, or perhaps the Orient and the Occident. Rightly so, as the area factored into the split of East and West Roman Empire, to the change from Constantinople to Istanbul.
The nation acts a fulcrum between the Judeo-Christian and Islamic worlds. it joined the UN in 1945 and NATO in 1952. It is slotted to become the first Islamic nation to enter into the European Union. Turkey is one of America's closest Islamic allies, and the relationship is not quite as odorous as with Saudi Arabia, with not nearly the same oil interests.
At the same time, Turkey hopes to send its military into Iraq to pursue the Kurdistan Workers Party, a separatist faction in Turkish politics. Both the U.S. and the EU have asked Trukey to hold off on cross-border operations. Turkey's Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan,
The Post reports: “A Turkish military attack on northern Iraq could create chaos in that country's only relatively stable region, and a Turkish threat to limit U.S. access to its air bases and roads because of the congressional vote could cripple supply lines to American forces in Iraq.”
Turkey plans to play “diplomatic hardball” with the U.S. if the genocide bill goes through, the Economist reports.
That's all for now, I've got to go sign a lease.
United States legislators have begun what has been called the “genocide vote.” The Turkish government said that a congressional committee vote labeling the mass killings of Armenians as genocide would endanger U.S. relations with the transcontinental nation, according to the Washington Post.
The Foreign Affairs Committee passed the nonbinding resolution on a 27 to 21 bipartisan vote. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has promised she will bring the resolution to the full House for a vote, the Post reports. Turkey had spent millions in a lobbying campaign to quell the vote.
Turkey rose out of the ruins of the Ottoman Empire. The nation is largely thought of as an axis between the East and West, or perhaps the Orient and the Occident. Rightly so, as the area factored into the split of East and West Roman Empire, to the change from Constantinople to Istanbul.
The nation acts a fulcrum between the Judeo-Christian and Islamic worlds. it joined the UN in 1945 and NATO in 1952. It is slotted to become the first Islamic nation to enter into the European Union. Turkey is one of America's closest Islamic allies, and the relationship is not quite as odorous as with Saudi Arabia, with not nearly the same oil interests.
At the same time, Turkey hopes to send its military into Iraq to pursue the Kurdistan Workers Party, a separatist faction in Turkish politics. Both the U.S. and the EU have asked Trukey to hold off on cross-border operations. Turkey's Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan,
The Post reports: “A Turkish military attack on northern Iraq could create chaos in that country's only relatively stable region, and a Turkish threat to limit U.S. access to its air bases and roads because of the congressional vote could cripple supply lines to American forces in Iraq.”
Turkey plans to play “diplomatic hardball” with the U.S. if the genocide bill goes through, the Economist reports.
That's all for now, I've got to go sign a lease.
10.04.2007
Ecotourism: innovation and exploitation
Some of the world's greatest natural treasures are in the developing world. Perhaps this is partially because of its status as developing rather than industrialized. For these reasons, most temperate tourism takes place in the developing world, generally in or around the tropics. Simply put, ever since air conditioning, people want to live in, or at least visit, the warmer climes; think the ridiculous growth in Southern California, Arizona or Florida here in the states.
Tourism is also tied into places of interest, and often these tropical have fantastic natural attractions, be it diving, birding or jungle-trekking.
However, in many places across the globe industrialization is coming fast. Inherent to development, inherent to growth is the expansion of cities and civilization. Amazonian rainforest is logged, soy beans are planted. Burma's famous forests are logged as well.
Many of those who venture to exotic, tropical locales don't want to contribute to any further environmental impact. Enter ecotourism, short for ecological tourism, a way of sustainable travel to minimize the ecological, and anthropological, impact of the visit. The United Nations declared 2002 as the international year of ecotourism.
Many ecotourism events have taken place throughout the world this year, from Madison, Wisc., to Melbourne, Australia, to Nairobi, Kenya. The various ecotourism societies see themselves as not only businesses groups, but also political and environmental activists.
This year saw the Global Ecotourism Conference in Oslo, Norway. The conference based many of its observations compared to the benchmarks of the 2002 international year of ecotourism. Five years later, many of the world's natural areas remain under threat, and others under greater threat. According to the Oslo statement, world tourism has grown by 23 percent in five years and expects to double be 2020.
I was able to embark on an ecologically-friendly adventure this past summer, as my family and I went down to Belize for SCUBA diving. What I saw there was a grassroots take on ecotourism. The pleasant little island we stayed at, Caye Coulker, has seen sustained development in the past 10 years, including the first three and four-story buildings. Residents were generally opposed, in my experience.
Development has disturbed many native species, including the incredibly fragile seahorses, stressed by increasing boat traffic. I met a Rasta who has taken to being their ranger, as he has set up a tiny seahorse reserve on the quiet side of the island.
Ecotourism, at least in theory, is a wonderful thing. However, tourism still has its critics.
Ole Kamauro, writing for East African Business Week, brings up the negative cultural impact of the creation of parks and reserves in Africa. 70 percent of parks in east Africa are on the land of the Maasai, a semi-nomadic pastoral people. The parks, a good thing for the welfare of wildlife, may not be good for indigenous African culture.
Tourism has commodified parts of the Maasai lifestyle, Kamauro writes, “Traditionally, land was not a commodity for exchange like money or livestock. With the introduction of tourism it has become possible to trade land for money and this has created destitution and poverty, pitting members of the same clan against one another.”
Odds are that the forces tourism are not going to relent. It is the duty of the nations to step in and regulate tourism business, and to provide more nuanced legislation, to preserve pastoral culture, which should go hand in hand with the goals of ecotourism. When developed correctly, ecotourism can do great things for a country.
Karen Angel of the New York Times had an excellent article last month regarding the rise of ecotourism in previously war-torn countries. The Aga Khan Fund for Economic Development plans on investing $9.5 million in upgrades on hotels around Lake Kavu, Rwanda, according to the article.
Vietnam's tourism accounts for nearly a third of its gross domestic product. Laos recently hosted an ecotourism conference for countries in the Mekong River region of Southeast Asia.
Portions of tourism proceeds go to villagers in Rwanda, giving incentive to stop poaching wildlife, cutting down trees and draining water from national parks, Angel writes. According to her, no gorillas have been poached in Rwanda since 2003. With proper consideration, no cultures will be poached either.
Tourism is also tied into places of interest, and often these tropical have fantastic natural attractions, be it diving, birding or jungle-trekking.
However, in many places across the globe industrialization is coming fast. Inherent to development, inherent to growth is the expansion of cities and civilization. Amazonian rainforest is logged, soy beans are planted. Burma's famous forests are logged as well.
Many of those who venture to exotic, tropical locales don't want to contribute to any further environmental impact. Enter ecotourism, short for ecological tourism, a way of sustainable travel to minimize the ecological, and anthropological, impact of the visit. The United Nations declared 2002 as the international year of ecotourism.
Many ecotourism events have taken place throughout the world this year, from Madison, Wisc., to Melbourne, Australia, to Nairobi, Kenya. The various ecotourism societies see themselves as not only businesses groups, but also political and environmental activists.
This year saw the Global Ecotourism Conference in Oslo, Norway. The conference based many of its observations compared to the benchmarks of the 2002 international year of ecotourism. Five years later, many of the world's natural areas remain under threat, and others under greater threat. According to the Oslo statement, world tourism has grown by 23 percent in five years and expects to double be 2020.
I was able to embark on an ecologically-friendly adventure this past summer, as my family and I went down to Belize for SCUBA diving. What I saw there was a grassroots take on ecotourism. The pleasant little island we stayed at, Caye Coulker, has seen sustained development in the past 10 years, including the first three and four-story buildings. Residents were generally opposed, in my experience.
Development has disturbed many native species, including the incredibly fragile seahorses, stressed by increasing boat traffic. I met a Rasta who has taken to being their ranger, as he has set up a tiny seahorse reserve on the quiet side of the island.
Ecotourism, at least in theory, is a wonderful thing. However, tourism still has its critics.
Ole Kamauro, writing for East African Business Week, brings up the negative cultural impact of the creation of parks and reserves in Africa. 70 percent of parks in east Africa are on the land of the Maasai, a semi-nomadic pastoral people. The parks, a good thing for the welfare of wildlife, may not be good for indigenous African culture.
Tourism has commodified parts of the Maasai lifestyle, Kamauro writes, “Traditionally, land was not a commodity for exchange like money or livestock. With the introduction of tourism it has become possible to trade land for money and this has created destitution and poverty, pitting members of the same clan against one another.”
Odds are that the forces tourism are not going to relent. It is the duty of the nations to step in and regulate tourism business, and to provide more nuanced legislation, to preserve pastoral culture, which should go hand in hand with the goals of ecotourism. When developed correctly, ecotourism can do great things for a country.
Karen Angel of the New York Times had an excellent article last month regarding the rise of ecotourism in previously war-torn countries. The Aga Khan Fund for Economic Development plans on investing $9.5 million in upgrades on hotels around Lake Kavu, Rwanda, according to the article.
Vietnam's tourism accounts for nearly a third of its gross domestic product. Laos recently hosted an ecotourism conference for countries in the Mekong River region of Southeast Asia.
Portions of tourism proceeds go to villagers in Rwanda, giving incentive to stop poaching wildlife, cutting down trees and draining water from national parks, Angel writes. According to her, no gorillas have been poached in Rwanda since 2003. With proper consideration, no cultures will be poached either.
9.26.2007
Iraq, aftermath
George Packer wrote an excellent piece for the September 17 New Yorker, "Planning for Defeat," http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/09/17/070917fa_fact_packer
Check it out. Solid piece of foreign correspondence.
Check it out. Solid piece of foreign correspondence.
Annexation.
The U.K. wants to annex seafloor in the south Atlantic. more on the way.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/argentina/story/0,,2174616,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/argentina/story/0,,2174616,00.html
Mission to Burma cont'd
On this day 19 years ago, Aung San Suu Kyi founded the dissident National League for Democracy in Burma.As you may have heard, the Burmese junta has began firing on protesting monks. The monks and others' actions are the continuation of trends I described two weeks ago. Things are bloody and broken in Burma.
By 6:00 o'clock Burmese time, protesters had dispersed in Rangoon. Over 100,000 people took part in protests across the Southeast Asian nation, according to Mizzima News, a Web site specializing in Burma.
"Monks and civilians today began their protest at about 2 p.m. (local time) and burnt down four army vehicles and several motorcycles belonging to intelligence officials," referring to what happened near the Shwedagon Pagoda, the massive temple near Yangon.
""As the authorities refused to open the eastern gate of Shwedagon pagoda, the monks stood in front of the gate and recited Metta Sutta (Buddhist word for loving kindness). Then the soldiers charged the monks with batons and started beating and kicking the monks. We heard that an elderly monk died because of the beating. I saw one monk beaten severely. I guess that he is the same monk who is reported to have died. The monk must be over 80 years old."
Mizzima is doing an incredible job of covering the protest. It really demonstrates the power of the Internet as a liberator of the press, especially in developing nations. And, of course, the junta is threatening to limit or ban internet access.
http://mizzima.com/mizzimanews/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/burma/story/0,,2177868,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092600185.html?hpid=topnews
more on the way.
9.13.2007
Mission to Burma, but much less indie rock.
Mission to Burma
By Drake Baer
Staff Writer
For weeks, civilian protest has come to the streets of Myanmar, also Burma. Demonstrations over the incredible increase in petroleum prices have been met with force, with more than 150 protesters jailed, according to multiple reports.
At question is a country with an identity problem, as the ruling military regime refers to it as Myanmar and dissidents as Burma. In a lovely bit of Orwellian state department name irony, the government is led by Chairman Than Shwe of the State Peace and Development Council.
The regime has employed a group of paramilitary thugs, again ironically called the the Union Solidarity and Development Association to police the nation. Several thousand goons armed with wooden batons attacked protesters in Yangon, the nation's main city.
Amnesty International reports that over 150 people have been detained since August 19. On that day Once-subsidized gas prices experienced an increase of up to 500 percent. Rapid increases in staples are all too regular in the state, in 2003 the price of rice doubled in less than a year. The country's poor are being squeezed by the military junta.
The junta produced a constitution guaranteeing continued power on September 2. The military has been in control since 1962. The constitution was drafted over a period of 14 years, with the latest convention excluding any members of the opposition party, led by Aung San Suu Kyi, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate. Needless to say, the process has been seen as less than classically democratic. Suu Kyi has been subject to state-mandated house arrest 11 of the past 17 years. Under the new guidelines, she would not be able to hold office, to her being the widow of a foreigner.
Constitutional provisions assuring human rights are less than steadfast, as the New York Times reports, “the document severely limits the rights of political parties and it hedges its provisions on human rights and political activity with limitations based on concerns of 'national security.'”
Burma is a nation that 50 years ago was primed to be a leader in the developing world. Ithas since earned the U.N. designation of “Least Developed Country,”
The regime's faux-constitution is another step in Burma's anti-development, as put by New Zealand political scientist Peter John Perry, “An opporunty has been at worst rejected and at best mishandled ... The reason for this is the position of the regime, its ideology, its inflexibility, its greed and its incompetence.”
The new constitution reserves a quarter of parliamentary seats for military appointees and the presidency for a military figure. The army will also set its own budget, retain the right to declare a state of emergency, and have the ability to seize power – should they deem it fit to do so. These are not the fundamental principals of a free state.
Amnesty International reports that “widespread and systematic violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, amounting to possible crimes against humanity,” have been committed by the regime.
Public demonstrations are rare in the Southeast Asian nation, as they often end in blood, as was the case in the 1988, when protests over 1000 Burmese citizens were killed. In the fallout of the 1988 uprising, the Junta moved universities from the cities and the capital to a more remote location, to diffuse protest by students and civil servants, the New York Times reports. The new capitol is Naypyidaw, which roughly translates as “abode of kings.”
In 1990, the junta held a parliamentary election. To their dismay, the National League for Democracy won in a landslide, taking home 80 percent of the vote. Obviously, the junta had no other choice than to annul the results.
The Burmese junta is second only to the Mugabe (mis)Administration of Zimbabwe when it comes to completely and unequivocally squandering an opportunity for growth. The funds coming from natural resources, including a world-famous lumber industry, have been concentrated in few hands.
Burma is a place where a corrupt military has literally entrenched itself in power in its newly built capitol. The country is closed off to the world; very few journalists or academic are allowed within its borders. As such, we do not hear much from the state. It seems that the only way Burma might change is by pressure by nearby trading partners, most notably China. Burma is unstable, authoritarian state; even if it holds itself to be the opposite.
By Drake Baer
Staff Writer
For weeks, civilian protest has come to the streets of Myanmar, also Burma. Demonstrations over the incredible increase in petroleum prices have been met with force, with more than 150 protesters jailed, according to multiple reports.
At question is a country with an identity problem, as the ruling military regime refers to it as Myanmar and dissidents as Burma. In a lovely bit of Orwellian state department name irony, the government is led by Chairman Than Shwe of the State Peace and Development Council.
The regime has employed a group of paramilitary thugs, again ironically called the the Union Solidarity and Development Association to police the nation. Several thousand goons armed with wooden batons attacked protesters in Yangon, the nation's main city.
Amnesty International reports that over 150 people have been detained since August 19. On that day Once-subsidized gas prices experienced an increase of up to 500 percent. Rapid increases in staples are all too regular in the state, in 2003 the price of rice doubled in less than a year. The country's poor are being squeezed by the military junta.
The junta produced a constitution guaranteeing continued power on September 2. The military has been in control since 1962. The constitution was drafted over a period of 14 years, with the latest convention excluding any members of the opposition party, led by Aung San Suu Kyi, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate. Needless to say, the process has been seen as less than classically democratic. Suu Kyi has been subject to state-mandated house arrest 11 of the past 17 years. Under the new guidelines, she would not be able to hold office, to her being the widow of a foreigner.
Constitutional provisions assuring human rights are less than steadfast, as the New York Times reports, “the document severely limits the rights of political parties and it hedges its provisions on human rights and political activity with limitations based on concerns of 'national security.'”
Burma is a nation that 50 years ago was primed to be a leader in the developing world. Ithas since earned the U.N. designation of “Least Developed Country,”
The regime's faux-constitution is another step in Burma's anti-development, as put by New Zealand political scientist Peter John Perry, “An opporunty has been at worst rejected and at best mishandled ... The reason for this is the position of the regime, its ideology, its inflexibility, its greed and its incompetence.”
The new constitution reserves a quarter of parliamentary seats for military appointees and the presidency for a military figure. The army will also set its own budget, retain the right to declare a state of emergency, and have the ability to seize power – should they deem it fit to do so. These are not the fundamental principals of a free state.
Amnesty International reports that “widespread and systematic violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, amounting to possible crimes against humanity,” have been committed by the regime.
Public demonstrations are rare in the Southeast Asian nation, as they often end in blood, as was the case in the 1988, when protests over 1000 Burmese citizens were killed. In the fallout of the 1988 uprising, the Junta moved universities from the cities and the capital to a more remote location, to diffuse protest by students and civil servants, the New York Times reports. The new capitol is Naypyidaw, which roughly translates as “abode of kings.”
In 1990, the junta held a parliamentary election. To their dismay, the National League for Democracy won in a landslide, taking home 80 percent of the vote. Obviously, the junta had no other choice than to annul the results.
The Burmese junta is second only to the Mugabe (mis)Administration of Zimbabwe when it comes to completely and unequivocally squandering an opportunity for growth. The funds coming from natural resources, including a world-famous lumber industry, have been concentrated in few hands.
Burma is a place where a corrupt military has literally entrenched itself in power in its newly built capitol. The country is closed off to the world; very few journalists or academic are allowed within its borders. As such, we do not hear much from the state. It seems that the only way Burma might change is by pressure by nearby trading partners, most notably China. Burma is unstable, authoritarian state; even if it holds itself to be the opposite.
9.06.2007
China institutes rebirth control
I often cringe at the word “Orwellian” when it is bandied about. However, China's latest move goes beyond anything Eric Blair described in 1984, for last Saturday, September 1, the Chinese government instituted a series of rules aimed at controlling Tibet – including reincarnation.
In case you missed last week's “odds and ends” news, the Chinese government has passed legislation banning the reincarnation of Tibetan monks without official sanction. As the Times of London reports, the newly enacted rules make it so that the living Buddha, the Dalai Lama, cannot reincarnate without government approval.
"It is an important move to institutionalize management on reincarnation of living Buddhas," the Chinese State Administration for Religious Affairs said in a statement. A temple that wishes to house the living Buddha must be legally registered for “Tibetan Buddhism activities and capable of fostering and offering proper means of support for the living Buddha,” according to the state religious agency.
The move is as political and as it is absurd. China hopes to open up Lhasa as a tourist venue, with the newly completed railroad. Beyond disrupting Tibetan Buddhism, the legislation is an effort to promote Chinese nationalism, as well. When religion is the center of a culture, and a figure is central to a religion, the best way to control the religion, and by proxy, the culture, is to legislate control – and selection – of the central figure.
The Chinese government has already selected the official Panchen Lama, the Dalai Lama's number two, without the Dalai Lama's blessing. Unsurprisingly, the state Panchen Lama has told the Chinese state press of the “ample religious freedom” the Tibetan people enjoy.
"I've been to many places in the past decade and witnessed the ample freedom enjoyed by individuals and religious organizations alike,” he said to Xinhua News Agency in 2005. “Living Buddhas like myself are able to perform religious rituals under the wing of the Chinese Constitution and other laws," he said.
Ever since the People's Liberation Army crushed the Tibetan resistance in 1949-1950, China has had a difficult time quashing the restive Tibetan faith, a faith that is a fundamental part of Tibetan culture. Institutionalizing reincarnation is one way for Beijing to control the influence of the Dalai Lama, who was up to his exile the primary political figure in the region as well.
According to that administrative bureau, the government only steps into religious affairs of public and political interest. But when that religious affair is the selection of the most important public figure in a occupied territory, that affair is of incredible political worth.
The new regulation also precludes any Buddhist monk from reincarnating outside of China, according to India's Daily News and Analysis.
“These stringent new measures strike at the heart of Tibetan religious identity,” said Lodi Gyaltsen Gyari, a special envoy of the Dalai Lama, to the Indian news service. “They will only create further resentment among the Tibetan people and cannot override the Party’s lack of legitimacy in the sphere of religion.”
The United States' press coverage of the issue is less than stellar, as it has appeared only in sections such as Emil Steiner's column for the Washington Post, OFF/beat.
For a paper with an extensive foreign desk, a little more thorough coverage of the issue would be nice, considering how China is a growing economic power, one that is inviting the world to its capitol a year from now. The Los Angeles Times hasn't followed the story, while the New York Times has it on their premium “TimesSelect” program.
The tension between the land of snow and its easterly neighbor has persisted from as far back as 821, when the first peace treaty between Tibet and China was signed. In 1913, Tibet declared a national independence. In the following years, the recently founded Chinese Republic refused to fully acknowledge the autonomy of the nation.
Tibet, as well as the rest of the East, experienced a tremendous shift in stature in October of 1949 when Chairman Mao Tse-tung proclaimed the People's Republic of China. One year later, 80,000 troops of the People's Liberation Army marched into Tibet. Another year later, the Seventeen-point Agreement integrated Tibet into the larger country, with a promise of autonomy.
That autonomy has been the subject of a bloody history of protest and government control. In March 1959 an uprising was brutally smothered in Lhasa. At that point, the Dalai Lama fled to India. Since that point, further demonstrations have often been met further gunfire.
In the past month, during the Tibetan festival season, images and posters of the exiled Dalai Lama have been dealt with “swiftly,” according to the New York Times. Chinese officials and security forces have had an active role in the festivals. Any attempts by Chinese officials to rouse the crowd were met with a muted response, reported Howard W. French for the Times. Although there has not been gunfire, the government nonetheless has attempted to further control of the Tibetan minority.
Perhaps the best way to understand the fallout of the situation is to go straight to His Holiness, as per his well-maintained Web site, “If the present situation regarding Tibet remains the same, I will be born outside Tibet away from the control of the Chinese authorities,” he said. “Thus, if the Tibetan situation still remains unsolved, it is logical (that) I will be born in exile to continue my unfinished work.”
In case you missed last week's “odds and ends” news, the Chinese government has passed legislation banning the reincarnation of Tibetan monks without official sanction. As the Times of London reports, the newly enacted rules make it so that the living Buddha, the Dalai Lama, cannot reincarnate without government approval.
"It is an important move to institutionalize management on reincarnation of living Buddhas," the Chinese State Administration for Religious Affairs said in a statement. A temple that wishes to house the living Buddha must be legally registered for “Tibetan Buddhism activities and capable of fostering and offering proper means of support for the living Buddha,” according to the state religious agency.
The move is as political and as it is absurd. China hopes to open up Lhasa as a tourist venue, with the newly completed railroad. Beyond disrupting Tibetan Buddhism, the legislation is an effort to promote Chinese nationalism, as well. When religion is the center of a culture, and a figure is central to a religion, the best way to control the religion, and by proxy, the culture, is to legislate control – and selection – of the central figure.
The Chinese government has already selected the official Panchen Lama, the Dalai Lama's number two, without the Dalai Lama's blessing. Unsurprisingly, the state Panchen Lama has told the Chinese state press of the “ample religious freedom” the Tibetan people enjoy.
"I've been to many places in the past decade and witnessed the ample freedom enjoyed by individuals and religious organizations alike,” he said to Xinhua News Agency in 2005. “Living Buddhas like myself are able to perform religious rituals under the wing of the Chinese Constitution and other laws," he said.
Ever since the People's Liberation Army crushed the Tibetan resistance in 1949-1950, China has had a difficult time quashing the restive Tibetan faith, a faith that is a fundamental part of Tibetan culture. Institutionalizing reincarnation is one way for Beijing to control the influence of the Dalai Lama, who was up to his exile the primary political figure in the region as well.
According to that administrative bureau, the government only steps into religious affairs of public and political interest. But when that religious affair is the selection of the most important public figure in a occupied territory, that affair is of incredible political worth.
The new regulation also precludes any Buddhist monk from reincarnating outside of China, according to India's Daily News and Analysis.
“These stringent new measures strike at the heart of Tibetan religious identity,” said Lodi Gyaltsen Gyari, a special envoy of the Dalai Lama, to the Indian news service. “They will only create further resentment among the Tibetan people and cannot override the Party’s lack of legitimacy in the sphere of religion.”
The United States' press coverage of the issue is less than stellar, as it has appeared only in sections such as Emil Steiner's column for the Washington Post, OFF/beat.
For a paper with an extensive foreign desk, a little more thorough coverage of the issue would be nice, considering how China is a growing economic power, one that is inviting the world to its capitol a year from now. The Los Angeles Times hasn't followed the story, while the New York Times has it on their premium “TimesSelect” program.
The tension between the land of snow and its easterly neighbor has persisted from as far back as 821, when the first peace treaty between Tibet and China was signed. In 1913, Tibet declared a national independence. In the following years, the recently founded Chinese Republic refused to fully acknowledge the autonomy of the nation.
Tibet, as well as the rest of the East, experienced a tremendous shift in stature in October of 1949 when Chairman Mao Tse-tung proclaimed the People's Republic of China. One year later, 80,000 troops of the People's Liberation Army marched into Tibet. Another year later, the Seventeen-point Agreement integrated Tibet into the larger country, with a promise of autonomy.
That autonomy has been the subject of a bloody history of protest and government control. In March 1959 an uprising was brutally smothered in Lhasa. At that point, the Dalai Lama fled to India. Since that point, further demonstrations have often been met further gunfire.
In the past month, during the Tibetan festival season, images and posters of the exiled Dalai Lama have been dealt with “swiftly,” according to the New York Times. Chinese officials and security forces have had an active role in the festivals. Any attempts by Chinese officials to rouse the crowd were met with a muted response, reported Howard W. French for the Times. Although there has not been gunfire, the government nonetheless has attempted to further control of the Tibetan minority.
Perhaps the best way to understand the fallout of the situation is to go straight to His Holiness, as per his well-maintained Web site, “If the present situation regarding Tibet remains the same, I will be born outside Tibet away from the control of the Chinese authorities,” he said. “Thus, if the Tibetan situation still remains unsolved, it is logical (that) I will be born in exile to continue my unfinished work.”
A new direction
This decrepit blog, which was the invention of tedious hours in a real-estate office, will now head into a new, far more interesting, direction. This will be the place for the columns I'll be writing an independent study at the University of Illinois. I hope you, the reader, will enjoy it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)