Archive for the 'Asia' Category

China’s Tibetan Shooting Team in Olympics Training

Who says China isn’t involving Tibet in the run up to the Olympics? It sounds as though they are as acutely aware of international sentiment as was the USSR when it invaded Afghanistan in 1979. I suppose the thinking is that if they get the purging, quelling and brutal suppressions in well ahead of the summer everyone will have forgotten by the time the Olympic flame is lit in the National Stadium. Maybe they will: we’ve already discounted the uncomfortable rumours that tens of thousands of people unfortunate enough to live in or near land required for the Olympic village were forcibly evicted. According to Kurt Streeter of the LA Times, a news blackout applied to any CCN report on Tibet and the streets were full of (not-so) secret police last week during nothing more controversial than a Dodgers’ exhibition baseball game. It doesn’t sound too welcoming. I’m surprised that there is a news blackout if the government is confident that, mischievously, Tibetan protesters are shooting and stabbing themselves to death in large numbers in Lhasa, Sichuan and elsewhere. That’s what I call news.

Tibet won its first gold medal for China before the Games even started. That old splittist the Dalai Lama, a well-known advocate of violence if ever there was one, received a Gold Congressional Medal last year from the US Congress for “human compassion, courage and conviction as his tools in carving a path for peace. For half a century, he has struggled to better the lives of the Tibetan people. In doing so, he has been a shining light to all those fighting for freedom around the world,” according to Senator Dianne Feinstein. Renowned Peacenik George W. Bush presented the gong in a private ceremony - in marked contrast to our lovely UK leaders who daren’t offer the twinkly old reincarnation of Chenrezig, Bodhisattva of Compassion, a cup of buttered tea when he comes to England this May.

Perhaps this is not so surprising: Britons never, never, never, will be slaves but we don’t mind other people having them so long as there’s a quid in it. And we aren’t slaves to the US, despite what cruel foreign devils like the French and Germans might sneeringly say. We uncharacteristically defied our US cousins and sent a crack team of hopefuls to the 1980 Moscow Olympics (and still didn’t win much against Togo and the Faroe Islands apart from Daley Thompson who won the three-legged race and probably would have won anyway). In passing, it’s ironic that the US boycotted the Ruskies for invading Afghanistan in a vain, brutal and savage attempt to form a bulwark against Islamic fundamentalism. Was this the same US who armed the ‘freedom fighters’, brought down the Soviet Union and - invaded Afghanistan?

The Dalai Lama has never urged Tibetans to rise in violent protest, and continually avows that he is not an advocate of independence for Tibet, merely free autonomous status, which China claims it already has, so what’s the problem? (It might be that the Gelugpa leader leans towards feudal theocracy, to be fair). This much we know. Several millions have died, been exiled or have been imprisoned since the invasion in 1950. Innocent Tibetans have been forced to endure Richard Gere, Prince Charles, The Beastie Boys, Bjork, ‘comedian’ Russell Brand and Steven Seagal, yet we still turn a blind eye to their plight.

The autonomous region of the Publisher’s office at Prospect has decreed that if you like, you can sign a petition asking Gordon Brown to show an ounce of gumption and meet the Dalai Lama. He probably won’t, but Mr Lama is welcome to come round here and write an article. People outside the UK (though probably not in China) can sign a petition here. To make it fair, Hu Jintao is also more than welcome to drop round if he’s in London provided he asks his mates to stop allowing these misguided Tibetan monks to shoot, stab and stomp themselves to death with such monotonous regularity.

Hope in Pakistan

In his web exclusive article for Prospect this week, Kamran Nazeer argues that the results of Pakistan’s recent elections suggest a growing weariness among the population with extremist and dynastic politics, and present the country’s main power blocs with an opportunity to forge a lasting accommodation via the constitution.

Whether this can or will happen remains an open question, and one tied closely to the fate of Pervez Musharraf, who has declared his intention to remain president despite his party’s substantial losses. What deals might he make in order to broker greater legitimacy; and what will be the supreme court’s ultimate verdict on the status of his presidency? A crucial and intriguing month for politics in Pakistan is set to unfold.

As ever, let us know what you think here.

Prospect online this week

Yesterday’s unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo marks the end of the legal limbo the province has found itself in since 1999, when the UN took over its administration following the Nato attack on Yugoslavia. But the focus on Kosovo’s political status has tended to mask the deep economic and social challenges faced by what is now Europe’s newest country, argues Dominik Zaum in a web exclusive for Prospect.

Also today, see Moni Mohsin on the Pakistani elections. She argues that with no saviour waiting in the wings, the most we can expect is that the party leaders will do their best to atone for past crimes by respecting the results and behaving themselves in opposition.

We’ll have another batch of web exclusives later this week.

Gandhi 60 years on

The new issue of Prospect comes out on the 60th anniversary of the murder of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, and so it’s worth remembering the reasons why he has become a moral touchstone. His genius was to develop, during his 21-year stay in South Africa from 1893-1914, the strategy of non-violent, or passive, resistance: the confrontation of authority with masses of people who refused to work, or to move, or to obey orders—but peacefully, offering no physical resistance to the police or army. It made him the model for many of the figures of resistance in the 20th century—including Martin Luther King Jr in the US and Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma; it ensured that the mass movement against the British was largely without violence; and it offered a benign alternative to the revolutions and coups with which the last century was marked. But above all, it did what it was designed to do: it shamed the British out of India, and out of empire.

As an inspiration and a symbol, Gandhi has no peer in the 20th century; as a practical politician, he was a despair to his colleagues in the Indian national movement. His insistence on non-violence grew more extreme as he aged: during the war, he recommended to the British that they should “invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions.” And in an interview given after the war, he went so far as to say that “the Jews [in Europe] should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs.” To attempt to overthrow tyranny, or even to oppose genocide, became for Gandhi an act almost as bad as tyranny or genocide itself—a view which finds an echo today in those who oppose any action of intervention to stop massacres.

Yet more than any other figure, Gandhi destroyed not just the British empire, but the very idea of empire. He did it by holding up to the British and to the world a mirror in which they could see themselves—preaching law, democracy and rights at home, while oppressing abroad. It is that vision which won out, in the latter half of the 20th century.

From the archive

General Suharto, former president of Indonesia, died today at the age of 86. Suharto took power in 1965, officially replacing Indonesia’s first president Sukarno in 1967. He governed for 32 years before the effects of the Asian financial crisis forced him out in May 1998. In Prospect’s March 1998 issue, Charles Glass saw the end of his dictatorship approaching, and assessed his legacy to his country.

Cultural alienation in Pakistan

Countrywide riots have left scores dead, property worth millions destroyed and fuelled fears of Pakistan’s imminent collapse. Last night, I met a wealthy young businessman at a Lahore party. “Do you know what’s going to happen here for the next three years?” he mused, gazing gloomily into a champagne flute. “New Year’s eve will fall in Muharram” (the Muslim month of mourning). “Ah well,” he said, draining his glass, “we’ll just have to party in New York or London.” Life, for some, does not change.

All over the world, rich people eat, drink and think differently from the majority. But in Pakistan the disparities are not just economic; the cultural alienation of the rich is increasingly marked. Social immobility and a sense that government—whether civilian or military—is by the rich and for the rich provides an increasingly fertile breeding ground for Islamists. The enduring appeal of Benazir Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s party stems from the populism of her father. Fundamentalists are increasingly well positioned to argue that mainstream political parties have failed the poor.

Continue reading ‘Cultural alienation in Pakistan’

The Pakistan crisis

Lahore-based novelist Moni Mohsin is covering the events in Pakistan for Prospect online. Her first dispatch assesses the life of Benazir Bhutto, and muses sceptically on the continued centrality of the dynasty in south Asian politics. Further contributions from Moni will appear here at First Drafts; see her post below on the identity of the Bhutto killers.

We also have Kishwer Falkner on the geopolitical implications of the assassination, and Shiraz Maher on the resonance of events in Pakistan among Britain’s Muslims.

Who killed Benazir?

Iconic deaths have an established history of spawning conspiracy theories. In the days since Benazir’s assassination, in a country deeply sensitised to political drama, where reality is increasingly fantastical, and established authority labours under a heavy deficit of trust, the “Who killed Benazir?” question is hotly debated in salons, chai-stalls and boardrooms.

“Of course the government killed Benazir,” scoffed my Lahore neighbour. “Why else try to convince us she died of concussion when we saw her being shot on TV? Why hose away evidence? Why no inquiry?” So deep is public rage and grief at Benazir’s loss it will not acknowledge that Musharraf and his puppet government are the prime losers from her death. “Musharraf is a commando, you know; she was thrust on him by the Americans, but he could not stomach her popularity. It was either him or her.”

More cynically, there is an imminent election, and no sooner had Bhutto been buried that political parties began crafting self-serving versions of what happened. In a press conference, her widower, Asif Zardari, was careful not to antagonise the country’s strongest power broker. “We have no quarrel with the army,” he said. Instead he pointed a finger at Musharraf’s civilian government, which would have been swept out of office in a fair and free election. Surreptitiously, their rumour-mongers are now accusing Asif Zardari, arguing that as regent to his son he has the most to gain from the current situation.

The truth is almost certainly more mundane, though no less frightening for that. “Al Qaeda” is an emotive neat shorthand to describe Islamists. These amorphous, faceless groupings are waging war not just against America but for the heart, mind, and body of Pakistan. The prospect of Benazir, in alliance with Musharraf, being able to hunt them down was not one they were willing to countenance. Having failed with a “bomb only” explosion that killed 150 people in Karachi in October, they decided this time for a more precise “gun and bomb” solution. Ideologues, not paid assassins, blow themselves up.

But if this is self-evident , why not admit it? Pakistanis are deeply implicated at several levels. Though the state is not directly involved, the military and the state have over the years spawned a number of groups who are deeply sympathetic to the Islamists (Musharraf’s participation in the war on terror notwithstanding) and continue to assist them. Musharraf cannot point the finger, as institutions he has presided over, in particular elements within the intelligence agencies, are likely to have aided if not actually pulled the trigger. Moreover , Pakistanis find it difficult to acknowledge the Islamist threat, because they are sympathetic to the anti-Americanism of these groups and have an emotional incapacity to criticise anything “Islamic.” It is easier to believe in conspiracies than to accept that a painful battle must be fought against the enemy within. When I asked my driver why no one blamed the jihadists, he shrugged. “When a country descends into anarchy,” he said, “the left hand becomes a stranger to the right.”

Pakistan: after the second coup

Kishwer Falkner’s article Trouble in Islamabad features in the current issue of Prospect. She is Liberal Democrat spokesman in the Lords for home affairs and justice

The declaration of emergency rule in Pakistan has left the US and Britain with a conundrum. While they need the military on side, they cannot any longer be seen to be supporting a “second coup.” Their carefully crafted deal between Benazir Bhutto and General Musharraf was predicated on the Pakistani supreme court being pliable. When it appeared that the court would not play ball, Musharraf “jumped” in what appears to have been a strategic miscalculation.

Given these unwelcome developments, the reaction in London and Washington has been to hold our collective breath, utter several expletives and then press Musharraf to recant on his declaration of emergency and restore elections on schedule. So we hope that in a few weeks Musharraf will step down as chief of army staff and hold elections on January 15th, to emerge sharing power with Benazir Bhutto. From our perspective, these two may not be the dream ticket, but it’s the only scenario on our books.

Continue reading ‘Pakistan: after the second coup’

What now for Burma?

The recent protests in Burma have transfixed the world’s media, but it seems likely that—however courageous the actions of those involved and appalling the treatment they have received—these will not on their own bring reform. What actions should the international community now be taking?

In our latest web-exclusive, Bangkok-based journalist William Barnes argues that sanctions are not the answer. Instead, he suggests, we should demand the opposition in exile join up more effectively with internal dissent, and should recognise that Burma’s neighbours are more interested in energy than democracy. Underestimating the resources and intelligence of the junta is, for Barnes, an error committed by much of the media: as is overestimating the sympathy that many governments in the region feel for street protests.

Let us know what you think here.




Bad Behavior has blocked 1188 access attempts in the last 7 days.