Showing posts with label CIA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CIA. Show all posts

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Smoldering Sedition in Shangri-la


For almost 500 years, the powerful Empire of Tibet ruled the Himalayas, parts of central Asia, China and India; as far south as Bengal and as far up north in Mongolia during the 7th to the 11th centuries. The snow capped mountain ranges and narrow paths made Tibet impenetrable, and gave the empire an attacking advantage of the high ground when invading neighboring countries and territories. This however turned into a distinct disadvantage, since its isolation denied the empire of the emerging technologies and strategies in war, economics, and politics.

The cultural and religious traditions deepened, and way of life of Tibetans flourished; but its growth and defensive capabilities weakened. From the 12th century's occupation of Tibet by the Mongols followed by a succession of China's dynasties, Tibet was integrated with the Chinese Empire. The European "contact" blurred the status of Tibet beginning with the Portugese Missionaries who began encroaching on the domain of the Tibetan lamas, until they were expelled in 1745. The British Empire also raised its interest in Tibet to secure trade concessions. The British invasion of 1904 took out all resistance even from the Nepalese Gurkha government which occupied Tibet in 1855. Knowing the difficulty of governing the Tibetan terrain, the British agreed to sign the Anglo-Tibetan Treaty in 1904 which provides non-annexation of Tibet by Britain in exchange for fees from the Qing dynasty, and free trade zones for Britain; and the British empire would recognize China's suzerainty over Tibet.

In 1911, the 13th Dalai Lama declared independence from China, but no country ever recognized it as a sovereign nation and not a single western power had come out to grant it diplomatic recognition, much less favor its declared sovereignty. The turmoil in China from 1912 to 1948 allowed Tibet room for self rule, until the Communists controlled China and subsequently occupied and took control of Tibet in 1950. The Agreement signed in 1951 by Tibetan representatives affirming China's sovereignty over Tibet was obtained under pressure after resistance to China's occupation was crushed. America suddenly appeared in Tibet through the provision of massive funding and military support for Tibetan Guerrillas in 1959 via the CIA. The agency was also responsible for taking the Dalai Lama to exile in India. The support was discontinued in 1970 when then President Richard Nixon opted for rapprochement with China.

In 1980, protests erupted anew in Tibet pre-dating the
Tienanmen incident. The Chinese government decided to push for rapid modernization and development of Tibet to improve incomes and standards of living; to placate the region's ethnic population. They also encouraged the massive migration of Han Chinese into the regions of Tibet. The Tibetan language and religion were disallowed in the schools in Tibet, which was viewed by the ethnic Tibetans as a systematic means of wiping out their culture, traditions, and way of existence.

The latest round of violent protest clashes is a result of a continuing resentment made more intense by the perception that development and modernization favored the Han Chinese rather than the Tibetans. The cry for independence stems from their desire for self-rule, economic growth and empowerment, and the preservation of their culture, traditions and religion. The idealism of the Tibetan youth, fired up by years of frustration and disappointments, has been a smoldering cauldron that finally burst into a raging avalanche of burning lava not even the Dalai Lama's appeals could cool down.

The Chinese government has accused the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government in exile of masterminding the unrest, to embarrass China in its task of hosting the 2008 Olympics. It has also accused the western press of biased reporting in favor of the protesters. It has confirmed, however, that the violence has spread to other parts of the region. The Dalai Lama has denied masterminding the violence and has stated that talks be held between his government and China. He added that he would be satisfied with autonomy, not independence. Media has had to rely on unsubstantiated reports from the clash areas since China has banned all foreigners and media in these locations. Reports being released by China from statements of citizens point to support for the government in its campaign to contain the demonstrations. The news blackout in China itself and lack of knowledge about the Tibetan situation may cloud perception and judgment of the Chinese in these protest incidents. Or, the supportive statements for the government 's response are merely self-serving.

There are those who argue that independence would not be an economically viable option for Tibet, plus the fact that it will put them in direct conflict with China. Others argue that some sort of autonomy like that of Hong Kong or Taiwan, or at least what Tibet had between 1950-59 where the Dalai Lama was involved in governance, would be a workable solution. China is likely to agree to negotiations only if independence is removed from discussions as a pre-condition, since it is afraid that other ethnic groups would demand the same opportunity. China has poured billions into Tibetan development, which Tibetans feel benefited only the Han Chinese, and focused on urban business rather than rural social programs that would empower the ethnic populations. The current literacy rates of Tibetans cannot compete with those of the Han Chinese. All these have not helped in diffusing the anger of Tibetans with China, and the long standing resentment over Chinese rule.

The Chinese perspective is that Tibet is what borders the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) occupied by the 13th Dalai Lama in 1912. The Tibetan perspective is that it is an integrated region that does not have a politically unified history, but definitely a socially integrated history. The disadvantage of Tibet is that it faces a powerful country that controls its claimed territory, and any hope of settling the issue in its favor rests with the magnanimity of its invader and the support of the free world, both of which are too much to expect. Development will eventually overtake them, and whatever seditious sentiments remain in "Shangri-la" will be defeated by compromise and capitulation, unless all ethnic groups rise up at the same time and declare their respective sovereignty. Until then, this idyllic horizon at the roof of the world will slowly vanish from the sight of man, and forever be lost even from his memory.

Haaarrrwwwwk...Twoooooph...Ting!

Sunday, December 30, 2007

Pieces of the Pakistan Puzzle


Piece #1
President Pervez Musharraf- He shot into the global arena after 9/11, providing invaluable assistance to the US and its allies for the war on terror. Vowed to fight terrorism. The only Muslim country under an Authoritarian leader to support the effort. Yet he gave the Taliban leadership permission to resettle in Quetta and entered into peace deals with the extremist tribal bands on the border, while allowing Islamic extremists to go unabated in their propagation of jihad and Sharia law inside Pakistan. He agreed to shift to Democracy but bargained and secured the nod of the US for a "localized" Democracy, a version in which he will retain power. He could not get a confirmation of his election in November from the Supreme Court; declared a state of emergency, replaced the justices with his handpicked people, and got the confirmation. Under US pressure, he relinquished his post as concurrent head of the military but handpicked his successor too. He acceded to a brokered truce by Condoleezza Rice with Benazir Bhutto, allowing her return and dropping corruption charges , and was seen working towards sharing power with her as Prime Minister. Yet he had Bhutto arrested, then placed under house arrest after the bombing in her initial campaign rally. Following this, he continued to ignore requests for additional police vehicles and security arrangements for Bhutto's sorties. The assassination of Benazir Bhutto took place near a military installation.

Questions: Is President Musharraf playing both sides? If so, is it because he does not trust the US to keep him in power as proven time and again in recent history? Now that Pakistan is threatened by various extremist elements running wild plus the rampaging riots courtesy of Bhutto's supporters, can President Musharraf hold on to power?

Piece #2

Benazir Ali Bhutto-
Undoubtedly an intelligent, charismatic and populist political figure and leader with a long history of violent deaths in the family because of politics. Possesses strong grassroots support and is fully committed to a return to meaningful democratic processes for Pakistan. Vowed to uplift the lives of Pakistanis and institute tougher measures against extremists and Al Qaeda in particular; in contrast to Musharraf's coddling of jihadists and purveyors of the ultra conservative Sharia Law. Agreed to share power with the President on the truce brokered by Rice, but contradicts Musharraf's decisions in her speeches. Apparently possesses a weakness for corruption and a lavish lifestyle as against the poverty ridden countrymen she supposedly speaks for.

Questions: Did Benazir Bhutto demand, and eventually secure, a secret agreement from the US about taking full power after winning the election in January as part of the brokered truce? Are the conflicts with Musharraf's actions and decisions in her policy statements a prelude for this purpose? Knowing the dangers she was to be exposed to, were her efforts to unite her party and subsequent sorties meant to seek redemption, more for her countrymen; or for herself, the family's name and status?

Piece #3

The US Involvement -
Uncomfortable with the growing anti-US sentiment in Pakistan affecting its efforts in the war on terror, and the chaotic situation in its political structure; plus the emerging influence of extremists and jihadists in the country, the US sought to balance the hostility by engaging Pakistan's most popular political figure, Benazir Bhutto. Expressing full support for the US efforts, Bhutto's return and outpouring of acceptance by the Pakistanis, allowed her to regain a considerable amount of respectability and influence, and a more positive view of the US as a supporter of Pakistan's development; in addition to creating a sense of renewed power within her grasp. The US saw the power sharing arrangement with Musharraf as the best of both worlds they could get to win the war on terror. The CIA and the Defense department are, ironically, the ones encouraging more participation and involvement for civilian politicians.

Questions: Does the US sense some duplicity in the actions and/or intentions of Musharraf? Was the negotiation with Bhutto meant to check this duplicity? Was Bhutto made the pawn to see the true nature and intent of Musharraf? Did the US fail to see a successful assassination of Bhutto despite knowing the "many enemies" that threatened her life? Is the US prepared for, and capable of, repairing its tattered foreign policy in this region?

Piece #4

Three Versions of the Cause of Death-
The Ministry of Interior, through Minister Hamid Nawaz stated that the assassination was done by Al Qaeda through a militant leader named Baitullah Mehsud, based on obtained transcripts. The attack as reported by Italian News Agency, was planned by Al Qaeda's Ayman al-Zawahiri in October. However, the cause of death was given last Thursday as bullet wounds from the assassin's gun. By Friday, the declaration was "the impact of shrapnel on her skull" caused the death. Then later on the same day, it was changed to Bhutto banging her head against the metal support of the sunroof in her car as she ducked, that fractured her skull and caused her death.

Questions: Without a message claiming ownership of the assassination, was the Interior Ministry acting too fast in laying blame on Al Qaeda? Are those they named mere fall guys and usual suspects? Was the assassination carried out by "enemies" of Bhutto and laid on the lap of Al Qaeda to divert the investigations away from the real killers? And, is Al Qaeda quietly accepting this act to enhance its influential image to the west and the rest of the Islamic world? Are the three versions of the cause of death a ruse to deflect the investigations and negate other evidence to hide the real perpetrators?

Piece # 5

Nawaz Sharif -
The former Prime Minister and only remaining populist political figure in Pakistan, who was once the most powerful man in the country prior to being deposed by Musharraf; returned in September from Saudi Arabia. He was subsequently deported. The amnesty signed by Musharraf that paved the return of Bhutto did not include Sharif. How he managed to return without arrest was purportedly at the request of his host, Saudi Arabia. The former PM was
spared a jail sentence together with his family, at the request of the Saudis. Sharif has also vowed to oppose President Musharraf's government in the January elections. He has been making attempts to align himself with Bhutto's forces.

Questions: Did Sharif's avoidance of jail terms for himself and his family via the Saudi request include a strong "suggestion" from the US to the Saudis? Is his return and apparent acceptance by Musharraf's government hinged on the same "request and suggestion"? Will Sharif become the standard bearer of Bhutto's party and eventually be Prime Minister? Is this the counter-request of Musharraf to his perceived intentions of Bhutto? Is he Musharraf's secret candidate or is he the secret candidate of the US? If he is some interest group's secret candidate, could that interest group have complicity in the murder of Benazir Bhutto?

Now, you put the pieces together and you will see the picture. Of course, this is purely conjecture on my part, especially the questions for each piece of the puzzle, but the facts of each piece are accurate. I simply put myself in the shoes of each puzzle piece. You can ask your own questions too after reading the piece facts, the picture may still come out the same. Same dog, different collar.

Haaarrrwwwk...Twoooooph...Ting!

Sources: CNN, MSNBC, BBC, Newsweek