Dr. Adityanjee 

North Korea, under the leadership of Kim Jong Il had twice tested a nuclear device in 2006 and in May 2009, Its nuclear program is certainly aided and abetted by both China and Pakistan in what is called the “CHIPNOKISS” network. Last year, Korea North unveiled a uranium enrichment facility, giving it a second route to make an atomic bomb along with its plutonium program. The secretive Stalinist state of North Korea is one of the greatest threats to regional security on the Korean peninsula with frequent saber-rattling and pin-pricks to their South Korean counterparts.

There are several possible geo-political scenarios following this significant event. Despite the fervent wishes of the Western observers, it is unlikely that the totalitarian Stalinist state would unravel. Communist China will continue to ensure that its most effective client state remains unified and continues to serve Chinese geo-political interests with deniability. Military will continue to rule North Korea with possibly a regent emerging from the ruling Kim dynasty while the boy-king comes of age in the state-craft. 

The departed “dear Leader” also promoted his sister and her husband, Chang Song-thaek, to important political and military posts, creating a powerful gang of three. Chang can acquire the role of an effective regent for the younger Kim prince-ling. He holds a top position in the powerful Worker’s Party providing some balance to the generals who have been seen as more hard-line in pushing the North to develop an atomic arsenal.

The Stalinist state under the great successor will muddle along with continued economic help from China. The military will act responsibly and not take adventurous steps vis-à-vis South Korea. After several years of grooming, the young prince-ling will get his wings and would lead North Korea happily to more starvation and misery but with an iron fist. The North Korean military will maintain its chokehold on the state and continue to enjoy the privileges and the pelf.
A more alarmist scenario is that the North Korean military, under threat of loss of power and privileges, might attack South Korea and create a dangerous situation on the Korean peninsula. If the North Korean generals are sane, they would not use this opportunity to test their power and hopefully would not start a new war.
Having said that, anything is possible in love and war, and of course in geo-politics. Death of the “dear leader” may lead to palace intrigues and a de facto succession battle with other sons of the dead king throwing their hats in the ring. Or else, the great successor himself might precipitate a crisis to prove his “coming of age” to his brothers or to the regent.  The regime may try to deflect attention from its shortcomings and might use the nuclear weapons in the ensuing conflict. The de facto regent may want to acquire more power de jure. A prolonged succession battle might lead to more severe economic crisis, famine, misery, starvation and a consequent massive exodus of North Korean refugees into the neighboring states.

Such a scenario presents the international community with a window of opportunity to help unravel the Stalinist state, complete the unfinished business of Korean War of 1954 which had ended with only an armistice agreement and without an enduring peace treaty. Perhaps, the UNSC, the IAEA and the former allied powers may need to intervene to secure the North Korean nuclear weapons if North Korean refugees start pouring into the “Demilitarized Zone”  (DMZ) and into neighboring China and South Korea. Unraveling of the Stalinist State would eventually contribute to a slow and painful demise of the made in China “CHIPNOKISS” network of illicit nuclear weapons proliferation and trade.
Will China like such an outcome? Decidedly not! Will China risk an international war trying to protect her client state? Very unlikely! China will try to stem the tide of North Korean refugees into China if the unstable regime in North Korea falters. China would want the status quo to continue by any means. However, China has other pressing economic and social priorities rather than fighting another hot war in the Korean peninsula. China itself is going to go through a leadership transition in 2012 when President Hu Jintao completes his second four year term.

China also needs to brace itself for possible defeat of Ma Ying-jeau of Kuomintang (KMT) in the January 14th 2012 presidential elections in Taiwan. If the DPP candidate Tsai wins the Taiwanese presidential elections, China will have a lot on its plate to deal with. Such a sequence of geo-political events in North East Asia will make reunification of the Korean peninsula possible under UN supervision. North Korean citizens would be grateful to the UN for letting that happen. South Korea would secretly favor such an outcome because it will eventually lead to removal of nuclear weapons controlled by the communist Kim dynasty from Korean peninsula.
Such an interventionist scenario in the North East Asia would be in the long term strategic and geo-political interests of India. It will set an international example as to how under certain “dangerous conditions” forced denuclearization of a “rogue regime” is acceptable to the UN, the IAEA and the international community. To India’s advantage, it may ultimately lead to dismantling of the “CHIPNOKISS” network.  

Iran continues to defy the world opinion with uncommon belligerence. Iran may also be preparing for its first nuclear test having amassed enough heavy enriched uranium.  Iran has consistently indulged in a game of diplomacy and obfuscation since early 2003. For the first time, former Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Masood Qureshi acknowledged that Pakistani nuclear weapons are not safe in the hands of the Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari. Though Qureshi did not give details of how Pakistan’s nukes were in danger, he promised to give more information in near future.  He claimed that as foreign minister he was privy to classified information and knew the pressures and stresses Pakistan was facing over its nuclear program. Unfortunately, the international community has naively characterized this illegal international nuclear trade merely as a private network started by the rogue Pakistani nuclear scientist, AQ Khan as Nuclear Wal-Mart.  To call the clandestine nuclear proliferation & trade activities as Nuclear Wal-Mart is an insult to Sam Walton the founder of Wal-Mart. It is neither a private enterprise owned by Dr. AQ Khan nor a legitimate business owned by Pakistan. It is an illegal state sponsored illicit nuclear trade network meticulously nurtured by the Pakistani government-military-intelligence-industrial-jihadi-business complex. The whole effort was supported by Peoples’ Republic of China and funded by Saudi Arabia. 

The nuclear programs of China, Pakistan and Iran are interlinked. The nuclear Pak-Mart is a small segment of a larger axis of nuclear proliferation that consists of CHI. P. NOK. I. S. S.; i.e.  CHIna, Pakistan, NOrth Korea, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia.  China has consistently indulged in vertical, horizontal and extended nuclear proliferation activities globally. The Wiley communist dictatorship has surreptitiously either sold or “donated” nuclear technology to all the rogue nations creating a dangerous situation. Barring Pakistan, all the members of CHIPNOKISS had originally signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.  China, the fountainhead of the CHIPNOKISS network, before joining the NPT in 1992, stealthily gifted Pakistan 50 kilograms of heavily enriched uranium, 10 tons of UF6 (natural) and 5 tons of UF6 (3%). It provided Pakistan with nuclear weapons designs and gave access to the Chinese nuclear testing site,  Lon Nor,  for a nuclear test in1990. China also helped Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission in setting up UF6 plant, production reactor for plutonium and reprocessing plant. These facts were acknowledged by Pakistani rogue scientist Dr. AQ Khan in a letter to his Dutch wife Henny. Saudi Arabia has already funded Pakistan’s nuclear program for the last three decades and will pay Pakistan further in hard cash for extended deterrence. It also has the ability to pay cash on the spot for ready-made nuclear weapons ordered from Pakistan. Through its client state Pakistan, China has proliferated to countries like North Korea & Libya.   Libya came clean to the IAEA in the last decade to prevent US military intervention. Documents turned in by the former Libyan government to the IAEA included Chinese nuclear weapons designs. Syria received nuclear designs from North Korea and a secret Syrian nuclear reactor was bombed by Israel in 2007 without any Syrian resistance. 

While scape-goating AQ Khan, the international community condoned the role played by China and its client state and all-weather friend Pakistan. In the self-exculpatory letter to his wife, DR. AQ Khan clearly states: “You know we had cooperation with China for 15 years. We put up a centrifuge plant at Hanzhong. We sent 135 C-130 plane loads of machines, inverters, valves, flow-meters, pressure gauges. Our teams stayed there for weeks to help and their teams stayed here for weeks at a time. Late minister Liu We, VM Li Chew, vice Minister Jiang Shengjie used to visit us”. 

Any further leakage of nuclear weapons or nuclear materials from the CHIPNOKISS into hands of Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups must be prevented at any cost. As the patron saint of the CHIPNOKISS, China has overzealously guarded its minions.  China has usurped its position as a member of N5 of the NPT and the P5 of UNSC to deflect serious and effective action against these rogue nations while portraying a facade of diplomacy. The six-party talks were a Chinese game-plan to frustrate the efforts by international community to contain the North Korean nuclear proliferation. The four-plus one formula (Germany, France, UK and UN) to deal with Iran floundered in 2003 because of covert support and encouragement by China to the Iranian Ayatollahs. While maintaining a diplomatic charade, China has enabled these rogue nations in subverting the international non-proliferation regimes.

Nuclear containment and partial denuclearization, and not appeasement should be the strategic response of the civilized world. If international community continues to let this axis grow, the world would witness nuclear blackmail as the future diplomatic currency. The civilized world would not be able to deal with the terrorism, drug-wars and criminality because of the threats of retaliation by nuclear weapons from non-state actors. A fresh start must be made by the international community led by the IAEA in denuclearizing North Korea and Pakistan despite Chinese objections. Without defanging these two unstable and dangerous nuclear nations, no further progress would be made in preventing future nuclear proliferation.  Pakistan has already propounded the seductive theory of neo-nuclear apartheid. Nuclear disarmament must start with Pakistan, North Korea and Iran. Iran must be prevented, at any cost, from crossing the nuclear redline.  Total zero is very far away and remains a distant fuzzy dream. Meanwhile, international efforts have to focus on making the world safer by isolating and de-fanging the most dangerous and irresponsible regimes and their surrogate non-state actors that may indulge in international nuclear blackmail. Most importantly, the international community must call a spade a spade and hold China to account for its reckless nuclear proliferation activities.

There was scant interaction between India and Taiwan from 1949 to 1995 owing to India’s abnormal fear of Chinese over-reaction. China, under its “One China Policy” has opposed to Taiwan having any kind of independent relations with any country as it considers Taiwan a renegade province. Bilateral relations got some momentum from 1995 when trade representative offices of either country were set up in Delhi and Taipei. Owing to this historic absence of political and diplomatic relations, bilateral trade between India and Taiwan is too small. It stood at only $6.47 billion in 2010 accounting for mere 1.2% of Taiwan’s total foreign trade. Taiwanese investment in India from 2001 through 2010 accounted for just 0.04% of Taiwan’s overall outward investment.  At the same time, Indian investment in Taiwan amounted to no more than 0.05% of the nation’s total foreign direct investment.

India-Taiwan strategic economic relationship needs to be both deepened and nurtured as both economies are highly compatible and can be mutually complementary to one another in a number of areas. Taiwan’s foreign exchange reserves are still the 4th largest in the world and at the end of October 2011 stood at US$393.327 billion. India has not been very successful in attracting FDI from China, Japan and Russia, the other three top cash surplus countries. There is no existing security threat to India from Taiwan and hence investment of “clean capital” from Taiwan should be acceptable to India without the risk of industrial, defense & strategic espionage, theft of trade secrets or potential loss of intellectual property rights. India will have to take bold diplomatic steps in attracting Taiwanese government and private businesses to favor India while making investment decisions.

The Taiwanese president Ma Ying-jeou of the Kuomintang Nationalist Party (KMT) faces a serious re-election challenge from the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) candidate Tsai Ing-wen on 14th January of 2012.  The run-up to the 2012 election has been complicated by the entry of the veteran politician, People First Party (PFP) chairman James Soong, who was expelled from the Kuomintang a decade ago. If the pro-mainland China votes are split between Ma and Soong in a trilateral contest, the likely beneficiary would be the DPP candidate Tsai. Incidentally the same outcome had happened in year 2000 presidential elections when Soong ran as an independent candidate and finished just behind the winner Chen Shui-bian of the DPP relegating the KMT to third position. In the last Taiwanese presidential elections in 2008 which brought the Kuomintang Nationalist Party (KMT) back to power,  President Ma Ying-jeou had won by 58 per cent of the votes against the 42 per cent obtained by the then ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) candidate, Frank Hsieh. Taiwanese voters at that time were more concerned with corruption scandals during the eight years of DPP rule under the former President Chen Shui-bian who is currently in prison. Chen Shui-bian had restricted Taiwanese investment in China during his eight year rule in order to reduce the island’s dependence on its giant and expansionist neighbor. Clearly, Ma has not been able to bridge the cross-straits geopolitical differences and no peace treaty has been signed during his controversial tenure. Ma is considered a trojan horse for the communist China. Taiwanese businessmen already have invested US$150 billion in the mainland China.  If Ma is defeated and the DPP again comes to power, there is a possibility of Taiwanese fiscal disinvestment in view of changed geopolitical perception of China. If there is a flight of Taiwanese capital from China following the January 2012 Taiwanese presidential elections, India should strategically prepare herself as the most likely destination for the freed-up Taiwanese capital to be invested in Indian infra-structure.

Taiwanese investment in India is very low at $1 billion. The investment of 70 Taiwanese companies in India is under 0.3 per cent of Taiwanese investment in China. The India-Taiwan trade target is 10 billion dollars by 2013-2015 compared to the 60 billion dollar India-China bilateral trade in 2010.  Taiwanese investment in India has been limited to the manufacturing and technology sectors and most of this investment has been made in the state of Tamil Nadu. India’s private sector needs to explore ways as to how Taiwanese capital could be tapped in Indo-Taiwanese business joint ventures. Indian IT giants can explore joint-ventures between Indian High-tech sector and the Taiwanese hardware companies.   In a hypothetical scenario, if Ma is defeated and DPP’s Tsai is elected new President of Taiwan, one of the fall-outs will be Taiwanese disinvestment of US$150 billion from the Peoples Republic of China.  Should this become a reality India needs to exploit that opportunity for investments into its physical infra-structure that needs approximately US$400 billion of new investment. Taiwan has also toyed with the idea of starting a new Sovereign Wealth Fund (SWF) or add more money to its existing executive development fund. This will pave the way for Taiwanese government investment in India. Though not generally known, Taiwanese businessmen have complained about arrogant attitude of their mainland business partners from the PRC who control their investment capital using dubious and deceptive business and legal practices.

The processed food industry is a major component of the Taiwanese economy. In 2009, this sector posted revenues of $17 billion. In fact, four of the top 10 food companies in China are Taiwanese. Taiwanese agricultural technology isn’t capital intensive, it focuses on small efficiencies to boost productivity.  Taiwan is a leader in the food processing sector and can help India modernize our capacity in the food processing this sector. India should ask for transfer of food processing technologies from Taiwan and joint collaboration in research and development. Taiwan has made heavy fiscal investments in the processed food sector in China. Taiwanese should be thinking of diversifying from China to India.  Taiwan imports seafood worth US $ 500 million annually from India and is keen to import seafood from the state of Orissa. Taiwan is also interested in investing in cold storage, refrigeration and seafood processing to increase the Indian seafood export potential. Other areas for Taiwanese investment include production of instant noodles and cooking oils. 

A second “Green Revolution” in India would be possible only through industrialization of the agricultural produce and agro-business  in India. Taiwan can become the catalyzing agent that can help India feed the world. Indian farmers still fail to get right compensation for their produce owing to lack of proper ware-housing and cold storage facilities. Taiwan has organized retail stores which serve not only to procure and market products but also as places where consumers can deliver goods, buy tickets and pay utility bills. This Taiwanese retailing model is suitable for India’s vast rural areas. Instead of welcoming multi-brand retail corporations, India should on a limited scale invite Taiwanese investments. This would reduce food inflation without loss of millions of jobs in small, family owned retail stores in India.

Taiwan currently hosts the APEC SME (small and medium enterprises) crisis management center (SCMC). Indian businesses would benefit immensely from linkages and collaboration with Taiwan’s robust small and medium enterprises. Taiwan revolutionized the whole concept of contract manufacturing – a product is broken down into many smaller assemblies which are manufactured separately at independent locations before being reassembled. At each stage, manufacturing is optimized, thereby, reducing the overall cost of production. One very important lesson for India would be how to develop a globally competitive manufacturing industry. As the Chinese factories close down owing to increasing labor costs and recession in the West, Indian factories can start manufacturing in the global chain with Taiwanese investment in joint ventures.

Over 30,000 Taiwanese Buddhist tourists visited India in 2010. Majority of them went to Bihar to visit Bodh Gaya & Sarnath.  Indian tourism sector can get a tremendous boost if we can promote the Buddhism and other Indic religious tourism circuits to the cash-surplus Taiwanese tourists analogous to the Japanese tourists. Other religious tourist destinations like Karnataka, Orissa and Tamil Nadu could be attractive to Taiwanese religious tourists.  Indian travel and hospitality industry must aggressively court Taiwanese tourists.  For the Taiwanese  nation, India is truly incredible in terms of its diversity, culture and languages. There are many Indian dance troupes in Taiwan promoted and staffed by locals who perform Odissi, Bharatanatyam and Kathak.

Taiwanese are also interested in Yoga and meditation that is associated with India. Indian tourism sector needs to leverage the “soft power” of India and her civilizational assets in forging strong people to people as well as economic, and mercantile relationships with Taiwan. Let us not forget that China is trying to control India’s soft power by launching the World Buddhist Forum. China’s attempts to control the Buddhism tourist circuit include offering investments in Nepal’s Lumbini project; offering seed money for India’s Nalanda University revival project and by trying to dictate to India about hosting of the pan-Buddhist conference by Asoka Mission. Higher education is another area where joint collaboration could be beneficial mutually. Indian students are willing to go anywhere if there is an opportunity for excellent international education followed by significant job potential. Taiwan can offer scholarships to Indian students for vocational and advanced technical education. Bilateral student exchange programs can help in the areas of linguistics, liberal arts, culture, and educational technologies.

With a stronger India-Taiwan strategic economic partnership, India can harvest secondary benefits. India is not a member of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation or the APEC. APEC has 21 members currently. Both China and Taiwan simultaneously joined the APEC at the same time along with Hong Kong on 12-14th November 1991. Expansion of membership in APEC is frozen on grounds of procedural objections from China. The 9th APEC Ministerial meeting had laid down guidelines for APEC membership that included geographical location in the Asia-pacific Region; broad based economic linkages with other APEC members in terms of size and share; significant integration with the world economy, and broad liberalization and deregulation policies designed to encourage external linkages.  India meets all these criteria without any doubt and must be invited to the APEC membership. If direct access is not coming India will have to use a crowbar to secure access to the APEC markets.

In order for India to participate in the trade opportunities in the APEC, having an economic foot-hold in Taiwan would be strategically helpful for India’s trade and mercantile interests in this globalized world. Even if India acquires indirect access to APEC, it can be transformed eventually into Indo-Pacific Economic Cooperation by 2020 when the APEC attempts to realize its Bogor goals, namely the establishment of the free trade area of the Asia-Pacific (now re-characterized as the Indo-Pacific), promising to achieve free and open trade and investment in APEC. India, like Peoples’ Republic of China has not been invited to join the US-led Trans-Pacific Partnership, a proposed free trade area. Taiwan is a member of the proposed TPP. Whereas there is bilateral Taiwan-China business, economic and mercantile relationship allowing People’s Republic of China to participate indirectly in the TPP process; India does not have that luxury. Building a strategic economic partnership with Taiwan gives India access to TPP block of countries.

After two years of international arrogance, China is very defensive internationally having lost to India in the IMF elections by a majority of 107 to 77. China is feeling the international heat in the South China Sea and in the recently concluded East Asian Cooperation (EAC) meeting in Bali, Indonesia 15 out of the 18 countries singled out China for its hegemonic tactics in South China Sea. India  wisely chose not to rake the issue in the Bali meeting. However, India strongly held her ground stating that she has strong economic interests in the South China Sea that she will not forego her economic interests. China is also miffed at strong resurgence of the US interest into the Asia-Pacific region in the form of TPP from which China has been excluded. China will also undergo transfer of power in 2012  with a new CCP leadership team that may not be prepared to open yet another front with India on latter’s economic relationship with Taiwan.

China continues to deepen its all-weather relationship with Pakistan and has PLA presence in the POK.  There is no reason for the Government of India to listen to the likes of MK Bhadrakumar, BS Raghavan and N. Rams from the Planet of the Panda Huggers. Nor is there any reason for the Government of India to worry about possible Chinese economic retaliation if India were to develop deeper strategic economic partnership with Taiwan. India-China bilateral trade currently is $60 billion and is heavily in favor of China. China would be the loser if takes retaliatory measures.  It would risk losing an emerging market of prosperous Indian middle class at a time when the purchasing power of the US and Euro-zone consumers is going down.

China has strong economic relationship with Taiwan which has been institutionalized for more than two decades in the form of Taiwan Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) set up in 1990; and the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARTS) set up in China in 1991. In June 2011 China and Taiwan signed the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement. Both these countries had traded indirectly through Hong Kong route and other third parties prior to establishment of direct commercial and trade relationships. If China can accept FDI from Taiwan and trade directly with Taiwan, so should India. If India can attract flow of “clean” capital without “geopolitical” strings attached.  It will be welcomed by Taiwan which currently has surplus of it. It will be a win-win game for both India and Taiwan. Taiwan will get a good and trust-worthy economic partner with rule of law in lieu of China, should Taiwanese businessman decide to disinvest from China.

Taiwan is a ripe candidate for India to do business with. Taking the overall geopolitical situation while China is on the defensive, time has come now for further consolidation of India-Taiwan strategic economic partnership (IT-SEP). Further steps to promote bilateral relationship must include development of a CEO’s forum, cultural and academic exchanges, bilateral student exchange programs and an annual Ministerial level strategic & economic dialogue alternating in New Delhi and Taipei. IT-SEP can become a reality in the next five years (2012-2017) bringing dividends to both the countries and their economies, if India plays her economic and trade cards well and woos the Taiwanese FDI without bothering about Chinese reaction. 

There is a very clear cut pattern to Chinese geo-political endeavours. China is behaving as a classical hegemon that is determined to prevent emergence of a rival power by any means. Despite India’s serious reservations, a few years ago, China manipulated the SAARC process to enter as an observer, on an  Invitation from Nepal, Pakistan and Bangladesh When India wanted to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the full membership was frozen and India was again hyphenated with Pakistan and Iran as an observer. China is the only country among the P5 nations that has yet to endorse India’s candidature for the permanent membership of the UNSC. This, even though China has been making noises about harmony, democracy and consensus building in the UNSC reform process. This will help the Coffee Group (so-called United for Consensus group) orchestrated by Pakistan.

China had initially put up a number of conditions at the time of approval of the India-US civil nuclear energy deal by the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). Ultimately, the US forced China to support the deal in the NSG. Now, China wants a similar deal in the NSG for its all-weather friend and client state Pakistan. Turning to the ASEAN, China has, for last several years prevented India’s entry by stringently opposing the ASEAN plus six formula that includes India (ASEAN, Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea and US) while supporting the ASEAN plus three formula (ASEAN, China, US and Japan). We also see continued exclusion of India from the APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Conference). Primarily as a result of Chinese machinations, the APEC is not ready to enlarge itself. If we carefully analyze the Chinese behaviour towards India, not only has China tried to confine India to the sub-continent as a mere regional player, but also China has made no secret of its efforts to contain India’s rising profile in other international fora to suit its narrow mercantile and hegemonic purposes.

At the same time, China has been seconding the Manmohan Singh mantra about the world having enough space for both China and India to rise peacefully at the same time. Similar to Nehru’s endorsement of “Panchsheel”, the current Indian PM has fallen in the same trap laid by China for India in the international organizations. Nehru was privately characterised as a “useful idiot” by the Chinese leadership. One wonders what Hu Jintao is saying about Dr. Singh privately. A few years ago, India’s then petroleum minister Mani Shankar Aiyar was naively talking about developing hydrocarbon resources jointly with China, while China successfully outbid India for every hydrocarbon asset internationally   whether in Africa or closer to home in Myanmar. Indian politicians have failed to learn from the previous treacherous behaviour on part of China, and regularly succumb to Chinese bullying. The lack of proactive strategic planning has always been missing from India’s leadership’s mindset and time and again we are left to react to geo-political situations by fire-fighting each avoidable crisis.

Although India and China have tangoed at the G20, RIC, BRIC, BASIC and SCO groupings for a few years now, China has been keen to neutralise India’s influence in the IBSA, a grouping that excludes China specifically. India has been lukewarm to the idea of China joining the IBSA because China is not a democracy while all the three countries of IBSA are thriving democracies in three separate continents. China has been working very hard with Brazil and South Africa for the last couple of years to achieve its stated purpose. The next BRIC meeting is scheduled in April 2011 in Beijing. And, lo and behold, China has had the chutzpah to foist South Africa on to the BRIC. Enlarging the economic grouping to BRICS tremendously helps China’s foreign policy objectives of containing Indian economic, strategic, political and diplomatic influence. China has effectively managed to collapse BRIC and IBSA into one single grouping (BRICS). Currently China is South Africa’s largest trading partner and South Africa is the largest destination in Africa for China’s direct investment. South Africa’s small population, the size of its economy and the relatively slow growth rate did not meet the original BRIC standards. By inviting South Africa to BRIC(S), China has deftly dented India’s economic outreach in Africa. China has also quickly out-maneuvered the proposed India-US collaboration and cooperation in Africa as suggested by President Barack Obama during his November 2010 India trip recently.

By this master-stroke, China has shown the audacity to adopt the colonial and imperialistic policy of “Divide and Rule” vis-a-vis the G4 countries (Brazil, India, Germany and Japan) who are aspiring to be members of the UNSC as permanent members. Brazil has been torn asunder from the G4 in toto and firmly aligned with China in the now enlarged BRICS. By claiming the leadership of BRICS and harping on its political role in the developing world, China has tried to marginalize India’s rise as an emerging pole in the emerging oligo-polar geo-political balance of power hierarchy. For all practical purposes, we can say goodbye to IBSA as an economic vehicle for India to access increasingly lucrative African and Latin American markets. Chinese efforts are ostensibly geared towards strengthening South Africa’s and Brazil’s claims for the UNSC permanent membership while simultaneously over-looking and demeaning India’s global role. People’s Daily Online ominously notes that “In 2011, all the members of the BRICS countries will serve as members of the UN security council, permanent or non-permanent. Their active roles deserve people’s attention in the year to come”. China Daily, while neglecting India focuses on the role of China, Russia and Brazil have played in the international arena.

India has now very hard strategic choices.  It should insist that BRICS in its latest avatar must remain primarily an economic block without any scope for creeping politicisation of the economic group into a geo-political formation. India cannot be seen to be opposing South Africa’s entry into the BRICS for historical, diplomatic and geo-political reasons, though it remains lukewarm to the proposal. India should take a serious note of China’s audacious move in the international chess game and counteract it by joining the ASEAN formally, resurrecting the BIMSTEC and vigorously strengthening the IBSA as a trade block. India should use her current membership of the UNSC to catapult into the NSG as a full-fledged member. India should make determined efforts to join the proposed East Asian Economic Community and prevent her further exclusion from any economic or trade group in order to balance China’s growing influence in international economic diplomacy.

The ability to dock successfully was very crucial for the success of the proposed Chinese permanent space station.  All the parts of the docking mechanism and more than 600 onboard instruments were designed and made by Chinese companies both state-owned and privately owned. The space-craft Shenzhou VIII will return to the Earth after separating initially and then carrying out a second docking operation. Incidentally, the Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao watched the docking operation also from an aerospace center in Beijing. China has, now, time-bound plans to develop a manned permanent space station by the year 2020. China, thus became the third space-faring nation after the US and Russia to successfully launch a space portal and build a space station.  

The docking technology is hard to perfect because the two space-modules placed in the same orbit and revolving around the Earth at high speed must approach each other without mutual destruction. China decided to launch its own space station after being denied membership of the 16-nation international space station, primarily owing to the US objections. The US was concerned about sharing dual use technology with China owing to opacity and military linkage of Chinese space program. China is playing catch-up game with the US and Russia who achieved these technological capabilities in the 1960s. Following the Shenzhou VIII, there will be two more spacecraft launch missions next year including one manned mission with astronauts staying for up to one month. Two female Chinese astronauts are being trained currently for the proposed mission. China has already trained its astronauts with Russian help. In September 2008, Chinese Astronauts carried out China’s first spacewalk while piloting the Shenzhou VII.

China has also plans to launch a space laboratory before 2016. The proposed Chinese space station will weigh approximately 60 tons when completed in three sections between 2020 and 2022. It will be considerably smaller than the Russian space station Mir and the international space station. Chinese space station will consist of a module, two labs, a cargo ship and a manned rocket. The Shenzhou VIII will serve as the prototype for future Chinese space-ships. China plans more than 20 manned space flights in the next decade. 

Exclusive Club of Space Superpowers

China’s stated goal is to give itself parity with the other two space-faring superpowers and not be left behind. However, the Chinese space trajectory is going to be much faster. The state-run mouth-piece Global Times while appreciating the launch, highlighted the fact that China was playing a 30 years late catch-up game with the US and Russia. It further said: “But there is no choice. As long as we are determined to rise in the world and pursue rejuvenation, we need to take risks. Otherwise, China will be a nation with prosperity but subordinated to top powers, and such prosperity depends on the attitude of others”. The Global Times editorial did caution about the fiscal implications for China to go to outer space while strongly justifying the need on strategic grounds. It further rationalized: “It is impossible for a destitute China to go to outer space, but without the support of strategic tools, it can not walk far. China’s future is destined to be entangled by all kinds of demands and goal. But they need to be well-balanced”.

China is, thus, openly and unabashedly advocating using its space program for strategic purposes in future. Sitting on cash-reserves of two and a half trillion dollars, a self-effacing “destitute” China remains committed to achieving space parity with the other two space super-powers at any fiscal cost.

Space and Military Implications

In January 2007, China tested an anti-satellite (ASAT) weapon against one of its ageing weather satellites orbiting at 500 miles above the earth. The anti-satellite weapon was anon-explosive “kinetic kill vehicle” that destroyed its target by colliding with it. China succeeded in the 4th attempt in the series of ASAT tests. Following the successful interception, there was total silence for two weeks from the Chinese political leadership who did not acknowledged the test. China diplomatically invoked the fig-leaf of communication gap between the central Chinese government and the PLA leadership. Since the Chinese Communist party’s doctrine is that “the party controls the gun”; it was impossible for the Peoples’ Liberation Army to conduct an ASAT test without the approval of Chinese Central government. China has also developed navigation satellite jammers that are equipped to disrupt the GPS. There have been instances of China secretly firing powerful laser weapons to disable the US spy satellites by “blinding” their sensitive surveillance devices and preventing spy photography when they pass over China.  Chinese acquisition of these offensive space military capabilities forced the US to conduct an ASAT test under the garb of saving the earth from the impact of one of its dysfunctional spy satellites. The US glibly claimed that the missile strike on satellite was meant to prevent the toxic 1000-pound hydrazine tank from scattering the debris over populated areas. Clearly, there is an ongoing race amongst the three space super-powers over both militarization as well as weaponization of the space. Both China and Russia have made attempts at Geneva to bolster an international effort to ban weapons in the space in order to corner and contain the US.

South China Sea Paradigm

In the 14the century CE, Chinese eunuch Admiral Ho went on a sea voyage around the Indian and Pacific oceans. Based on these “historical conquests” China wants to control the whole of the “South China Sea” as its own sovereign territory. These medieval sea voyages are also the historical basis behind Chinese so-called legal claims on the islands and atolls in the South China Sea for their mineral and hydrocarbon wealth. China insists on dealing with each of the ASEAN nations bilaterally to resolve these claims instead of dealing with the issue multi-laterally. Based on a similar imperialistic and ancient paradigm of tributary or vassal nations, Communist China has expanded its western borders to include Tibet and East Turkistan (Xinjiang) after the defeat of the Kuomitong (KMT) government. China is desperately trying to get a toe-hold in the Arctic region so that it can lay claims to the arctic mineral wealth.

Dragon’s Divine Right to the Heavenly Space

China’s strategic thinking and behavior is stereotypically “predictably predictable”. Chinese emperors in the middle kingdom were always considered “God-Kings”. Like the South China Sea paradigm, future Chinese Governments, after having achieved space superpower status may start threatening other space-faring nations. It is possible that China in future may invoke the doctrine of “China’s Heavenly Space” after having constructed a “Heavenly Palace” that mated successfully with the “divine vessel”. China has used historical precedents to justify its hegemony on both land and the sea; it will reflexively claim Chinese “divine” right to sovereignty over the space as well. 

Space as China’s Core issue

The list of core issues for China is ever expanding. Starting with the historical two T’s (Tibet and Taiwan), now it includes Tibet, Taiwan, East Turkistan (China’s far-western Xinjiang region), Sovereignty, Splitting the motherland; South China Sea and everything else that China can lay claims on. As the comprehensive national power of China increases, the number of China’s core issues multiplies like a hydra-headed monster. China has a predictable national habit of leaving issues dormant but ambiguous, only to rake them up when China has the power to force  the issue down the throats of strategic adversaries or peer competitors. Of course from the times of Sun Tzu, China, unlike the US likes to win the war without even fighting a battle. It is not merely hypothetical but a very real possibility that China may include access to the space as one of its “Core issues” in future.

Implications of China’s “Heaven” in Space for India

Unlike India’s space program, China has not experienced any major setback in the development of manned space flight technology. One of the recent Indian launches were infected by the Stuxtnet worm that caused malfunction and failure of the launch. China is taking rapid steps to close the space technology gap with the two other space-faring superpowers. China’s ultimate imperialistic ambition  is to be the divine master or the supreme hegemon on the land, sea and the space.  Such a scenario would be very similar to the contemporary situation whereby China now controls the global rare earth metals market single-handedly. China wants to control the access to the space for any other aspiring power but would be content to share the right to denial with the other two space super-powers for the time-being.  China will do everything to limit India’s access to space akin to its clumsy attempts to torpedo Indo-Vietnamese collaboration in the South China Sea for hydro-carbon exploration. China wishes to keep India boxed in forever in the South Asia tinder-box. China is using the 7200 km-range DF-31 nuclear ballistic missiles to target India. These nuclear missiles are being deployed in ever increasing numbers at Delingha in central Qinghai province, only 2000 km from Delhi. 

India will have to take serious notice of Chinese space program sooner than later owing to its military and strategic implications. India’s satellites and other space assets face the risk of being destroyed, incapacitated or jammed by The Chinese. ASAT capability allows states that possess it threaten India’s Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (CS4ISR) architecture. In order to achieve strategic parity with the US, china will continue to advance its cyber-war and space war capabilities.  Chinese sham pledges not to proliferate these technologies to its minions are not worth the paper they are written on. Given the historical experience-from nuclear weapons, to ballistic missiles to advanced fighter aircrafts-it is imprudent to dismiss the possibility that China will transfer the space weapons technology to Pakistan.

India will have to master these space weapons capabilities instead of always lagging behind. India must look at military uses of space technologies and must develop her own ASAT capabilities. India will have to increase the budgetary allocation several folds for her space program as matter of urgency. India will have to develop a comprehensive space strategy that incorporates both civilian (read commercial) and strategic components.  The space is indeed spacious enough for Sino-Indian sibling rivalry to play out without either side getting seriously hurt. The Space and its numerous applications are too important to leave to the Chinese Dragon alone to swallow!

Time has come for India to assert herself yet again and recognize diplomatically the break-away Republic of Somaliland on the horn of Africa. It suits India’s geopolitical interests as well as the international humanitarian concerns. Lack of a functioning central government in Somalia since the ouster of the Muhammed Siad Barre’ government on January 26 1991 has led to anarchy, clan/tribal warfare and war-lordism. There was an international intervention by George HW Bush in 1992 but the Americans over-extended themselves, got a humiliating defeat and left in hurry. Since then various regional powers have intervened for upholding their narrow interests. Ethiopian invasion in 2006, backed by the US created Al Shabab (literal meaning “the youth”). Somali civil war has killed approximately half a million people.

Somalia has become a fertile ground for recruitment by Al Qaeda and it local proxy Al Shabab. There is no peace in Somalia. There is no functioning government in the central and southern Somalia. Somali pirates have created an havoc in the Indian ocean and normal commerce has been affected owing to ongoing hijacking of merchant ships and their predominantly Asian and Indian crews. Ransom has been paid numerous times on behalf of shipping companies, national governments and NGO to free up the kidnapped crew members of merchant ships. Al Shabab and Al Qaeda have noted with vengeance the Indian vigilance and naval patrolling in the Indian Ocean and the Gulf of Aden and have vowed to target Indian interests.

The Somali pirates are now routinely making forays into Indian territorial waters and Indian Exclusive Economic sea zone. Some of these pirates have euphemistically called themselves as the self-styled “Volunteer Coast Guards of Somalia”. They have brought misery to numerous middle class Indian families who have become victims of their extreme ruthlessness and greed for money (running into millions of dollars). Somali pirates have openly targeted India and refused to release any Indian sailors till their fellow Somali pirates under Indian custody are released. Make no mistakes, these pirates are the naval wing of the nascent Islamic Emirate of Somalia under the tutelage of Al Qaeda and shepherded by Al Shabab. Beheading adversaries, chopping off hands, stoning women and girls to death, banning music, and implementing a strict Wahabi Islamic law is the ultimate aim of Al Shabab. UN sponsored “state building” and “peace keeping” have failed in Somalia which is now a lawless, failed nation with ongoing genocide.

In 2001 the wise and brave Somali-landers held a constitutional referendum and broke away from the failed state of Somalia. Republic of Somaliland is poor but an oasis of peace in the horn of Africa. The newly emerged nation has few natural resources and its limited exports primarily include fish and livestock. They have adopted all the democratic ways and have held multiple elections at local, parliamentary and presidential elections since then.  Last presidential elections were held in June 2010 leading to peaceful and orderly transfer of power when the incumbent president was rejected by the electorate.

Somalia as a unified nation did not exist before 1947. Somaliland was a British protectorate and a paper colony and the rest of Somalia an Italian colony. India must not shed her tears for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the failed state of Somalia which was essentially the creation of the imperialists. Time has come for India to not only diplomatically recognize the democratically elected government of the break-away Republic of Somaliland but also enter into a formal strategic partnership agreement with that country analogous to the same with Afghanistan. A bilateral friendship treaty between the two nations for a minimum duration of ninety nine years needs to be signed.

India needs to obtain a naval base in the Gulf of Aden in one of the sea ports of the Republic of Somaliland to provide naval surveillance to our merchant ships as well as Indian nationals working as crew members in international marine merchant ships. India needs to assert her leadership in the region and not wait for international community to act. India must lead the international community in birth of this new nation and prevent the lawlessness and havoc created by the pirates of Somalia. India must learn from her mistakes of missed geopolitical opportunities and inaction in the past. It is better to act now instead of letting the situation drift and allow hostile Asian nations upstage India yet again. India must take a pro-active approach strategically vis-à-vis diplomatic recognition of the Democratic Republic of Somaliland and defeat the hostile intentions of Al Qaeda and Al Shabab. India will safeguard her maritime security and long-term strategic interests in the Indian Ocean region by offering diplomatic recognition to the new nation of the Republic of Somaliland.

This evil axis of nuclear proliferation can best be described by the newly coined acronym: CHI.P.NOK.I.S.S. It stands for CHIna, Pakistan, NOrth Korea, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. The fountainhead of the group is the Peoples’ Republic of China that stealthily proliferated nuclear weapons technology before it finally joined the NPT in 1992. It gifted Pakistan 50 kilogrammes of heavily enriched uranium, gave 10 tonnes of UF6 (natural) and 5 tons of UF6 (3 per cent), provided it with nuclear weapons designs and let them use the Chinese nuclear testing site Lon Nor for a nuclear test before 1990. China also assisted the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission in setting up UF6 plant, production reactor for plutonium and reprocessing plant. Some of these facts have recently been acknowledged by the now reviled Pakistani scientist Dr A Q Khan in a letter to his Dutch wife Henny. After having signed and acceded to the NPT rather late in the game, the non-proliferation track record of China has hardly come up to international measure. Saudi Arabia too has been funding Pakistan’s nuclear programme for the last three decades and will pay Pakistan further in hard cash for extended deterrence. It also has the ability to pay cash on the spot for ready-made nuclear weapons ordered from Pakistan.

The story does not end here. China initially proliferated to Pakistan, and then through it proliferated to other countries such as North Korea and Libya. Libya came clean to the IAEA in the last decade to prevent US intervention. Documents turned in by the Libyan government to the IAEA included Chinese nuclear weapons designs. Syria received nuclear designs from North Korea and a secret Syrian nuclear reactor under construction was bombed by Israel in 2007 without any response from Syria. 

Unfortunately, the international community made a scapegoat out of AQ Khan, putting all blame of proliferation on him, but condoned the role played by China and Pakistan. In the letter to his wife, Dr A Q Khan clearly states: “You know we had cooperation with China for 15 years. We put up a centrifuge plant at Hanzhong. We sent 135 C-130 planeloads of machines, inverters, valves, flow-meters, pressure gauges. Our teams stayed there for weeks to help and their teams stayed here for weeks at a time. Late minister Liu We, VM Li Chew, vice minister Jiang Shengjie used to visit us.” 

The nuclear proliferation activities of this evil axis have not stopped even now. At this critical juncture, any further leakage of nuclear weapons or nuclear materials from the CHIPNOKISS into hands of Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups must be prevented at any cost. This fascinating saga of deception has been painstakingly chronicled in three recent books, i.e. “Deception” by Adrian Levy & Catherine Scott-Clark, “The Inheritance” by David Sanger and “Peddling Peril” by David Albright. For sake of brevity we would refer the readers to these three thoroughly researched books on this dreadful story of ongoing deception.

We currently witness that Iran and North Korea are continuing to defy world opinion with uncommon belligerence owing to the protective extended umbrella provided by China. North Korea is preparing for more nuclear tests. Iran too, is angling for its first nuclear test having amassed enough heavy enriched uranium. Iran has indulged in a game of diplomacy and obfuscation since early 2003 when it engaged in the quartet talks with Europeans as a delaying tactic. As the patron state of the CHIPNOKISS, China has overzealously guarded its minions whenever they had run-ins with the international community. 

Unfortunately, the PRC has usurped its position as a member of N5 of the NPT and the P5 of UNSC to deflect serious and effective action against the other members while portraying a facade of diplomacy. The six-party talks were a Chinese game-plan to frustrate the efforts by international community to contain the North Korean nuclear proliferation problem. The results were entirely opposite. Similarly, the four-plus one formula (Germany, France, UK and UN) to deal with Iran floundered because of covert support and encouragement by the PRC of the Ayatollah-cracy in Iran. While maintaining a diplomatic charade, the PRC has enabled all these rogue nations in subverting the international non-proliferation regimes presenting fait accompli to the entire world.

Of course, now that the PRC is talking about giving a civil nuclear energy deal to Pakistan, analogous to the US-India civil nuclear energy agreement. While China tried to stop this in the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), it was eventually forced to support the US-India nuclear energy agreement under US pressure in the NSG. It would be utterly ludicrous and unreasonable for China to expect reciprocity from the US in the NSG. Both China and Pakistan are vertical and horizontal proliferators of both nuclear and missile technologies to rogue regimes. It is just another instance of an abrasive resurgent China using one of its “all-weather supplicant states” to make a larger point on the world stage about its present power and the universal appeasement that follows its deliberate provocations. Therefore, containment and partial denuclearisation, and not appeasement should be the strategic response of the Obama administration.

This axis of nuclear proliferation is likely to integrate Myanmar into its essential core. Myanmar is learning fast lessons from North Korea and is eyeing nuclear weapons as deterrence against any possible international intervention. Both North Korea and China are helping Myanmar to develop a secret nuclear programme. The other candidate countries for addition to this axis of evil would be Bangladesh and Sudan. Bangladesh is trying to get nuclear reactors from both Russia and China. While it is unable to exploit its natural hydrocarbon resources completely, and is unwilling to sell them to India, it does not have any dire need for nuclear energy in near future. Just like Iran, it is deceptively posturing for the civil nuclear energy façade in order to develop the nuclear weapons capability. If international community continues to let this axis grow unhindered, the world would witness nuclear blackmail as the diplomatic currency for all times to come. The civilized world would not be able to deal with the terrorism, drug-wars and criminality because of the threats of retaliation by nuclear weapons from non-state actors. 

A fresh start must be made by the international community led by the IAEA in denuclearising North Korea and Pakistan. Without defanging these two unstable and dangerous nuclear nations, no further progress would be made in preventing future nuclear proliferation. Pakistan has already propounded the theory of neo-nuclear apartheid. As seductive it may be to the liberal European nations of the international community, the ground realities require internationally supervised denuclearisation of Pakistan despite Chinese and Pakistani objections. Nuclear disarmament must start with Pakistan, North Korea and Iran. Once that is achieved, continued economic pressure on Iran will prevent it from crossing the threshold. Iran must be prevented, at any cost, from crossing the nuclear Lakshman Rekha. Another unstable, theocratic Muslim country with nuclear weapons in our extended neighbourhood is not in India’s long-term geo-political interests. Certainly, India must prevent herself from being sandwiched between a nuclear Pakistan and a nuclear Bangladesh. 

India has always advocated total, universal, time-bound and verifiable elimination of nuclear weapons. It is not too late for the international community to adopt and implement the Rajiv Gandhi plan of 1988. Pragmatically speaking, total zero is very far away and remains a distant fuzzy dream.

Justice was not done because of the collusion of the Government of India in a massive cover-up scheme. Justice was not done because of the collusion of the US Administration as both these governments claim that the whereabouts of Warren Anderson are not known! Looks like that Pakistan learned a lesson in obfuscation from the US administration when it claims that the whereabouts of Al Qaeda CEO Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda Managing Director Ayman Al-Zawahiri are not known. There does not seem to be much difference. Al Qaeda killed 3000 people in New York City on 9/11. Union Carbide killed more than 20,000 people in Bhopal City in 1984.

In both cases the perpetrators-in-chief are absconding from justice. In one case the Government of Pakistan has given unofficial shelter, nay, sanctuary to the Al Qaeda terrorists. In other case the US Administration has given a safe haven to Warren Anderson in the plush New York Suburb of Hamptons where Mr. Warren Anderson lives in a $900,000 luxurious home.

Mr. Prime Minister, you want the Indian parliament to pass the “Civil Liability for Nuclear Damages Bill” without further delay to please your American counterparts. You want Indian parliament to sign away the sovereignty of the Indian judicial system to the US and other International nuclear suppliers because the Indian lives are cheap. You want to cap the damages at Rs 500 Crores. How low can you sink, Mr. Prime Minister.

Please remember Mr. Prime Minister the Chernobyl and Three Miles Island Nuclear accidents. The clean-up operations for these nuclear accidents costed billions of dollars. Why don’t you pass a bill with no upper limit caps on damages for the nuclear reactor suppliers? Let the judiciary decide in case of an accident in future. If their nuclear reactors are safe, they will enter into business contracts, if not they will not sign these contracts.

Mr. Prime Minister, please remember that the US department of justice under Obama Administration has already initiated criminal proceedings against the British Petroleum for wrong-doings in the deep sea well oil leak in the gulf of Mexico. The US government wants the BP to pay for the clean-up and all other civil, criminal and environmental damages. Are there going to be two sets of rules for the US and India for industrial accidents? Do you really think that Indian lives are so cheap, Mr. Prime Minister? Who do you represent Mr. Prime Minister, India or the USA?

Before you welcome Barrack Hussain Obama on Indian soil in November 2010, Mr. Prime Minister, get Warren Anderson judicially extradited to India after making a personal intervention with Mr. Obama on telephone. If you can not do this extradition judicially, emulate the Americans and try for an “extra-ordinary rendition” that the US Government has been doing all along with the jihadi terrorists.

If you can not do either of these things, please resign, Mr. Prime Minister as you are a disgrace on Indian sovereignty!

Recent Chinese repression in Tibet forced even Ma Ying-jeou to call for boycott of Beijing Olympics. Earlier he had called for a peace treaty with China and a three point program for closer ties. DPP and Hsieh had used the last few days of campaigning to highlight Taiwanese outrage over China’s brutal repression in Tibet. Hsieh had warned that similar Chinese repression could be anticipated in Taiwan in case the proposed process of reunification goes ahead. Turmoil in Tibet touched the Taiwanese citizens but it did not alter the outcome of the election. In a sense Tibet demonstrated to Taiwanese voters what “peaceful reunification with the mainland” would mean in case the KMT were to sign a peace treaty with the PRC.

In 1996, China had lobbed missiles across the Taiwan Strait prior to Taiwanese elections. This time, premier Wen Jiabao had threatened the Taiwanese voters against passing the referendum to join UN warning of dire consequences. Two US aircraft carriers had positioned themselves in the Taiwan Strait to prevent the repeat of 1996 Chinese behavior. Outgoing President Chen Shui-bian had restricted Taiwanese investment in China during his eight year rule in order to reduce the island’s dependence on its giant and expansionist neighbor. Ma has proposed a more conciliatory policy with China compared to Hsieh who accepted the DPP’s Taiwanese independence platform. Although both the US and China have cautiously welcomed Ma’s election, next four years would continue to be tricky for the China-Taiwan relationship with possible freezing of the status quo. Ma wishes to open up more people to people linkages across Taiwan Strait while not agreeing for reunification. He wants to lower fiscal barriers to Taiwanese investment on the mainland China and would start direct air and maritime services with the mainland. Ma is also interested in expanding the China-Taiwan high-tech collaboration. Taiwanese businessmen already have invested US$100 billion in China. It is unlikely that in current charged atmosphere with suspicion about China’s intentions being heightened, there will be a peace treaty signed in the next 2-3 years. There is a remote possibility of fiscal disinvestment in view of changed perception of China resulting from the Chinese repression of Tibetan protestors. The cross-Straits ties would be further strained if Ma carries his threat of boycott of the Beijing Olympics.

In the hypothetical scenario that Taiwanese disinvestment of US$100 billion from China does become a reality India needs to exploit that opportunity for investments into its physical infra-structure that needs approximately US$300 billion of new capital. Though India does not have diplomatic relations with Taiwan, it does have commercial relations. Indo-Taiwanese economic relationship needs to be strengthened as Taiwan is an Asian democracy with the rule of common law and a respect for human rights. Taiwan currently has a foreign exchange reserves worth US$277 billion. Taiwan has toyed with the idea of starting a Sovereign Wealth Fund (SWF). There is no existing security threat to India from Taiwan and hence SWF capital from Taiwan should be acceptable without the risk of industrial espionage, theft of trade secrets or potential loss of intellectual property rights.

India’s private sector needs to explore ways as to how Taiwanese capital could be tapped in joint Indo-Taiwanese business ventures. Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), Infosys, and Wipro could explore joint-ventures between Indian High-tech sector and the Taiwanese hardware companies. Indian tourism sector can get a tremendous boost if we can promote the Buddhism Tourism Circuit to the cash-surplus Taiwanese besides the Japanese tourists. Indian civil society and Indian business community need to leverage the “soft power” of India and her civilizational assets in forging strong people to people as well as economic, and mercantile relationships with Taiwan.

If China can accept FDI from Taiwan, so should India. If India can attract flow of “clean” capital without “geopolitical” strings attached, it will be welcomed by Taiwan which currently has surplus of it. It will be a win-win game for both India and Taiwan as Taiwan will get a good and trust-worthy economic partner with rule of law in lieu of China, should Taiwanese businessman decide to disinvest from China. As they say, the only business of the business is to do business. Taiwan is a ripe candidate for doing business with.

Most analysts and election observers were initially forecasting a mild protest vote by the Hindu-Malaysians and Chinese-Malaysians alone, predicting that ethnic Malays will cast their votes in favor of United Malays National Organization (UMNO) and BN. This analyst, in article written on March 4th 2008, had projected 80-90 seats in federal parliament for the combined opposition. However, the results suggest a 15% swing away from the UMNO among the ethnic Malay voters in the latest elections. This may be interpreted as a vote against rising crimes, rising prices, politics of cronyism, politics of institutionalized corruption in the majority Muslim Malay community. The federal election commission in Malaysia had been slow to announce the results except for the constituencies where UMNO had won. By the time this report is filed the BN tally in the federal parliament is 137, with 82 seats going to the opposition giving only a simple majority to the BN in 222 seat federal parliament with three results still pending. Initially Barisan Nasional edged closer towards the coveted two-thirds parliamentary majority of 148 by securing 137 seats, but the two-third majority was ultimately denied only for the second time in the history of independent Malaysia. This “simple victory” for Abdullah Badawi and BN is still a defeat because the state machinery and the official media were blatantly misused for electoral purposes by the BN. Standard precautionary plans to prevent multiple voting by marking every voter’s finger with indelible ink was cancelled by the election commission at the last moment. According to ridiculous claims by the EC chairman Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman there was a conspiracy to import such ink and mark each voter’s finger to prevent them from voting!

The Inspector General of Police Musa Hassan has gone on the record in Kuala Lumpur to ban public rallies by victorious candidates to avoid repetition of the May 1969 ethnic riots. When the dust settles and all the results are finally announced, what would Abdullah Badawi do? That is a 64 million dollars question. Yes, the government will still be formed by BN/UMNO which has obtained a simple majority in the parliament. Yes, Abdullah Badawi won his own parliamentary seat. But would Abdullah Badawi re-emerge as the Prime Minister and leader of very much weakened UMNO or the dominant ethnic Malay party will choose a new leader? Abdullah claims that he will go before the ceremonial king tomorrow to stake his claim for forming new government. Will he have the moral courage to govern for the next five years?

MCA that had 31 seats in the dissolved parliament has now only 15 seats. Both Chinese dominated Democratic Action Party (DAP) and the Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) or People’s Justice Party of Anwar Ibrahim of “Reformasi” fame have emerged as main opposition parties with PKR winning 31 seats and DAP getting 28. Islamic hardliner PAS has won 23 seats in the parliament. The state of Penang has gone to the (DAP) that is set to form the state level government in Penang. The state of Kelantan was already ruled by the Islamic hardliner PAS that retook the state in this election as well. In the northern state of Kedah, from where the former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad comes, PAS claimed a completely unanticipated victory. An opposition alliance of three parties won the state assembly in Perak. The state of Selangor witnessed the opposition victory as well. This means five out of 14 states have gone to the opposition instead of only one in 2004. In the capital Kuala Lumpur, opposition candidates have trounced BN candidates. Community Development Minister Shahrizat Abdul Jalil lost the Lembah Pantai parliamentary seat in the capital to Nurul Izzah Anwar, the daughter of the former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim who is not allowed to hold a public office till April 2008. Human rights activist, parliamentarian and lawyer Karpal Singh of DAP has won the Bukit Gelugor parliamentary seat by a comfortable 21,015-vote majority.

Hindu Rights Action Front (HINDRAF) leader M Manoharan, a lawyer by profession, won his election on DAP ticket from behind the bars having been arrested under the dreaded Internal Security Act. He won the Kota Alam Shah state seat in the state of Selangor, beating Ching Su Chen (BN) by a 7,184-vote majority. His arrest under ISA was “justified” by the apartheid state because HINDRAF leaders had the audacity to hold a public rally of 20,000 Hindu-Malaysians protesting against the excesses of the Islamic state. Public works Minister S. Samy Vellu, the discredited leader of the Malaysian Indians’ Congress (MIC) has lost to PKR’s Dr. D. Jeyakumar Devaraj his Sungai Siput parliamentary seat that he held for more than 30 years. Samy Vellu was totally and hopelessly out of touch with the concerns of ordinary Hindu-Malaysians whose temples were being demolished on a weekly basis by the UMNO led government, whose dead bodies were snatched and stolen by the Shariat authorities under false pretext that there was conversion to Islam before death. The MIC so far has won only 3 seats compared to nine seats it held in the federal parliament that was elected in 2004. Hindu–Malaysians were discriminated at every level and Samy Vellu chose to denounce the HINDRAF leaders. Abdullah Badawi’s despicable actions in labeling HINDRAF leaders as terrorists aligned to LTTE have miserably failed and actually backfired not only against the BN but also against the MIC.

A weakened BN headed by Abdullah Badawi will form yet another Government in Malaysia. The ruling coalition’s performance is the worst since 1969, when it last lost its two-thirds majority in parliament in a result that triggered serious racial clashes. That time victories of DAP triggered attacks on Chinese-Malaysian by dagger-wielding Malay youths belonging to UMNO Youth. Since this time the electoral defeat of the BN is triggered by protest voting against BN by the Hindu -Malaysians, it is hoped that the law and order machinery in the state of Malaysia will work hard to prevent any revenge attacks against the Hindu-Malaysians. If Abdullah Badawi sticks to his pre-election rhetoric warnings about chaos and instability in case BN is defeated by a protest vote, will he control the law and order situation in next few weeks to prevent such ethnic riots directed against Hindu-Malaysians?

Will Abdullah Badawi give any representation to the shrunken MIC in the federal cabinet since most of the Hindu-Malaysians voted against BN this time? During the election campaign, Abdullah Badawi wanted the support of Chinese -Malaysians and Hindu-Malaysians so that they are well-represented in the federal cabinet! If he follows that flawed reasoning, he may not provide any representation to the defeated MIC marginalizing the Hindu-Malaysians further. However, after this humiliating defeat, Abdullah Badawi may face challenge for the leadership of the UMNO during its next annual meeting. Mahathir Mohammad who has been very critical of Badawi may try to reassert his influence in the UMNO by supporting an alternative new leadership during the next annual UMNO meeting. Badawi may not be able to stop the ultimate rise of former Islamist turned democracy and civil rights activist Anwar Ibrahim. There may be calls within UMNO to bring the charismatic Anwar Ibrahim back into the UMNO fold for the sake of “Malay supremacy”. For Anwar Ibrahim, this is sweet victory with his party PKR getting 31 seats compared to only one in 2004. Both his wife and daughter have won their respective seats. After April 2008, he may enter the parliament with his wife opting to resign her seat so as to enable him to contest a bye-election.

Denied two-thirds majority in parliament, Abdullah Badawi and the BN will not be able to bring constitutional amendments at the drop of a hat. A rejuvenated opposition will have to be consulted on every major policy decision. However, in the ultimate analysis this is a moral victory for the HINDRAF leaders. Among everything else, the elections results force the international community to salute the brave leaders of HINDRAF who had the tremendous courage to bring into open the systematic persecution of Hindu-Malaysians by the Islamized and apartheid state of Malaysia. More than 20,000 Hindu-Malaysians of ethnic Indian origin attended the rally organized by the HINDRAF group on November 25, 2007. Most Hindu-Malaysians feel that it was only after this mass rally organized by NGO Hindu Rights Action Front that the Malaysian government had actually conceded that there were problems being faced by the Hindu-Malaysian community. When government of India had expressed concerns about the sorry plight of Hindu-Malaysians of Indian ethnic origin, Abdullah Badawi had the nerve to claim that HINDRAF leaders are terrorists having ties with the LTTE.

The new BN government is well-advised to release all the arrested HINDRAF leaders and workers, withdraw cases against them under the repressive ISA and seriously address their genuine grievances. The new Malaysian government needs to stop demolishing Hindu temples, provide land for building of already demolished temples, stop stealing the dead-bodies of prominent Hindu-Malaysians under the garb of Shariat laws, provide educational and job opportunities to marginalized Hindu-Malaysians and dismantle the apartheid rules of New Economic Policy-II. Malaysian civil courts and the Supreme Court will have to re-assert their supremacy in the filed of justice for the citizens over the rulings of Shariat courts that can not be challenged currently. Abdullah Badawi, having eaten a crow, owes a personal apology to HINDRAF leaders for characterizing them as terrorists. HINDRAF will have to convert itself into a formal political party if the ethnicity based apartheid state in Malaysia continues to exist. If the apartheid laws and the New Economic Policy –II are dismantled, HINDRAF, DAP and PKR of Anwar Ibrahim should merge into a single multi-racial party in trying to bring about the birth of a new, post-racial, multi-religious and democratic Malaysia!

The United States rejected signing of PAROS claiming that an arms race in outer space does not yet exist. In reality, we are witnessing a new arms race in the outer space with China and the United States firing the initial salvos. It is another matter that the actors involved in the weaponisation of outer space refuse to acknowledge it.

In 2001, the United States, under President George W Bush, unilaterally pulled out of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty. This cleared the way for it to develop and install a missile de- fence shield. The ballistic missile defence (BMD)

PRAGATI – THE INDIAN NATIONAL INTEREST REVIEW 6 PERSPECTIVE 7 No 12 | Mar 2008

system is capable of destroying both ballistic mis- siles and satellites. The downstream consequences of that single decision catalysed a new race for weaponisation of the outer space. In January 2007, China tested an anti-satellite (ASAT) weapon against one of its own ageing weather satellites orbiting at 500 miles above the earth. The anti- satellite weapon was a non-explosive “kinetic kill vehicle” that destroyed its target by colliding with it. China succeeded in the fourth attempt in the series of tests. (Following the successful intercep- tion, there was initially a total silence from the Chinese political leadership. China alluded to a communication gap between the central govern- ment and the armed forces. But it is impossible for the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to conduct an ASAT test without the Beijing’s knowledge. The Chinese Communist Party’s doctrine is that “the party controls the gun”.) China has also developed navigation satellite jammers that are equipped to disrupt the Global Positioning System (GPS). And recently, Chinese secretly fired powerful laser weapons to disable US spy satellites by “blinding” their sensitive surveillance devices and preventing spy photography when they pass over China. In addition to forcing the United States to enter nego- tiations concerning the weaponisation of space, China also considers the ASAT test as a form of ‘deterrence’ against the US.

The United States responded by knocking down one of its own satellites. A failed 5,000- pound spy satellite about 150 miles above the earth was destroyed with a single missile defence interceptor fired from a US Navy warship in the northern Pacific Ocean. The United States claims that the missile strike was meant to prevent the toxic 1000-pound hydrazine tank from scattering debris and putting populated areas at risk. But the timing curiously followed renewed Chinese and Russian attempts at Geneva to bolster an international effort to ban weapons in space.

Clearly there are rising tensions between the United States, Russia and China over the militari- sation and weaponisation of space. It is likely that countries like Japan, Iran, North Korea and Pakistan may build their own ‘anti-satellite kinetic kill’ capabilities. Although no country has so far shot down another country’s satellites, the possibility of this cannot be excluded, especially in the context of asymmetric warfare.

An immediate implication is that India’s satel- lites and future space assets face the risk of being destroyed, incapacitated or jammed. For instance, ASAT capability allows states that possess it to threaten India’s Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) architecture. Also, India is in the process of establishing an independent navigation satellite network with medium- and low-earth orbit satellites. Such a network will be susceptible to jamming and ASAT weapons.

The signature lesson for India comes from the historical experience of negotiating the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) and its subsequent extension “in perpetuity”. That treaty cast in stone the ‘legitimacy’ of the five nuclear weapons states, and effectively released them from their nuclear disarmament obligation. If India had conducted a nuclear test in 1968 in- stead of 1974, it would well have been grandfathered into the NPT as a nuclear weapons state. Because it didn’t, India found itself being either forced to give up its nu- clear weapons programme or sit it out out- side the international nuclear mainstream.

In order to achieve a strategic parity with the United States, China is likely to continue to advance its cyberwar and space war capabilities. Moreover, Chinese pledges not to prolifer- ate these technologies are believable to the ex-perspective. India must to look at the military uses of space technologies and be prepared with its own ASAT capabilities in case of future need tent they are in its interests. Given the historical experience from nuclear weapons, to ballistic missiles to fighter aircraft it is imprudent to dismiss the possibility that China will transfer space weapons technology to Pakistan. 

"India must to look at the military uses of space technologies and be prepared with its own ASAT capabilities in case of future need."

It is in India’s interests to become an active party to the outer space disarmament agenda and to propose its own draft of PAROS. It is important for India to influence the future treaty negotiations as an insider rather than become an outsider.

In the run up to negotiations and the eventual signing of such a treaty, the United States, Russia and China will continue to enhance their capabilities for the military use in the outer space without formally acknowledging the intent. There is still time for India to acquire, test, and demonstrate ASAT capability. But the window of opportunity will not last very long in case the United States decides now that it has conducted a test of its own to agree on signing of internationally verifiable PAROS and PPW treaties. PAROS and PPW can perhaps preserve the peaceful paradise of the outer space by preventing, or at least postponing, an arms race in space. It is imperative at this stage that India demonstrate its own ASAT capabilities before multilateral negotiations over PAROS take off.

There is increasing warmth in Indo-US relations. US’s strategic opportunity with India has been talked about in recent months. Karl Inderfurth and Bruce Reidel advocated open US support for India’s membership in the UN Security Council and her inclusion in G8 in the “National Interest” magazine.  High hopes and expectations for future were  expressed by the charismatic and hardworking diplomat R. Nicholas Burns in Foreign Affairs magazine. In the same issue of Foreign Affairs   republican presidential hopeful John McCain, while advocating for cementing US’s growing partnership with India,  writes: “We need to start by ensuring that the G-8, the group of eight highly industrialized  states, becomes again a club of leading market democracies: it should include Brazil and India”. Similarly warm sentiments about were expressed by the democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton who writes:  “In Asia, India has a special significance both as an emerging power and as the world’s most populous democracy. As co-chair of the Senate India Caucus, I recognize the tremendous opportunity presented by India’s rise and the need to give the country an augmented voice in regional and international institutions, such as the UN. We must find additional ways for , , , and the to cooperate on issues of mutual concern, including combating terrorism, cooperating on global climate control, protecting global energy supplies, and deepening global economic development”.  Richard Holbrooke lamented the absence of India in the G8 meetings. Policy Continuity plus (PC Plus) as proposed by Inderfurth & Reidel   should be the cornerstone for the future US administrations.  

Clearly, the mutual warmth in the bilateral Indo-US relations could not be better than any other time in the recent history. Former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee had characterized the US and India as natural allies. Current Indian Prime Minister Man Mohan Singh has described the President George W. Bush as the most  friendly US President to India. Credit for this bonhomie also goes to the scholarly Secretary of State, Dr. Condaleeza Rice, the strategic Guru of the current US president, who was chiefly instrumental in changing the rigid, inflexible, orthodox and historically anti-India mindset of the US Department of State and in steering the White House’s thinking towards India in a positive direction.  Undersecretary R. Nicholas Burns himself   worked very hard and had made numerous trips to India.  He had always been optimistic about the future of Indo-US relationship.  He is indeed right when he talks about the lost bilateral opportunities in the past 60 years and a bright potential for the future along with the immense need to do it right this time.  Henry Kissinger recently admitted that he and others in the US never envisaged that the two countries will be so close.  Despite this upbeat mood of the top executive branch of the US Administration, Congressional minions and the Foggy Bottom mandarins have laid down an elaborate “prescriptive plan making extremely narcissistic demands” on the Government of India to harmonize her national laws, foreign policies and strategic interests according to the foreign policy objectives and strategic vision of the US as enshrined in the Henry L. Hyde Act and the 123 agreement.  

A recent state department document somewhat patronizingly asserted that the US will assist India achieve a global power status in the 21st century. Nobody makes anybody a global power.  Nations achieve that status on their own strength. Of course, India shall also do so on her own strength in the near future.  

Future US administrations should ask themselves important and pertinent questions like how the US government can change its own behavior and policy framework to accommodate a rising India’s national and strategic interests and democratic aspirations in a global framework that has essentially been decided by the successive US administrations following the 2nd World War.  International strategic space can not be occupied indefinitely by the victors of the 2nd World War.  US policy wonks should seriously calculate the total long-term costs to the US of “losing India” once again by failing to genuinely engage India in the 3rdmillennium.  

So far, US attempts to engage India have been ambivalent and half-hearted.  US diplomats fail to understand India’s genuine national interests, aspirations and foreign policy and strategic concerns globally.  India is not just another banana republic. India does have a proud history of 5000 years’ old civilization. India is rising fast as a serious economic, industrial, intellectual, cultural, civilizational and strategic power-house in the international arena despite numerous mis-steps in the past 60 years.  Train India Express cannot be stopped any longer despite laying out railroad blocks; the only real alternatives are to board the train or be left behind on the platform! The strategic implications of this changing global balance of power dynamics cannot be minimized any longer by the future US Administrations as the world transforms from its current uni-polar moments to a newly emerging multi-polar reality.  

Missed Opportunities & Recent Snafus

After India’s independence, the US as the imperialistic inheritor of the world order following the end of World War II tended to hurt India’s strategic interests by cultivating Pakistan as a client state.  Besides the famous tilt to Pakistan, abusive language used by Nixon- Kissinger duo against a former female Indian Prime Minister and also “stereotyping” of Indians in private but taped conversations in the oval office betrays the contempt successive post-WW II US administrations held India in. In the mid-eighties a young Indian Prime Minister visited the US.  Bilateral agreements on scientific and technological collaboration were signed. The US under the leadership of President Ronald Reagan agreed to sell two Cray supercomputers to India for predicting Monsoon and other weather patterns. Only one Cray supercomputer was delivered; the non-proliferation ayatollahs blocked the sale of second one forcing India to develop her own parallel processing PARAM supercomputer system.

 The US Department of State has been particularly insensitive in the past about the need to engage in a diplomatic, courteous and honorable manner. For example, Robin Raphael, the former Assistant Secretary of State in the first Clinton administration went on to deny the authenticity of the Instrument of Accession that was signed between the Maharaja of Jammu & Kashmir and the Government of India in 1947. She also made the notoriously disparaging statement that it is very easy to start a storm in a teacup in New Delhi! The same Robin Raphael is now on the payroll of the Pakistani Government as a paid lobbyist of Pakistan.
Failure of the US to acknowledge till 9/11 that India is a victim of cross-border Jihadist terrorism from Pakistan remains a sore point for India. In the 1980s, the US and the West covertly supported Khalistani terrorists who had committed heinous crimes against innocent Indian civilians. Labeling terrorists as freedom fighters, the US lost any credibility with the civil society in despite a strong fascination for the US by the burgeoning Indian middle class. The Clinton administration chose to remain silent in March 1999 when the two Bamiaan Buddha statues were destroyed by the Taliban.  The US was trying to negotiate an oil pipeline with the Taliban at that time! When Pakistani Jihadist terrorists hijacked an Indian civilian airliner to Kandahar, in December 1999 the US did not sanction or even admonish Taliban.  Perpetual reluctance to genuinely condemn the terrorist crimes against India over last several decades was the greatest US diplomatic folly.

 Successive US administrations (Bush-41, Clinton, Bush-43) have scuttled any serious attempts to reform and expand the Security Council of the UN that would have enabled India to be one of the permanent members of the SC. Except for making some vague noises on the principles of reform, the US has not come out categorically in India’s favor as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.  US could have graciously supported India’s candidate Shashi Tharoor for the UN Secretary General’s position. Reportedly, the US secretly vetoed his candidature enabling Ban Ki Moon to win. Shashi Tharoor would have certainly made a far better UN SG than Ban Ki Moon. Ban ki Moon has been wasting the UN budget on a massive increase in personnel and on staff salaries instead of developmental programs.  He has been accused of packing the UN posts with his South Korean cronies who keep on having side-talks in Korean instead of using official UN languages! US lost a golden chance to reform the UN along with a democratic partner India, and Shashi Tharoor as the SG.  

Morality, Pragmatism and the Foreign Policy

Americans are fond of rationalizing their blind and irrational tactical and strategic support for tin-pot dictators and coup plotters world-wide by stating; “Well, he may be a son of a bitch but he is our son of a bitch”! This crass characterization of US self-interests alone as supreme in selectively supporting military dictators worldwide while chiding India for not being democratic enough represents the “Narcissistic Entitlement Syndrome” the whole US foreign policy establishment suffers from. This needs to change if the US has to engage India seriously.

 Nuclear Spring
It is unlikely that the US-India civil energy accord will be fully implemented this year. Undersecretary Burns has already submitted his resignation. The US congress deliberately moved the goalposts.  Its slow death despite attempts to resuscitate is currently causing consternation in the US. The US establishment is unable to fathom Indian concerns about this deal that is more about US non-proliferation objectives rather than tending to India’s growing energy needs. Something that was initially negotiated in good faith as civil energy accord, can not be exploited to satisfy the unrealistic objectives of the US non-proliferation lobby. The alphabet soup (NPT, CTBT, FMCT, MTCR, PSI) that tends to drown India strategically has been cooked by the chef US owing to the dated nature of the membership of the club.  The US tied itself into the knots by creating NSG as an instrument to contain India after the 1974 “Smiling Buddha” nuclear test. It is for the US to extricate itself by untying these knots.  The world cannot be frozen into strategic status quo.

Securing Indian Subcontinent

India is surrounded by countries that are either failed states or are on the path to become failed states. The inability of these failed states to sort out their internal problems generates neighbors’ envy and of course tendency to adopt a “victim” role and internationalize any minor problems. Overzealous US support for the now defunct Gujral Doctrine further emboldened some of these failed states to project their internal problems on to India. Some of these failed states have tried to play global power politics by inviting superpowers into the region to contain India’s economic, industrial and military rise.  These failed states in the Indian subcontinent have historically played their China card or US card against India on numerous occasions. Rationalization of state sponsored cross-border terrorism directed against by the US diplomats in the pre 9/11 era is still fresh in the minds of Indian policy planners.

A rising India would like both US and China to stop trying to spread their influence country after country in the immediate vicinity of India.  India would not condone alien superpowers if they invade India’s sacred strategic space.  Near abroad region around India should remain free of the superpower rivalry between the US and China.  Just like the US did not tolerate nuclear missiles in its backyard triggering the Cuban missiles crisis in the 1960s or the Russia currently having difficulty tolerating Poland and Czech territories as part of US’ Strategic Missile defense shield, India certainly would not wish to see a nuclear armed and unstable Bangladesh or a nuclear armed and unstable Myanmar joining the company of a nuclear armed and unstable Pakistan.

Historic Tilt towards Pakistan
The soft underbelly of the US giant is the failed state of Pakistan and Jihadi Terrorism emanating from it. As we speak, the unraveling of recent events in Pakistan, murder of Benazir Bhutto and the continued US support to the failing dictatorship of General Musharraf reflects the intellectual bankruptcy of the Bush foreign policy team. Robust support for serial military dictatorships in Pakistan has been the normative behavior of successive US administrations. The infamous tilt shown historically by US administrations towards Pakistan and directed against India’s strategic interests did affect the nature, quality and dimensions of Indo-US relations in the past 60 years. Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark in their recent book entitled “Deception” accuse the US Dept of State of suffering from a severe case of “Clientitis” vis a vis Pakistan. Since 2001, the US has provided the terrorist state of Pakistan military aid worth 11 billion dollars without any results. You do not fight terrorism by providing Pakistani military machine with nuclear capable F16 fighter jets. The US policy on can be summarized in one sentence: “Support the latest military dictator”! Nation states do make historical mistakes and reap the harvest of those mistakes. The now defunct Soviet Union did commit strategic mistakes and certainly paid for it. India also has committed strategic mistakes and has paid dearly for them.  The same holds true for the only global “hyper-power”.

India, US and China

Since 1970 the US cultivated communist China as an ally to the horror of the entire democratic world. During the 1971 Bangladesh liberation war, Nixon & Kissinger encouraged China to attack India. Later on, while India was targeted as an enemy nation by the 301 and the super 301 US trade protection laws, China was granted most favored nation (MFN) status annually by the US Congress.  China’s transfer of nuclear technology and bomb design to Pakistan in 1988-1989 did not evoke any response from the George H. W. Bush administration. Chinese transfer of Ballistic Missiles in the early 1990s to Pakistan did not elicit any sanctions from the Clinton Administration. Though the US honeymoon with China is now over, the US continues to allow communist China to buy nuclear reactors but sanctions a democratic India even now.
India does not wish to be used as a US proxy to contain China in the Asian theatre as India believes genuinely in the inevitability of a multi-polar world. A newly resurgent India will deal with China on her own steam. India does not need to ally with US against China as it certainly would not gang up against US in company of Russia and China in accordance with the Primakov Doctrine. Yes, Chinese behavior does cause for concern in India. The US needs to understand that India will engage each and every nation and geo-political entity on the basis of her own strength, sovereignty and national aspirations without being bullied by anyone. India is a democracy and would definitely find it easier to work with other democracies in the international arena. A resurgent India will not feel apologetic about her bilateral and multilateral relationships with other democratic nations in Asia and elsewhere.

The Long Journey Ahead, Indeed

 Credibility of the US as long-term strategic partner of India shall depend upon changes in US behavior.  Continuation of “prescriptive” approach and frequent demands on India to change her foreign policy in accordance with US strategic objectives by insignificant members of the US Congress or minor bureaucrats will not take future US administrations anywhere. Opportunistic shifting of goal-posts in civil nuclear energy deal and reneging on previously negotiated bilateral and multilateral agreements in the past do not inspire confidence.  India’s sensitivities as the largest functioning democracy have to be understood clearly.  In a democracy, all important decisions are taken by the people & the parliament of that country and not by demarches of foreign governments!

 Guiding Principles and Benchmarks for Future:
We certainly have the glorious opportunity to synergize the strengths and creative energies of two largest democracies.  There are strong people to people relationships now. Pew research survey of world-wide attitudes suggests a lot of goodwill in India about the US. For the Indo-US strategic relationship to move forward, the US will have to make unilateral concessions by making a clean break from its past Cold-war mindset.  The US will have to give up the “prescriptive approach” towards India. Since both the Bush administration and the Man Mohan Singh government are lame ducks now, honest new beginnings can be made by future US administrations in dealing with a resurgent India

Although the six million Tibetans are ill equipped militarily to take on the most powerful Communist Chinese empire, the timing of these protests is “historically correct” and has the potential to fundamentally alter the future geo-political events in whole of the Central Asia. The governor of TAR in China has already declared “peoples’ war” on the Tibetan protesters. Chinese premier Wen Jiabao has declared these protests as life and death issue for China. He squarely blamed Dalai Lama for organizing these “premeditated, well-orchestrated and well-planned violent protests” to sour the Olympics. Wen Jiabao has expressed appreciation of the “correct” steps taken by the Indian Friends in New Delhi. Dalai Lama has lamented the Indian government’s tendency to genuflect to Chinese interests as supreme while offering to resign if violence spreads.

The situation on ground in Tibet is changing very fast. A critical and decisive moment has been reached in the six decades long Tibetan struggle for self-determination. The future roadmap for Tibetan independence will be predicated on the level of discontent in Tibet as well as on the response of the international community in further preventing cultural genocide. This paper will not serve as a factual news report or as an updated latest bulletin but will analyze the geo-political events in Tibet from a multi-dimensional strategic perspective. Some of the ground realities and facts may have changed by the time this paper goes into press since the pace of change is fast indeed.

BACKGROUND

Since Chinese invasion and occupation of Tibet in 1951, there has been ongoing repression sponsored by the PLA and the Chinese Communist party. According to a Chinese military document between March 1959 and September 1960, 87,000 Tibetan people were killed. Despite recent attempts to improve the physical infrastructure and economic conditions in Tibet and linking Lhasa with Beijing by railroad, Tibetans’ genuine grievances remain unresolved. There has been increase in the level of repression and arrests leading to recurrent demands for independence and self-determination among the Tibetan youth living in the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR). Truly, the designation of any “autonomous region” in China is a sham because the Chinese Communist Party wants total control, uniformity and centralization of power.

The simmering tensions have been exacerbated further by the Chinese policy of demographic invasion of Tibet by the Han Chinese. Not the Han Chinese now out number the ethnic Tibetans in TAR and are in the positions of power in the TAR administrative setup. Han Chinese have a patronizing, paternalistic and racist view of the Tibetans. Racial discrimination against Tibetans has been alleged from time to time. China does have a history of colonialism that is not acknowledged by the Chinese Communist Party. Communist China has not formally repudiated the history of colonialism by the imperialistic predecessors. The problems in Tibet and in southwest China are linked to west-ward expansion of the Han Chinese nation into areas originally inhabited by other nationalities (ethnic minorities) that refuse to see themselves as Chinese. Like independent Tibet, province of Xinjiang (Sinkiang) was briefly independent as East Turkistan, or Uighurstan, in 1933. A part of it was under Soviet control from 1945 to 1949. Its population is still roughly 55 percent Uighurs and Kazakhs who are Turkic-speaking. Some Tibetan majority areas were also transferred to Han-majority provinces – Qinghai, Sichuan and Gansu where the current Tibetan uprising has spread.

Last year, the Chinese Communist Party led government introduced a ridiculous law interfering with Buddhist religious practices on reincarnation of living Buddha. The PRC attempt was to pave the way for a Chinese Communist party “approved and sanctioned” kosher reincarnation of Dalai Lama when the current incumbent on Living Buddha seat dies. They have a time-tested strategy, which is to wait for the death of Dalai Lama and anoint his successor – like their earlier selection of the Panchen Lama.

The Chinese government was very poor in predicting the level of possible unrest related to PRC’s hosting of Olympics in Beijing from August 8-24th 2008. Hu Jintao who had lorded over Tibet during the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre had firmly and brutely crushed down any semblance of rebellion in Tibet at that time earning him praise in the upper echelons of the Chinese Communist Party enabling his future ascension to the supreme party leadership. Hu Jintao’s theories of harmonious society, peaceful and scientific development were predicated upon increased economic prosperity to be shared not only amongst the Han Chinese but also with the ethnic minorities including Tibetans. Prosperity, however, does not inoculate against nationalist sentiments. Relative prosperity sometimes forces the masses to focus on other cultural, civilizational, nationalistic and socio-spiritual issues besides the mundane bread and butter issues. The ferocity of the spontaneous uprising was not appreciated and understood correctly by the PRC government leading to clumsy military police response with loss of more than 100 lives by unofficial accounts. Hu Jintao and his ruling clique felt supremely confidant that the economic prosperity will tone down any negative response on part of Tibetans and merely sealing the approach routes to Everest during the Olympic torch ceremony will prevent any ethnic Tibetan from raising the Tibetan flag during that ceremony.

BEIJING OLYMPICS AND THE ORIGINAL SCRIPT

In the eyes of human rights observers China never had a legitimate right to host the Olympics in Beijing because of the poor human rights record of the Chinese government, particularly since the 1989 bloody crackdown on Tiananmen Square. In July 2001, when Beijing was awarded the Games, many human rights campaigners expressed their utter surprise since Beijing is regularly credited with the worst human rights violations. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) authorities including the IOC President Jacques Rogge had hoped that hosting the Olympic Games would serve to improve the China’s human rights record. This was perhaps logical culmination of the “constructive engagement” policy of the West towards China since 1970s. French baron Pierre de Coubertin, who resurrected the ancient Olympic Games in 1896, firmly believed that sports and the Games could help create better human beings. For some Olympic watchers, the violent demonstrations in Tibet come as no surprise and are something the IOC can’t be expected to resolve.

For China, the opportunity to host the Olympics was a way of pronouncing to the world that China has arrived on scene as an economic giant. It was supposed to be the inaugural ball for the dame China to be presented and introduced to high and mighty in the international elite society. It was to be national honor, glory and splendor which supposedly would have blindsided the world that would be so mesmerized by the dazzling royal celebrations of the newest Chinese emperor of the Communist caucus. PRC should have realized that the Olympics are more than a commercial, industrial or mercantile venture. Recent actions of police brutality in Tibet only serve to undermine the reputation of both China and the IOC. China cannot be allowed to gamble with the life and liberty of the occupied people of Tibet so close to the Olympics although the Chinese government would very much like to silence any further dissent in Tibet.

TIBET REVOLT AND OLYMPIC BOYCOTT

Prince Charles had announced his personal boycott of Beijing Olympics on grounds of principles long ago before the current wave of protests started. Film director Steven Spielberg also withdrew in February as an artistic adviser to the opening and closing ceremonies on grounds of China’s tacit support for Sudanese government’s bloodshed in Darfur. European calls for a boycott of the opening ceremony predate the current wave of protests in Tibet. The violent protests in Tibet are forcing governments and human rights campaigners to re-examine their approach to the Beijing Olympic Games. Moves to punish China over its handling of violence in Tibet have regained momentum with a novel suggestion for a mini-boycott of the grand opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics. Human Rights Watch, which has not advocated a total boycott, is likely to urge heads of state not to attend the opening ceremony. Such a novel protest by world leaders and dignitaries would be a huge slap in the face for the Chinese Communist Party.

French foreign minister and the founder of Medecine’ Sans Frontiere’ Bernard Kouchner is spearheading the possible opening ceremony boycott with other European Union foreign ministers. IOC President Jacques Rogge expects many heads of state — including President Bush, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy — to attend the opening ceremony. China will desperately try to stop any boycott movement from gathering further steam. Premier Wen Jiabao openly accused the “Dalai clique” of orchestrating the violence against the Han Chinese and Hui Muslims in order to taint the Beijing Olympics. Tibetan protestors chanted a prayer and waved Tibetan flags at a protest near the IOC headquarters in Lausanne, Switzerland. The IOC is under pressure to clearly denounce the killings in Lhasa and force China to stop further repression.

TAIWAN REFERENDUM AND TIBET

China has adroitly tied the twin issues of Tibet and Taiwan together. Owing to skillful Chinese diplomatic histrionics, all countries having diplomatic relations with China are supposed to ritually sing songs about their “One China Policy” and Tibet being an inalienable part of China. In the same vein, the Chinese communist government has refused to have an open and direct dialogue with Dalai Lama on the grounds that he should first renounce independence for Tibet and admit that Taiwan is a province of China as a precondition for talks on genuine autonomy.

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao indirectly threatened the Taiwanese voters to reject ballot question on membership of United Nations as Republic of Taiwan, warning that cross-straits tensions would rise if the referendum succeeds, destabilizing the whole Asia-pacific region. It is likely that Taiwanese elections will be won by Pro-Beijing KMT candidate Ma who advocates fostering closer cross-straits relations between Beijing and Taipei and rejects the need for referendum. In the final days of campaigning before Taiwan’s presidential elections, both major political parties in Taiwan have condemned Beijing’s suppression of protests in Tibet. The uprising and the use of military police in Tibet will bring a wave of fear among Taiwanese voters and will definitely undermine China’s efforts to encourage self-governing Taiwan to move toward reunification with the mainland. Though the March 23rd referendum in Taiwan may not be successful in declaring de facto independence, strong results in the referendum will further hasten the demise of future possibility of communist authoritarian rule.

LIKELY TIBETAN GOALS AND EXPECTATIONS

Like it happens in any liberation movement, the Tibetan polity is now divided owing to geographic reasons, lack of adequate communications, and continued repression. The rift among the leadership is very apparent from the statements released over the last few days. Though for very obvious reasons, there may be confusion about the actual goals, genuine aspirations and the ultimate demands of Tibetan people can not be trivialized anymore. Geo-political events generate mass expectations. These expectations and hopes alter the course of future events initiating a chain reaction that can not be stopped. That critical threshold has already been achieved in Tibet.

• A) Response from India-based Tibetan Refugees: There is definitely a generational divide among the India-based Tibetan refugees. Tibetan Youth Congress is no longer satisfied with the talk of genuine autonomy and the “middle way”. Their goal is total independence from China. There are a large number of young passionate Tibetans who advocate complete independence as opposed to “meaningful autonomy” as suggested by the Dalai Lama. This younger generation is very restive and possibly can not be silenced anymore as they believe Dalai Lama’s non-violent struggle has led them nowhere and has increased Chinese repression and cultural subjugation of Tibet. For these young Tibetan activists, “non-violence” is not a sacred creed but independence from China is. China’s investment of $ 6 billion in Beijing-Lhasa railroad has increased the level of suspicion in this segment of Tibetan refugees in India.

• B) Response from West-based Tibetans: Tibetan refugees based in West are unlikely to be satisfied with “autonomy- only solutions”. These people have witnessed liberation of former Warsaw pact countries (Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania etc), Baltic Republics (Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania) and Balkan states (Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia) in Europe under their very eyes with very sympathetic treatment from the international community. West-based Tibetan diaspora is more educated, more economically resourceful and more connected with international events and community. These diaspora aspire the same levels of liberty, democracy and equality for their compatriots back home as they enjoy in their adoptive homes in Europe and the US. A second class citizenship status under the over-lordship of the Han Chinese under an authoritarian communist regime shall no longer be acceptable to Western based Tibetan diaspora who mingle with the likes of Richard Gere and Uma Therman and the other Hollywood glitterati.

• C) Response from Dalai Lama: For tactical and pragmatic reasons Dalai Lama and others in Dharamshala had scaled back their demands for total independence and were willing to accept genuine autonomy and a healthy respect for Tibetan culture. Advocating for a comprehensive approach to resolve this problem that takes into account the benefits to all parties involved, Dalai Lama has been firm in commitment to a mutually beneficial policy, the ‘Middle-Way’ approach. Since 2002, talks were going on between envoys of Dalai Lama and the Chinese government with no solution in sight owing to duplicitous attitude of the PRC. He has expressed his solidarity with those Tibetans presently undergoing repression and ill-treatment. The Dalai Lama has acknowledged his helplessness in the face of such widespread protests as does not and can not control the events on the ground in Tibet. He has also threatened to quit as the head of the government-in-exile if the violence continues. He understands that the attitude inside Tibet has hardened and there has been significant criticism of his “failed” non-violent approach. Dalai Lama has implicitly admitted that Tibetans are no longer willing to follow his “middle way” approach. He does reiterate that Tibetans have had to live in a state of constant fear, intimidation and suspicion under Chinese repression. However, in spite of current wave of killings of Tibetans, he is prepared to pursue the ‘Middle-Way’ policy and continue the dialogue with the Chinese Government. He, however, very pragmatically has not foreclosed the option of total independence if the Tibetan people wanted that.

• D) Response from Dharamshala based Government of Tibet in exile: At this juncture, the leadership for the movement seems to be coming from inside the Tibet. The government-in-exile with or without Dalai Lama may be forced to react passively to the events happening in Tibet. Clearly, they did not initiate the demonstration by the Buddhist monks on March 10th in Lhasa. For sake of unity they will have to harmonize their future course of action in sync with the aspirations of resident Tibetans who are braving the Chinese repressive machinery. This may mean formally and openly accepting the demands for total independence of Tibet.

• E) Future escalation of protests by Tibetans in ATR: Though temporarily, China will be able to suppress the uprising by use of brute force analogous to the situation in Myanmar, the Beijing Olympics have opened a strategic window for the so-far frozen issue of Tibetan independence. Recent reports suggest movement of PLA units with tanks and heavy armored divisions into Tibet. The Tibetan protests will neither stop nor cease. There will be more and more novel ways to attract attention to Chinese occupation of Tibet and the cultural genocide. PRC is fighting a losing battle of wits against the Tibetan freedom fighters as the world has transformed. Despite mounting loss of life of resident Tibetans, Chinese repressive machinery would not be able to quell the bug of Tibetan independence as it has under-estimated the Tibetan nationalistic sentiment.

WHAT WOULD CHINA DO?

China currently does not have very many options dealing with the Tibetan uprising. Either it can negotiate autonomy with Dalai Lama soon enough or it can continue with the repressive policies of total control on TAR. China has ruled out the first option. Tibet’s Communist Party secretary, Zhang Qingli, lashed out at the Dalai Lama warning “we are engaged in a fierce battle of blood and fire with the Dalai clique, a life-and-death struggle between the foe and us.” The same sentiments have been expressed by the Premier Wen Jiabao.

Demonization of Dalai Lama

Pursuing the policy of total Sinification of TAR, the China will continue to demonize Dalai Lama at every given opportunity. Secretary Zhang Qingli recently commented that “the Dalai is a jackal in Buddhist monk’s robes, an evil spirit with a human face and the heart of a beast.” Premier Wen Jiabao claims that Chinese government has evidence linking the “Dalai Clique” to the deadly unrest against Chinese rule in Tibet. Labeling Dalai Lama’s actions as “hypocritical” Wen accused him of trying to sabotage the Beijing Olympics by organizing these violent incidents in TAR in a premeditated and conspiratorial manner.

Positive Media Management and Counter-offensive

The Chinese Government will try to “spin” the international media in three directions

• 1. Chinese government will try to discourage any analogies between the suppression of the current Tibetan protests and the bloody crackdown on 1989 pro-democracy demonstrations in Tiananmen Square. The role of the PLA in restoring peace and order will be camouflaged. The Chinese officials will claim that the Tibetan police and the military police are dealing with the protests, not the PLA. The number of deaths will be minimized and the use of tanks and heavy armored vehicles will be denied.

• 2. The government authorities will make exhaustive efforts to ensure that as few people as possible, inside or outside China, hear anything but the official version. Independent international media will be discredited.

• 3. Efforts will be made to portray the Han Chinese and the Hui Muslims living in TAR as the innocent victims of brutalities by Tibetan hooligans. Media reports, videos and internet will be effectively utilized to put the Tibetan demonstrators in a negative light.

Total Information Control and Management

The Chinese government will take steps further steps to control the outflow of information from Tibet using physical and virtual controls on international media.

• 1. The visas of foreign correspondents will be cancelled or restricted. Physical access to TAR will be limited and reporters will be kept confined to their hotels. Under the garb of providing security, government minders and translators will prevent foreign correspondents from interviewing Tibetans.

• 2. Access to electronic media support will be denied. Non-functional fax machines and slowed down internet will become access will become the means. The authorities will block all Internet sites relating to Tibet.

• 3. Domestic newspapers, TV programs, and Internet sites will carry only articles produced by the official Xinhua news agency. Chinese censors will block out international media.

Security Lockdown on Tibet

The Chinese government forces including Tibetan police, military police and the PLA will blanket Tibet and the areas inhabited by Tibetans in provinces neighboring Tibet, such as Gansu, Qinghai, and Sichuan. The repressive state machinery including the PLA would be hyperactive and crush any signs of dissent over the next few months. The mounting civilian casualties will not deter the Government machinery from exercising lethal means for restoring “peace and order” in Tibet.

Continued Focus on Economic Prosperity

The Chinese government will keep its focus on the need to keep the economy growing. The government will try to keep unemployment low and inflation low so as to prevent escalation of domestic unrest in other areas. Shortage of food has led to increased prices of pork. Consumer price index has shot up to more than 8%. The Chinese government will try to boost economy in Tibet as a means of pacifying the Tibetan masses while preventing spread of unrest in other provinces.

Contingency Plan for Olympics

Though staging Olympics peacefully is an important goal for the Chinese government, if push comes to shove, China will choose its continued control and hegemony over Tibet in preference over hosting Olympics successfully. Since Chinese government considers control of Tibet as a life or death issue, it would not hesitate to sacrifice Olympics if things get too hot in Tibet leading to a total boycott of the Games.

WHAT SHOULD THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY DO?

Tibet had declared unilateral independence from the Chinese empire in 1911 following the fall of the Manchu dynasty. Tibet was de facto an independent nation from 1911 till 1951 when it was invaded by the expansionist and hegemonistic Communist regime under the leadership of Mao. There were failed opportunities in 1945-1951 when Tibet could have been offered membership of UN as an independent sovereign nation. Thereafter, the inter-national community including the UN, USA and USSR have a background of serial non-actions following the Chinese invasion of Tibet in 1951, in 1959, in 1962 and more recently in 1989.

Western nations are reluctant to take action against China’s crackdown on protests in Tibet, fearing Beijing’s growing economic and diplomatic clout and for their place in its huge consumer market. The main reaction, so far, in Europe and America has been to express concern over the reported deaths in the Himalayan region and call for restraint by China. The European Commission said it was worried about the violence. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged China to engage in a dialogue with the Dalai Lama. The West this as an internal affair of China having conceded Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. The lure of economic opportunities in China for Western nations will outweigh any concerns about human rights.

UN Response

It is unlikely that the UN will do anything on Tibetan issue as China is one of the members of Security Council’s P5 and is robustly supported by an equally authoritarian Russia led by Putin and Medvedev. Secretary General Ban ki Moon dare not antagonize China as he is trying to use Chinese influence in Darfur crisis.

US Response

US will officially take a middle road and will continue to exhort China to improve its human rights record while asking for restoration of peace in Tibet. There will be increased transmission from Radio Free Asia to Tibet. The CIA may increase its contact with Tibetan diaspora based in the US and Europe and may increase funding for resistance. The current lame duck US administration will not make Tibet a defining issue in the Sino-US relationship as China seems to be bankrolling the US government deficit that runs now into trillions of dollars. George W. Bush will go to attend the Beijing Olympics opening ceremony as planned earlier. The speaker of the US House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi is currently on a five day tour of India and will be visiting Dharamshala. Nancy Pelosi was instrumentally in getting the Dalai Lama honored recently by the Congressional Medal of Freedom despite Chinese protests. However, the direction of a new US administration in 2009 can not be anticipated at this juncture.

US civil society will have a different perspective governed more by moralistic considerations contrasted with the mercantilist instincts of the US government. Already, Stephen Speilberg has resigned from his Beijing Olympics responsibilities. Richard Gere is spearheading American Buddhists solidarity with Tibetan cause. The US civil society will continue to extend its support for Tibetan independence as the Dalai Lama is a highly revered figure in the US and has many Americans followers who have converted to Buddhism. These US converts to Buddhism have economic clout and will continue to bankroll the Tibetan resistance based in the West.

IOC Response

The IOC has been forced to lobby against boycott calls and the possibility of the games turning into a political demonstration. The IOC’s basic contention is that as a sporting organization it is unable to pressure China or any other country on political matters. The IOC believes that a total boycott would only hurt the athletes, as shown by the political boycotts of the 1976, 1980 and 1984 Olympics. The IOC will not link the issue of Tibetan independence or human rights record of China with successful completion of the Olympic Games under any scenario. Admitting that kind of linkage will be akin to IOC eating a crow because IOC should not have awarded the Olympic Games to Beijing in the first place when it did in July 2001 on human rights record of China.

Russian Response

Concerned about its own separatist problems in Chechnya, Russia will denounce any movement for censor of Chinese government in the UN for its brutal handling of Tibetan uprisings. Furthermore, Russia has linked unrest in Tibet with unilateral declaration of independence in Kosovo. Russia will continue to support China in maintaining its control over TAR and will lend moral, diplomatic and logistic support to China on this issue as Russia feels encircled by the NATO in Eastern Europe and will not budge on this issue. Russia will actively work for further consolidation and enlargement of SCO in conjunction with China to keep US influence from spreading further in Central Asia.

Others

There will be stray calls for boycott of Olympics coming from former East European countries that were under Soviet domination during the cold war era.

The Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch should intervene and asked the Chinese authorities to allow an independent investigation into the situation in Tibet. The response from the international community will be, largely, determined by the events unfolding on the ground. If the Tibetan revolt is successfully contained by China, the international community will keep quiet and continue to do business as usual with China. If the events on ground turn tectonic, international community will adopt “holier than thou” attitude and sing paeans in the praise of cause of human rights violations and the valiant struggle of Tibetans.

The international community has a responsibility to prevent any further physical and cultural genocide of Tibet under Chinese occupation. International community should leave aside short-term economic, mercantile interests and focus on the nationalistic aspirations of six million Tibetans who have been subjugated and dispossessed since 1951 having attained their freedom from the imperialistic power in 1911. If a tiny Kosovo or Macedonia can achieve independence why not six million Tibetans?

WHAT SHOULD INDIA DO?

India’s response to the current revolt in Tibet against Chinese occupation would depend upon the kind of perspective one takes. What should be deemed as the optimal response shall be determined by a complex array of competing interests within the pluralistic, corrupt and chaotic Indian society that is somewhat fractured currently. The overall Indian response needs to be distinguished from the response of the party in power (Congress) or the current lame duck UPA government of India that is on its last legs and is unable to come out with a coherent response. The overall response has to be multi-dimensional, finely tuned and pro-active instead of being reactive, taking into consideration our historical people to people relations with both Tibetan people and Chinese people. Indian response should also consider the historical facts including the Chinese Aggression against India in 1962 and subsequent Chinese hostility towards India’s interests in South Asia and in international fora. China’s transfer of nuclear technology and ballistic missile technology to Pakistan and China’s “Pearl of Strings” strategy to contain India should be factored into any decision making process. Any Indian response must take into account previous Indian attempts to appease Chinese under Jawahar Lal Nehru’s failed policies in 1950s and 1960s and perpetual Chinese recourse to ultimate “victim-hood” role. Indian response needs to take into account the vigorous but unnecessary jubilation expressed by India in 1971 at the time of Communist China getting its permanent seat in the Security Council of the United Nation and India under Jawahar Lal Nehru forgoing the American offer of permanent seat in Security Council in the 1950s in favor of communist Chinese claim.

• A) Response from Indian civilizational and spiritual leadership: India had been the civilizational guru of China as Buddhism spread to China from India. Chinese pilgrims came to India during ancient times, attended universities and monasteries and took back wealth of spiritual knowledge from India. The spiritual leaders from India should exert their moral pressure on Chinese government expressing concern for the welfare of our Buddhist brethren. The Indian spiritual leaders should express their solidarity with the Dalai Lama for early resolution of the Tibetan grievances be it autonomy or complete independence. A memorandum to the Chinese embassy in New Delhi or a press release from various spiritual leaders expressing their regret at the loss of life under repressive crackdown by the Chinese government would be useful for the Tibetan cause. The spiritual leaders should exhort the Chinese government to engage in substantive dialogue with the Dalai Lama directly and through his representatives so that long-standing issues with regard to Tibet may be resolved. The spiritual leaders of Indic religions should send a strong message to the Chinese Government that what is happening inside Tibet and what the Chinese government is doing to the Tibetans is not justified ethically, morally and spiritually.

• B) Response from Indian Civil society institutions: India has large array of civil society institutions and a historic tradition to help the needy and the down-trodden that dates back from ancient times. Jawahar Lal Nehru sent the Dr. Dwarka Nath Kotnis medical mission to China to help the Chinese civil society during the time of their need. There are a number of Non-governmental organizations that can channelize Indian peoples’ help to their Buddhist Tibetan brothers during the time of their need. This may include humanitarian help, e.g. sending medical missions to Lhasa, sending care-packages, life-saving medications and of course money to the families of the Tibetan’s killed in the PLA atrocities. Such help should be sent privately by Indian citizens, residents or non-resident irrespective of the Government of India’s official and diplomatic response. These helpful altruistic gestures towards fellow Buddhists will gain us respect and trust from fellow civilizational allies. The NGOs have significant role in mobilizing public opinion, issuing press statements, sending emails to IOC, Chinese government officials, UN secretary general etc. The NGOs can also arrange seminars and discussion groups in conjunction with other Human rights organizations on the plight of oppressed Tibetan people living under occupation.

• C) Response from Indian media: The print and electronic media in India is free of government control as the Indian constitution allows freedom of speech. This sets a stage where the media’s response to this crisis is divorced from the government response. The Indian media does have the rights and luxury of not toeing to the government response and should continue to adopt an independent viewpoint without getting bullied by Chinese government pronouncements threatening dire consequences for Indo-Chinese relations in future. The Indian media should also disregard the calls for non-interference in China’s internal affairs notably by Indian communist lackeys. The Indian media can rise to the occasion and document the atrocities on the Tibetan population without the fear of strained relations with China.

• D) Response from Indian Communists Parties: The leaders of Indian left, especially the CPM have so far refused to condemn the violence in Tibet, described by the Dalai Lama as “ by the Chinese government. Addressing a press conference in New Delhi, Sitaram Yechury said the clashes were an internal affair of China. SR Yechury rhetorically asked how the Indian nation would react if any other nation were to raise the issue of what is happening in Kashmir. Indian left especially the CPM will refuse to acknowledge Chinese repression in Tibet. Indian Communists will continue to justify Chinese atrocities despite mounting evidence.

• E) Response from non-communist political parties: There will be hardly any worthwhile response from the Congress party organization. The right wing Bharatiya Janata Party will denounce Chinese actions and will exhort Government to take stronger measures, adopt a strict policy and join hands with other nations and raise the matter at international fora. They will continue to highlight the communist betrayal in 1962; when China attacked India, the united CPI did not condemn the Chinese aggression. The socialists will predictably take a stronger line against China.

Response from current Government of India

Tactical response

The Government of India has come out with a two-pronged response. On one hand, the government of India has arrested Tibetan Youth and demonstrators from staging a March from Dharashala to Lhasa and has prevented any damage to Chinese embassy. The government has also issued a cautious appeal to initiate a dialogue so as to resolve the grievance without indulging in violence. This is a politically and diplomatically correct initial tactical response. However, this Tibetan issue is not going to disappear and as events are unfolding the response needs to be carefully calibrated taking Indian interests into consideration. Unfortunately, successive governments have not enunciated a long-term Tibet policy.

Long-term Strategic Response and Tibet Policy

It is not, it was not, and it will be not in the long-term strategic interests of India that Tibet was occupied by expansionist and hegemonistic China in 1951. It remains our long-term strategic interest for a free and independent Tibet to remain as a buffer state between China and India. The strategic blunders of Himalayan proportions committed by Jawahar Lal Nehru despite ample written warnings by Sardar Patel need to be corrected eventually albeit after a thoughtful consideration leveraging on the events and ground realities.

Whether the current communist, dictatorial regime in China will last long is debatable. Despite economic growth and prosperity in China, there are thousands of instances of social unrest. With an inflation of 8% currently, shortage of food, rampant corruption, popular revolt against communist rule can not be excluded at a future date. Any policy planning needs to take into consideration a scenario where popular events akin to 1989 Tianaman Square events may take over the Chinese regime leading to break-up of the communist empire with secession by the Inner Mongolia, Tibet, East Turkistan and unilateral declaration of Independence by Taiwan. If the mighty British, French, Spanish and Soviet communist empires could be broken down under the might of popular uprisings, so could be the Communist Chinese Empire. International community failed to take strategic advantage of 1989 Tiananmen Square uprisings. India also failed to do the same. In future, in order to have some leverage to settle the border dispute with China, India will have to play hard with China as there is no other option. We have to remember that China considers entire Arunachal Pradesh as “Outer Tibet” and has reasserted its claim on the whole province. Furthermore, besides Tibet, the greater China concept incorporates Sikkim, Bhutan, Nepal and Myanmar to be the five fingers of the Chinese sphere of strategic influence and hegemony.

China unfortunately is not a cute, cuddly poodle that has to be hugged unconditionally all the time. Rather it is a complex, Communist, and Confuscian Chimera that could come to gnaw into your body flesh. China has refused to resolve the border issue and continues to strike at India’s interests world-wide in a skillful manner. Bottom-line is that India will have to adopt a tough long-term China policy predicated upon re-emergence of Tibet as an independent and free buffer state between the two Asian giants. It may sound as pipe dream but any geo-political scenario is possible. India should be ready with any plan B that is contrary to the popular notions of strategic thinking on Tibet.

Undue genuflection to China on Tibet issue has proved counterproductive since 1951 onwards. Perhaps, the time has come when India should grant Tibetan refugees the right to organize and indulge in political activities under close watch. We have to acknowledge that Dalai Lama is not only a spiritual leader but also the political head of the Tibetan government-in-exile and needs to be accorded treatment and protocol reserved for heads of states. India should consider negotiating a treaty with any future government in free Tibet or with the Tibetan government-in-exile about return to Indian sovereignty of Hindu sacred sites of Mount Kailash and Mansarover lakes. From ancient times and certainly prior to 1951 Hindus from India have made pilgrimages to these Hindu Holy-lands without needing any visa or other formalities as there was not issue of Chinese or Tibetan sovereignty over these holy sites.

WHAT WOULD INDIA DO?

Indian government is notorious for dragging its feet in a re-active manner without ever planning for contingencies that are unforeseen. After waiting for whole week, the Indian government that survives on support from the CPM expressed vague noises and distress about use of force out of proportion in “Tibet that is autonomous region of China”. India, under current UPA dispension may not be able to boldly articulate its Tibet policy advantage or play its Tibet card boldly during the Beijing Olympics.

LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS FOR INDIA

The window of opportunity for India is great till August 24th 2008 for using her Tibet card skillfully in the international power games. Besides the moral, civilizational, religious and spiritual dimensions, there are important strategic and security implications for India. Tibetan issue will no longer die down. Free and independent Tibet’s is not necessarily a dream from past. The future political and administrative dispensions in Tibet may not be under the control of Communist China. India should not put all her eggs into the Chinese basket. Previous Indian policies on Tibet have failed and have proved counterproductive strategically. Considering the persistent and ongoing Chinese congagement activities of India, India needs to develop her spine and have a bold, changed strategic perspective on Tibet and on China. 

Anwar Ibrahim faces ban from electoral scene till 2009 on trumped up charges of corruption and sodomy on behalf of previous Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad. Anwar Ibrahim might have pulled off an alternative, credible multi-racial political front by 2009 to confront the ruling coalition if the mid-term elections were not announced prematurely. Badawi seems to be using the stability, economic prosperity and continuation of Malay dominance to face electorate again on March 8th 2008. He has targeted the Malaysian civil society and the leaders of the (Hindu Rights Action Forum) HINDRAF who are in prison under the infamous Internal Security Act. Badawi had got the opposition leader Mr. Anwar Ibrahim also arrested a few weeks ago to prevent him from informally campaigning for the expected but not announced elections.

India has genuinely tried to engage Malaysia since independence. India is currently trying to negotiate a free trade area with Malaysia. The Defense Minister AK Anthony visited Malaysia few weeks ago to develop military relations with that country despite claims of marginalization and oppression of Hindu Malaysians. A day after his visit, Malaysia announced new visa rules restricting entry of Indian Professionals in Malaysia. Though successive governments of India have truly considered Malaysia as a friendly Asian nation, the diplomatic sentiments have not been reciprocated by the successive Malaysian governments. Malaysia has consistently blocked India’s entry into ASEAN+6, ARF, APEC, East Asia Community on behest of China and Pakistan. Former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad was very vocal in proposing anti-India entry parameters in these East Asian fora to keep India isolated. In fact Malaysia has been counter-balanced by Singapore that has welcomed India’s role as an ASEAN regional dialogue partner. Singapore is facilitating India’s entry into derivative East Asian and Asia-pacific institutions. Malaysia has always taken pro-Pakistan stance in international fora against vital Indian interests.

While denouncing India for the 1998 Pokhran II nuclear tests, Malaysia became a willing participant in Pakistan’s clandestine nuclear trade and commerce. Mr. Abdullah Badawi’s own son was allegedly front-running a shadow company for the benefit of AQ Khan’s international nuclear Wal-Mart that benefited Pakistan and smuggled nuclear weapon components to North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran. Details of these transactions are carefully documented by Adrian Levy and Catherine Clark-Scott in their best seller entitled “Deception: Pakistan, the United States, and the Secret Trade in Nuclear Weapons”. Also not widely known is the fact that Kuala Lumpur was the active planning and meeting ground for the Islamic terrorists who brought down the Twin Towers during the 9/11 attacks. It appears that after Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, Malaysia has turned out to be the incubator of Jihadi terrorism in Asia.

In the Asian geo-political theatre, a de-facto China-Pakistan-Malaysia axis has emerged with its strong anti-India under-pinnings. Malaysia, like Pakistan is an artificially contrived product of British Colonialism. The British colonial territory of Peninsular Malaya was merged with Sabah and Sarawak states that constitute East Malaysia. Analogous to Pakistan, it has pre-Islamic Indic and Hindu heritage that Malay Muslim civil society vehemently refuses to accept and acknowledge unlike their Indonesian cousins. Both countries are part of the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) and tend to view international policies through the prism of Islamic Ummah. Both countries lack true democracy and have authoritarian, anti-minority constitutional provisions that have brought about ethnic cleansing of Hindu minority since independence from colonial Britain. This has reflected in demographic pattern of both these countries with declining Hindu minority population since the time of Independence from colonial power Britain. Meanwhile, China, in order to counter-balance US in the Islamic world, has gone out of the way to aggressively cultivate Islamic countries, including Pakistan, Iran, Sudan, Albania, Libya and Malaysia etc. It is no secret that China has cultivated Pakistan over the last four decades to contain India. With their similar hostile anti-India and anti-Hindu national mindsets, both Pakistan and Malaysia have become Chinese pawns in the international chess-board.

Mr. Badawi hopes to hold on to power in the March 8th 2008 federal elections. Four years ago, Mr. Badawi obtained more than two-third majority in national elections winning 200 seats conceding only 20 seats in the Malaysian parliament to the opposition. Mr. Badawi has gone on the record to say that Malaysian Indians might not vote for Barrisan Nasional this time. As a sop to Hindu-Malaysians, the Hindu festival of Thaipussam was declared a national holiday just before announcing the mid-term elections. The discredited MIC leader Sami Velu initially decided to not contest the elections having realized that he may not win this time. But ultimately, in the name of experience, he was persuaded to contest his seat by Abdullah Badawi to avoid giving any moral victory to HINDRAF leaders. Now, during the elections Sami Vellu who has been a minister in the Barrisan Nasional government for more than thirty years claims that the Malaysian government has not done enough for the Malaysian Indians!

It is widely predicted that though Barrisan Nasional will come back to power, it may not get two-third majority. It is likely that the loose opposition combine of Democratic Action Party, Kedilan (Justice) Party of Anwar Ibrahim and the Islamist PAS may together get a total of 80-90 seats in the national parliament. Last time when the ruling UMNO (United Malay National Organization) lost electorally in May 1969, there were racial riots with targeting of Chinese Malaysians. The youth wing of UMNO has been displaying spears and axes in their annual meetings to maintain the Malay supremacy. In this context, one may remember former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad ‘s overt threats in his book “The Malay Dilemma” that Malays will be forced to “run amok” if Malay supremacy is challenged. This time, in case of UMNO electoral losses, the potential targets of Malay mobs will be Hindu-Malaysians. The international community needs to anticipate racial and religious violence targeted against Hindu-Malaysians in the aftermath of UMNO defeat in the March 8th 2008 elections in Malaysia.

A wounded but victorious Abdullah Badawi and UMNO may show persistent hostility towards Hindu-Malaysians in the domestic arena. Genuine grievances of Hindu Malaysians may not be resolved after the elections. Cornered domestically, Malaysia led by Abdullah Badawi may draw closer into the undeclared CPM (China-Pakistan-Malaysia) axis and show its intense displeasure by striking at India’s interests in international arena with scorn and renewed vigor.

The de facto and de jure system of racial and religious apartheid needs to be dismantled in Malaysia. If the international community can criticize and demand reforms in South Africa for racial segregation and apartheid policies, we can certainly criticize Malaysian government for the same. Multi-lateral, carefully calibrated economic sanctions against Malaysia are warranted till the apartheid state is dismantled and the proposed constitutional reforms are implemented. The US, India and Japan are not morally justified in negotiating an FTA with Malaysia under current apartheid system when minorities are being systematically persecuted. Asian democracies like India and Japan need to take moral lead and use calibrated and targeted economic sanctions to change this system of apartheid in a fellow Asian nation.

All diplomatic means must be used to avoid any repetition of ethnic riots following declaration of results of the March 8th 2008 elections. Strong political message needs to be sent to the law-enforcement agencies of Malaysia (Police and Army included) that ethnic violence and genocide following a possible defeat in the March 2008 elections will not be tolerated. If such timely steps are not taken now, the whole of South-East Asia will be destabilized consequently. History will not forgive us for our failure to act in Malaysia at this crucial juncture. 

US Abrogation of ABM Treaty as a Catalyst

In 2001 President Bush unilaterally pulled out of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The ABM treaty signed bilaterally during the Cold War by the United States and the now-defunct Soviet Union specifically forbade testing and deployment of a ballistic missile defense system. US argued that ABM treaty prevented it from developing capacity to protect it from terrorist or rogue state missile attacks. The urgency to pull out was questioned because missile defense system could have been tested without breaching the ABM treaty. Concern was expressed that withdrawal from the ABM treaty would rupture relations with space powers and raised serious possibilities of future arms races. Putin characterized Bush’s decision to abandon the ABM treaty as a “mistake”. He wanted to create a new framework of strategic relationship quickly hoping for transparency and predictability on offensive and defensive nuclear weapons. Responding to Bush’s plan to reduce the U.S. nuclear weapons, Putin proposed deep reductions to level of 1500 to 2200 warheads. Despite US assurances, the Chinese were concerned that the U.S. national missile defense plan could be used to block their missiles, thereby upsetting the nuclear balance of power especially since Chinese nuclear arsenal was much smaller in number. Jiang Zemin remained opposed to the U.S. missile defense program and the U.S. withdrawal from the ABM treaty. Strategic experts predicted that the China would add more nuclear weapons to its stockpile. That single decision by the US had downstream consequences and catalyzed a new race for weaponization of the outer space. This new arms race in outer space started with the Chinese testing anti-satellite kinetic-killer vehicle last year and the US in response sending a message to China by shooting their spy satellite. Putin has acknowledged the threat from the US BMD activities and has threatened that Russian nuclear tipped missiles will start pointing at Ukraine, Poland and the Czech Republic.

India’s Forays in Commercial Uses of Outer Space

Currently, six countries (India, USA, Russia, Japan, European space agency and China) have space programs with commercial and economic applications. The commercial satellite use for communications, telephony, remote sensing, navigation, direct satellite television, internet access, and radio & wireless services is growing faster. India has recently joined the club of nations that currently monopolize the commercial satellite launching business. India launched an Israeli reconnaissance satellite recently and will play an increasingly important commercial role in satellite launch business through Antrix Corporation. The commercial growth of satellite launch business will continue with increasing demands for launch services from the developing countries. As the cost of her launch services is substantially cheaper, India will pocket a significant market share in near future against stiff resistance from the three space superpowers.

Dangers of Weaponization of Outer Space

All advanced nations have spy satellites as part of their military program. Nations rely heavily on satellites for command and control, communication, monitoring, early warning, and navigation purposes. Actors involved in this new race for space weaponization refuse to acknowledge it. The US ballistic missile defense system includes dual-use characteristics with capabilities to destroy ballistic missiles and satellites. The new arms race will alter the existing strategic balance, undermine international and national security, and disrupt existing arms control agreements. The consequences of new space weapon race are five-fold:

• Russian Response:
  The deployment of US ballistic missile defense interceptor sites in Poland and Czech Republic has lead to withdrawal of Russia from the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty. Russia threatened by an enlarged NATO will continue to push for its conventional advantage in Europe. Putin has threatened an increase in number of tactical and strategic nuclear warheads and including pointing these to targets in those two East European countries along with Ukraine. It is likely that Russia will pursue its own version of BMD under the current geopolitical situation.

• Chinese Response:
  China has responded by its anti-satellite test in 2007. China will continue to build more warheads and ICBMs to maintain its nuclear deterrence vis-à-vis the US since it continues to have problems with US on Taiwan. China remains afraid of the enormous capabilities gap with the US. The US is far ahead of China in the arena of anti-satellite testing. Since the US is still not ready to negotiate any treaty banning weaponization of space, the Chinese ASAT test was a pressure tactic by China to force the US to come to the negotiation table.

• US Response:
  The US became so alarmed by the Chinese anti-satellite test that it conducted simulated test attacks against its own satellites to determine the severity of this threat. While rejecting any treaty obligations, the US has already sent an overt political message to China with its shooting down of its failed spy satellite. Furthermore, the US is going ahead with its proposed BMD sites in the Eastern Europe.

• Pollution of Outer Space:
  Space debris resulting from anti-satellite test poses a considerable hazard to commercial spacecrafts. Owing to absence of gravitational force in the outer space, fragments remain orbiting. Space junk can cause serious damage to satellites that are already orbiting in space or are launched in the future. The Chinese test created nearly 800 debris fragments of size 10 centimeters or larger, nearly 40,000 debris fragments of a size between one and 10 centimeters and perhaps two million fragments of a size of one millimeter or larger in the space. Large pieces of space debris are expected to orbit the earth for years preventing other spacecraft from using same or similar orbits. The US shooting down of its own satellite would do the same but at a much lower orbit. Russians also contributed to space debris during Russian anti-satellite test in 1980s. There are no worthwhile international efforts to handle the existing problem of space debris.

• Future Consequences:
  It is likely that countries like Japan, Iran, North Korea and Pakistan may build their own anti-satellite kinetic kill capabilities. Although no country has so far shot down another country’s satellites, in asymmetric warfare this can not be excluded. Destruction of a large number of satellites during the course of a future space-based war would pollute the outer space and make it completely inhabitable for existing and future commercial satellites.

China’s ASAT Test
In January 2007, China tested an anti-satellite weapon against one of its own ageing weather satellite orbiting at 500 miles (850km) above the earth. The anti-satellite weapon was a non-explosive “kinetic kill vehicle,” which destroyed its target by colliding with it. This was the fourth Chinese test in the series, previous three had failed. There was a total silence from the Chinese political leadership initially. China, subsequently, cleverly implied a communication gap between the PLA leadership and the Chinese government. It is impossible for the PLA leadership to conduct an ASAT test without the Chinese government being aware of it because Chinese Communist Party’s doctrine is “the (communist) party controls the gun”. China has been focused on space warfare activities since the first gulf war. The US demonstrated an asymmetrical advantage against its opponents in satellite technology in Gulf War I, the Afghan war and Gulf War II. China has also developed navigation satellite jammers that are equipped to disrupt GPS. In recent years, the Chinese secretly fired powerful laser weapons to disable US spy satellites by “blinding” their sensitive surveillance devices and preventing spy photography when they pass over China. The US did not condemn this hostile Chinese action publicly. Perhaps, the US was afraid of “losing China” in its diplomatic offensives against North Korea and Iran. In case of future conflict with Taiwan, China is concerned about the US superiority with US spy satellites keeping vigilance over the Taiwan Straits. China remains apprehensive about massive Japanese investments in military space technology despite recent warming of Sino-Japanese relations. China finally claimed that its test was a defensive and was essentially a technology demonstrator. China considers the ASAT test as ‘deterrence’ against an untrustworthy US. Since China can not match the US in terms of numbers and technology its best policy option is to develop asymmetrical space warfare advantages.

Russia, China and PAROS
Recently, Russia and China circulated draft of a Treaty on the Prevention of Arms Race in Outer Space at the 65-member UN Disarmament Conference in Geneva in 2008. Russia and China have pushed for years for a PAROS treaty. The draft PAROS treaty aims to fill gaps in existing law, create conditions for further exploration and use of space, and strengthen general security and arms control. A draft treaty on the prevention of placement of weapons in outer space (PPW) was also submitted. Russia insists that it constitutes another multilateral measure in the field of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation and thus would be a real contribution to strengthening the NPT regime. The US refuses the need for arms control agreements in outer space as it considers they are not a viable tool for enhancing the long-term space security interests of the US. The draft treaty on preventing arms race in outer space provides for a ban on placing any arms in space, a ban on the use of force or a threat of force against space objects as well as is called upon to remove the present lapses in the international space law as well as to ensure preservation of space property and strengthening of universal security and control over armaments. The US responded to these proposals saying it opposed any treaty that sought “to prohibit or limit access to or use of space.” The US insists that such a treaty would also be impossible to enforce and verify because “any object orbiting or transiting through space can be a weapon if that object is intentionally placed onto a collision course with another space object.”

US Destruction of Failed Spy Satellite
The recent US shoot down of a failed 5,000-pound spy satellite (USA-193 or NROL-21) with a missile defense interceptor was aimed ostensibly at preventing toxic fuel from reaching earth. The US destroyed the spy satellite just before it entered Earth’s atmosphere, about 150 miles (241 km) above the earth with a single missile (SM-3) fired from a Navy AEGIS warship, the USS Lake Erie in the northern Pacific Ocean. The US claimed that the missile strike was meant to prevent the toxic 1000 pound hyrdazine tank from landing in a populated area and scattering debris over several hundred miles. It was first time a missile defense interceptor was used against a satellite since 1985, when the US tested an anti-satellite missile from a jet fighter. The US ensured that this destruction of the damaged U.S. spy satellite did not jeopardize the safety of crew aboard the US space shuttle and international space station.

US Message to China
When China conducted its first successful test of an anti-satellite (ASAT) weapon in Jan 2007, the US perceived it as a new strategic threat. The Pentagon has discussed ways to deter and counter China’s ASAT weapon, which can threaten U.S. military and civilian communications, especially command and control systems involving satellites. U.S. military and national security officials acknowledge the Chinese ASAT test is part of China’s asymmetric warfare capabilities and represents a new strategic weapon that could cripple the U.S. military in a future conflict by giving Beijing the capability to shoot down most low-earth orbit (LEO) satellites. The U.S. just publicly signaled that U.S. missile defenses can be used to counter China’s strategic anti-satellite weapons. The timing of the announcement of the US satellite destruction plan followed the renewed Chinese and Russian attempts at Geneva to bolster an international effort to ban weapons in space.

Russian and Chinese Perceptions of the US Action
Russian defense ministry commented that US downing of the spy satellite appeared like a veiled weapons test and an “attempt to move the arms race into space”. Furthermore, The Russians speculate that the spy satellite may have nuclear components that US wished to prevent sensitive technology from falling into wrong hands. The international perception is that this was indeed a test despite denials by the US. Questioning the US apparent rationale to avoid contamination from hazardous fuel on board, China has urged the US to fulfill its international obligations and avoid threatening security in space and the security of other countries. The Chinese have demanded the data in a timely and prompt manner from this event/test to study whether original US claim was justified.

Strategic Implications for India
There are rising tensions between US, Russia and China over the militarization and weaponization of space. With both US and China capable of destroying satellites, the US-China rivalry could have unintended consequences. An irrational China can use its ASAT capability to hit Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Indian satellites. China can also utilize jamming technology and laser technology to jam India’s satellites. The Chinese ASAT capability poses a direct challenge to India’s C4ISR architecture. China can compromise Indian efforts to establish an independent navigational network with MEO and LEO satellites. India also needs to learn from her historical experiences from the NPT and its subsequent extension “in perpetuity”. If India had tested its nuclear device in 1968 instead of 1974, India would have been grandfathered into the NPT as a nuclear weapon state and would have successfully negotiated any strategic challenges. India would not have been boxed into the current situation she is in. China has already acquired the ASAT capability and pursues the doctrine of asymmetric warfare. China will continue to advance her cyber war and space war capabilities to achieve strategic parity with the US. China has ostensibly pledged not to proliferate ASAT technology. Chinese pledges, as experience tells us do not mean a thing! China does have the habit of proliferating advanced weapons technology to its all-weather ally Pakistan to contain India. In all probability, China will proliferate these technologies stealthily to Pakistan. India needs to look at the military uses of space technologies and be prepared with its own ASAT capabilities in case of future need. India should propose her own draft of PAROS and should become an active party to the outer space disarmament agenda. One of the reasons for a proactive stance is that economically India can ill-afford an outer space arms race with China. Furthermore, we need to able to influence the future treaty negotiations as an insider rather than as an outsider. India must factor in the worst case strategic scenario of a hegemonistic China emerging as a “rogue” outer-space superpower backed by its 1.3 trillion $ foreign exchange reserves. The twin possibilities that China either will start proliferating to Pakistan or will overtly or covertly threaten to shoot down Indian satellites should be factored into the decision making process.

Task Ahead for the Next Government of India
It is imperative at this stage that India formally demonstrates her own ASAT technological capabilities prior to successful negotiations of a multi-lateral PAROS. Owing to the nature of the power games being played, it is unlikely that we will have a successful PAROS treaty signed soon. Meanwhile, the big three actors, namely USA, Russia and China will continue to enhance their capabilities for military weaponization in the outer space without formally acknowledging the intent. It is incumbent upon the future Governments of India to take this issue seriously, for once, in a proactive manner instead of reacting to international demands. There is still time for India to test, demonstrate the technology, acquire the ASAT capability, should the need arise in future and thereby safeguarding our long-term strategic interests. The window of opportunity for India will not last very long in case the US decides after its current test to agree for signing of internationally verifiable PAROS and PPW treaties. Hopefully, PAROS and PPW can preserve the peaceful paradise of the outer space by preventing the power-games being played by the three space superpowers. Before those treaties come into force, India needs to preserve her strategic parity and balance of power with China by developing her own anti-satellite kinetic-kill capability.

However, the new G5, in contrast to the above club is nothing to gloat about. Let us introduce the potential members of this new G5.  We can start with Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, and Haiti. These PASSH countries constitute the new G5 or the Group of Failed Nations (the GFN) or the Group of Failed States (the GFS). These failed nations are perpetually in crisis, always conducting diplomacy with a begging bowl in one hand and a gun pointed to their head in the other hand.  Combined together these nations have received billions of dollars in international aid and yet their voracious appetite for more fiscal aid from the international community is never satisfied. The international aid money goes into a perpetual black hole that sucks everything into it without any shred of evidence of either accountability or progress. Their leaders are corrupt to the core and have stashed billions of dollars of international aid money into foreign accounts. None of them have an effective and functioning government despite several and usually competing pretenders to the throne. The PASSH countries are not able to provide even civic relief services to their citizens in face of natural disasters. The writ of their respective national governments does not last beyond few hundred square miles of the national capitals. Yet they continue to blame other countries for their national sickness.

Except for Haiti, all of them have dallied with Al Qaeda and its mushrooming derivatives in one form or the other in the last three decades. Somalia has Al Shabab, Afghanistan has the Al Qaeda and Taliban, Pakistan has Al Qaeda, Quetta Shura, Paki Taliban, LeT and numerous hydra-headed terrorist outfits that change their names by every one minute. Three of them namely Sudan, Afghanistan and Pakistan have the unique distinction and honor of playing warm and gracious host to the greatest Houdini of the 21st century whose elusive dis-appearance trick can only be explained by the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle of the quantum mechanics. He is somewhere there but no one can find him in the border lands of Jihadistan, the great Osama bin Laden. Some of the PASSH countries have effectively used ethnic cleansing over decades (Pakistan and Afghanistan), while others have participated in genocide or fratricidal tribal warfare (Sudan, Pakistan and Somalia). The PASSH countries are not just the fountainheads of global terrorism; they are the fountainheads of illegal international drug trade, human trafficking and other crimes as well.

Some of these failed states are de facto under continuous secessionist movements or slow partition. Somalia is already de facto partitioned into Somaliland and Somalia; Sudan into southern Sudan and the Arab dominated northern Sudan. Sudan just had the African Union sponsored referendum that will endorse the partition officially. Northern Sudan will still have problems in Darfur region. Pakistan has already divided into Bangladesh and Pakistan in 1971 and is in the middle of another ensuing partition. One would not be surprised as and when Balochistan seceeds from Pakistan. Afghanistan for sake of stability needs to be partitioned into Northern Afghanistan and a new badland of Pashtoonistan if we agree with the thesis propounded by Robert Blackwell. The PASSH countries are decidedly and literally a pain in the rear end of the international community. You just can not ignore them but you do not like them either. The international community is forced to intervene for one reason or the other in these countries on humanitarian grounds or for sake of global security, although they are very touchy about their national sovereignty.

If history is any guide, the geo-political situation in the PASSH countries will not improve and there will be no change in their ways of governance or lack of it.  The international community needs to take a long-term view of various intervention strategies to ensure security and safety for the rest of the world.   Since the PASSH nations can not eradicate their problems on their own, external intervention is a grim reality, whether their respective governments acknowledge this fact or not. Perhaps, time has come for the UN to recreate the now defunct Trusteeship Council and declare these failed nations as UN protectorates to be governed directly by the UN Trusteeship Council. Perhaps, India, now back in UNSC should float proposals for recreation of the UN Trusteeship Council. No single nation should bear the cost of sustaining these failed nations in this cash-strapped era. The sole remaining superpower is ageing and declining. It is now frugal and fiscally fragile and should not be asked to bear the burden of nation building for these failed states.  It is already planning to withdraw from Afghanistan. US intervention in Somalia in the nineties was disastrous. Fiscal burden needs to be redistributed uniformly across the membership of the UN. Let China, Russia, Japan and Saudi Arabia also contribute to the national building costs through the UN Trusteeship Council. Perhaps, under UN supervision, these failed states and their respective NGOs, non-state actors and general populations must be demilitarized and completely de-weaponized.  Their nuclear weapons and nuclear programs must be dismantled under the UN and IAEA supervision. Their WMD capabilities need to be capped, rolled back and eventually eliminated to ensure a global community free of terrorism and perpetual threats of nuclear blackmail. That is the most daring challenge for the UN in the second decade of the 21st century. It takes a global village to raise a nation!  

China conveniently denounces all these protests as sacrilege against the holy spirit of Olympics. Trying to take a high, moral ground, China has accused the protestors of mixing politics with sports. For the first time in the history of Olympics, the so-called sacred flame has aroused intense passions far and wide.

The 2008 Olympic torch relay has obviously brought the focus of the whole world�s attention on China�s annexation of Tibet and continued repression. In 1896, at the time of re-introduction of Olympic Games, the Olympic torch relay was not part of the official ceremonies. Only a ceremonial fire was kept burning throughout the celebration of the ancient Olympic games in Greece. Per Greek mythology, Prometheus stole the fire from the Greek god Zeus and the ancient Olympics ritualized that Greek mythical story.

The ceremonial Olympic Fire was reintroduced at the 1928 Amsterdam Olympics, and it has been part of the modern Olympic Games ever since. The international Olympic flame (torch) relay was not a time honored ceremonial ritual and was invented in 1936 by Hitler and his cronies as a pan-Aryan gesture.

Nazi Invention Of Olympic Torch Relay

The modern Olympic torch relay was masterminded by Dr. Carl Diem, a Nazi commander and Dr. Joseph Goebbels, the notorious Minster for Information and propaganda for the Nazi Germany. This newly introduced ceremonial ritual was part of an effort to turn the 1936 Berlin Olympic Games into geo-political glorification of the resurgent Nazi Germany under the Third Reich. This journey of �Aryan Supremacy� from Greece to Germany was carried out in relay by more than three thousand �Aryan Blonde� athletes and the whole drama was filmed by Leni Riefenstahl in his movie �Olympia� released subsequently in 1938. The passage of Olympic torch through the European countries was cheered by their citizens in the name of German glory. It was the Nazis� way of demonstrating to the whole world how Aryan athletes, like the mighty and powerful Greek Gods, were meant to rule the world.

The geo-political, economic and cultural power of the Third Reich was projected internationally by this newly crafted ceremony. This torch relay had nothing to do with the spirit of the Olympic sports and everything to do with the politics of power projection. Unfortunately, the torch relay, was adopted as an Olympic ritual later on, albeit, in a very low key manner. Sydney Olympics in 2000 publicized and politicized the torch relay around the Pacific Rim island nations. This torch relay covered 27,000 kilometers over 127 days again with a view to power projection, i.e. identifying the Australian sphere of geo-political influence. More recently, Athens Olympics staged an extensive torch tour clocking 86,000 kilometers over 142 days in 2004 to mark the Games� return to their ancient home. It did not generate any commotion or controversy as Greece was not perceived an oppressing nation by the international community.

Chinese Version Of Olympic Torch Relay 

In a strange twist of irony, China decided to recapitulate the foot-steps taken by the Nazi Germany and also for similar reasons, mainly power projection and making a geo-political statement. It is an aggressive and resurgent China, analogous to the aggressively resurgent Germany under the Hitler regime, economically rising and full of national pride that set up this unprecedented 137,000 kilometers long epic journey. This grandiosely planned torch relay is the longest in Olympic history and has the most torchbearers. Billions of dollars have been lavished on the Olympic Games by Beijing, which hopes to showcase China’s rising economic and political power. In this longest torch relay in Olympic history, the torch was supposed to have been taken on a 130-days Journey of China Glory around the world.

China is now angrily denouncing the international protestors as the Torch of Tyranny relay faces insurmountable protests and highly adverse publicity. The spokesperson for the Beijing Organizing Committee for the Games (BOCOG), Sun Weide has categorically announced: No force can stop the torch relay of the Olympic Games, as if China owns the Olympics torch and not the International Olympic Committee (IOC). London and Paris legs of the relay were indeed marred by noisy protests. San Francisco leg was secretively and stealthily re-routed to avoid more protests. These continuing protests by Tibetan independence activists have forced changes in the torch relay route. Under pressure from China, Pakistan reduced the ceremony to just a ritual in the Jinnah stadium without exposing the Olympic torch to the streets of Islamabad. India cut down the torch route from two cities to only one with reduction in the route to only 2.3 kilometers instead of originally planned nine kilometers. To plagiarize a radio journalist, the China characterization of Olympic torch relay as the “Journey of Harmony,” has already been metamorphosed into the Flame of Shame

Future Sovereignty And Suzerainty

The Beijing Olympic torch has already raised geo-political disputes about the sovereignty of the regions that it passes. In Chinese feudal mindset, the regions/ land-masses (countries) where the Olympic torch passes will be under Chinese suzerainty in future. That does include Taiwan, Tibet and the Mount Everest. Plans to carry the 2008 torch up the North face of Mount Everest have also been met with supporters of Tibetan independence. No wonder Chinese army entered Nepal to quieten down the Tibetan protestors in Nepal.

For the same reason, Chinese government insists that the Olympic torch must pass through Tibet to buttress the China newly discovered historical claims over the entire Tiebtan plateau. Similarly, the organizers of the Beijing Games had originally planned for the torch to pass through Taiwan before going to Hong Kong and then to mainland China implying that Taiwan is only a province of China and not an independent country.

Taiwan rejected this proposed route because Taiwanese government wished the flame to enter and leave their country by a third country so that the torch will not downgrade Taiwan’s de facto and de jure sovereignty. Negotiations broke down when Taiwan demanded that the flag and anthem of the Republic of China be displayed on the route, instead of the Chinese Taipei flag and anthem. Ultimately, Taiwan refused to buckle down under Chinese pressure.

Taiwan did not allow the torch to pass through the Taiwanese territory denying China a golden opportunity to misuse the Olympic torch route for making future geo-political claims on Taiwanese land.

China pursuit of aggressive imperialism and regional hegemony is now beginning to be obvious to the whole world. The symbolism of the unquenchable sacred flame is getting identified with China un-quenching thirst for continued expansionism and neo-imperialism. This Olympic torch relay euphemistically characterized in the Chinese double-speak as the Journey of Harmony needs to be understood in geo-political terms as the Journey of Chinese Triumph over the world.

Chinese Mindset And Historical Distortions

In the imperialist Chinese mindset, Admiral Ho in 14th century conquered whole of the South East Asia, therefore, modern China has historical claims over the whole of that region. This is the basis of Chinese claims over the Paracel islands. Similarly, if any king sent an emissary with tribute to the Chinese emperor as a gesture of goodwill, feudal China interpreted that state as a vassal state or tributary state under Chinese jurisdiction/ suzerainty �in perpetuity�. The historian RC Mazumdar has noted the �aggressive imperialism that characterized the politics of China through the course of her history � if a region once acknowledged her nominal suzerainty even for a short period, China would regard it as a part of her empire for ever and would automatically revive her claim over it even after a thousand years�. Unfortunately, China continues to make claims on other nations� territories as a result of this expansionist and hegemonistic mindset. China�s planning of the Olympic torch relay route is definitely influenced by a hidden agenda which the IOC and the international community failed to understand before this became a controversy.

The Chinese Version Of The Ancient Ashwamedha Yajna

By this real-life, modern Chinese Opera on the pilgrimage of the Sacred Flame of the Holy Olympics one is reminded of the ancient Hindu ritual of Ashwamedha Yajna during which the sacred horse passing through any territory had to be protected by the vast army of soldiers of the King performing the Yajna. If anyone interfered with the journey of the sacred horse, that person was eliminated on the spot by the army guarding the sacred horse. The land through which sacred horse passed had to either accept the suzerainty of or fight the King-Emperor performing the yajna. There are clear parallels in the grandiose Chinese plan for the Olympic torch relay route and the pressure by the Chinese government on the host nations for the security of the torch as well as on the IOC to support the Chinese government action against the Tibetan protestors on foreign soils. The sinister men in blue accompanying the torch everywhere have been scuffling with policemen and the public as if naturally entitled to do so. These blue track-suited Chinese commandos guarding the sacred flame and brutally man-handling the protestors on the soil of third countries concretely symbolize the geo-political aspirations for world domination by a resurgent and aggressive China.

China’s Covert Statement of Hegemony

Viewed in this light, Chinese over-reaction is very much an imperialist threat of retaliation against those who do not protect Chinese interests during the Journey of the Harmony. Going by the past precedents, it is not unlikely that future Chinese historians will claim all these lands/territories where the Olympic torch passed as part of the Chinese empire because the states were vassal states paying obeisance to the Chinese Emperor Hu Jintao! While usurping the Olympics for geo-political purposes, China is articulating a hegemonistic doctrine albeit couching it in acceptable diplomatese double-speak with a lot of ambiguity for future interpretation. Although the official Chinese motto for the 2008 Olympics is One World, One Dreamï it is incomplete and half-said. What Communist China actually would have liked the motto for Beijing Olympics is really: One World, One Dream, China Supreme.

China’s Pressure on Other Countries

China had expressed its displeasure at protests in London and Paris forcing the San Francisco mayor to change the route stealthily at the last minute. The police chief in Paris promised to look after the torch as he would guard a head of state. Some protestors in San Francisco got arrested for conspiracy. The Chinese government has insisted on blue track-suited Chinese commandos guarding the torch. Lord Sebastian Coe in London described these Chinese commandos as thugs and hoodlums who manhandled the torch-bearers including him. TV images world-wide showed how these Chinese commandos without batting an eyelid manhandled the protestors in various European countries breaking the local law as if they had the divine mandate to use brutal force. China has also instructed the IOC president Jacques Rogge not to comment on the protests and political aspects relating to Tibet and focus on the smooth passage of the Olympic Games. China has criticized Nicolas Sarkozy for his decision to boycott the opening ceremonies and indirectly threatened with strained bilateral Sino-French relations. Although some nations, including India, succumbed to Chinese bullying tactics, Australia has already warned that these Chinese commandos will have to travel in a bus following the torch relay. Any security to the torch will be provided by the Australian security forces and not by the Chinese commandos. In case any of these commandos manhandled a protestor, he will be immediately arrested for violating the Australian law. Australia is definitely guarding her sovereignty by not allowing Chinese commandos violate the local laws of an independent and democratic country.

Alongside this paranoia is the Chinese attempt to play the protests down by sheer misreporting, and by repeatedly asserting, that there is nothing political about the Olympics. China ostensibly claims that these games are all about reconciliation, hope, peace and harmony. Unfortunately, China is not alone in keeping up this spuriously apolitical rhetoric. The Olympics have become a tool of geo-political statements and assertions. IOC has become a party to this charade. China has aggressively targeted media outlets that have covered these protests without censorship. CNN has been singled out by the Chinese government. Unknown activists (of Chinese origin) have reportedly phoned and e-mailed death threats to reporters. Most of the criticism of the CNN concerns a photograph posted on its Web site weeks ago which cropped out Tibetans throwing stones at Chinese security forces.

China’s Pressure on India 

The torch relay passed through New Delhi at the cost of India democratic credentials under Chinese pressure. By turning the 2.3 kilometer route under massive security lock-down, and by disallowing any democratic expression of people feelings about Chinese repression in Tibet, the Government of India did not cover itself in glory. The communist China was able to dictate to Government of Republic of India on this particular issue. In return, the Government of India got a pat on its back and a certificate of good behavior from the high and mighty neighbor from the North.

Paranoid about the security of the torch, China had earlier sought permission from India to track the relay from the air, and evacuate it in case of an emergency. The request had originally come to the directorate-general of civil aviation (DGCA) through the external affairs ministry. This impudent request from China to guard Indian airspace had come before the torch ran into trouble in London and Paris. India had refused to allow Chinese air surveillance of the Olympic torch in Delhi, claiming that it could provide foolproof protection to the torch after consultations with the top brass of intelligence and security agencies. However, keeping diplomatic sensitivities in mind, the government of India allowed permission to a Chinese cargo carrier to fly to Mumbai and Chennai.

Resisting the pressure from communist China and their Indian lackeys, some of the Indian sportspersons and media personalities rightly pulled out of this bizarre torch relay drama. Baichung Bhutia, captain of the Indian football team was the first one to refuse stating, “I sympathize with the Tibetan cause. This is my way of standing by the people of Tibet and their struggle.” Those who chose to run the torch relay will perhaps be remembered in the history as being the traitors to democracy Tibetan activists were able to organize their protests earlier. That was the saving grace for India that has historical, cultural and civilizational links with Tibet. The more prudent approach for the Government of India would have been to cancel the tainted torch relay on the Indian soil sending a firm message to both communist China and the international community.

Future Of Olympic Torch Relays

It is likely that the International Olympics Committee would amend its rules so that host nations don’t have to take the torch across international borders and expose it to security breaches. The IOC will consider doing away with overseas relay of the Olympic torch in the future. This may, indeed, be the last Olympic torch relay for displaying geo-political power by the host nation. If that turns out to be the case, the international protest against Beijing Olympic torch relay will become an historical case study for political science students.

On a separate note, China leaders may regret their decision to politicize the Beijing Olympics from day one by foolishly bringing issues of sovereignty to the Olympic torch relay route. The churning of international public opinion though restrained at this time will eventually facilitate a change in attitude of the international community leading eventually to independence of Tibet and Taiwan and unmasking of the Chinese geo-political game for what it is!   

Clearly, hyper-nationalism drives this longstanding dispute between two of our neighbors. It would be naïve to presume that any international intervention would quickly resolve this complex problem with strong nationalistic overtones.

UN Role

Cambodia has taken this serious issue to UN Security Council as it threatens the regional stability. The Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen has already written a letter to Ban-ki Moon and decided to take the dispute and the recent clashes to the UN Security Council where India is one of the non-permanent members. Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Veijajiva has demanded that “the Cambodian practice of stationing military forces at the temple must end entirely”. Cambodian Foreign Ministry has denied this charge and said “there have never been and there will never be Cambodian soldiers at the Temple of Preah Vihear”. Cambodia also called for UN peacekeepers to help maintain peace and tranquility across the Thai-Cambodian border and to prevent further military clashes. Both Cambodia and Thailand are the members of ASEAN (Association of South-East Asian Nations). The ASEAN charter mandates renunciation of force and use of military in solving bilateral disputes. Some persons of eminence from the region have called for ASEAN mediation in this intra-ASEAN conflict. All this prompted calls for restraint by the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon who expressed “deep concern” at the emerging clashes between the two nations. UNESCO Director-General Irina Bokova also issued an appeal for calm and restraint around the temple in order to safeguard this World Heritage Site for all the humanity.

Temple is currently in dilapidated state and any further escalation of military hostilities might damage the structure. Any possible UN peace-keeping mission must start with an acknowledgement of the fact that this is a Hindu Temple dedicated to Lord Shiva where a large number of devotees still throng for religious services. It is worth noting that Islamic countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh have traditionally provided troops for various UN missions. The UN must avoid deployment of troops from countries that are either Islamic or Christian on the territories of a Hindu Temple. Considering the religious sensitivities involved, only Hindu and Buddhist peace-keeping forces should be deployed by the UN in order to prevent any possible intentional or unintentional desecration of an ancient and revered Hindu Temple by the uninformed UN peacekeepers.

Indian role

Indian media is generally silent on this dispute in India’s neighbor-hood although this may have long-term geo-political significance. Except for a coupe of news-items in the Hindu from Chennai, there has been no media coverage. Indian media is more preoccupied with Egypt, Tunisia and broader middle-east related issues. Indian strategic community is equally silent on this dispute between two traditionally India-friendly nations in our neighborhood. The Ministry for External Affairs and the Government of India have not realized the geo-political significance of this dispute. No appeal for restraint has been issued so far. While we aspire to a superpower status and yearn to be permanent member of the UN Security Council, no mediatory efforts have been made so far by the Government of India. Perhaps, as a goodwill gesture, the Government of India and specifically the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) can take a lead in renovating this Hindu Temple just like the famous Angkor Wat was restored by the UNESCO. Perhaps, as a confidence-building measure, the government of India should announce allocation of $ 100 million immediately for the work on renovation and restoration of the Preah Vihear temple complex.

Apparently, Indian civil society has no time for another Hindu temple dispute with international ramifications. Indian civil society has been very vocal on the issues related to Palestine, sending relief ships to Gaza strip so as to defeat the Israel-imposed naval blockade of Gaza. In absence of any mediatory efforts by the government of India, there is a role for track II diplomacy on behalf of Indian civil society in immediate containment and long-term resolution of this dispute. Indian NGOs working in the related fields can take initiative and have a possible role in mediation between the two neighbours. Efforts should be made to use Dharma principles like peace, harmony and universal brotherhood to defuse the situation and avoid further blood-shed. Perhaps, it will make sense to arrange an international Yoga camp near the Preah Vihear Temple in order defuse the situation. Under Dharmic leadership, joint sovereignty could be considered as one of the possible solutions.

This regional Dharmic dispute has long-term geo-political implications. India needs to take pro-active steps to maintain and extend its soft-power. India could partner with Japan in the mediating and facilitating role as two ancient Asian civilizations. India’s role as a civilisational power is meaningless if we can not utilize our soft-power to the common good of humanity in resolving disputes in our near abroad region. India should enter as a suave and moderating influence in aiming to resolve this dispute. Enhancing peace and stability on the Thai-Cambodian border will go a long way in establishing India’s credentials as a benign power in the ASEAN region.

Time to balance protocol

Tactically speaking, we committed several mistakes while negotiating on bilateral issues with China during the recent visit by Wen. First and foremost is the issue of protocol. We really need tochange the protocol while dealing with China owing to differential power structures and forms of governance in both the countries. The Prime Minister of China is not at par with the Prime Minister of India hierarchically. Let us be honest about it. The Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao comes third in hierarchy in the Chinese government. The top dog is President Hu Jintao and next to him comes Wu Bangguo, the speaker of the National Parliament of China (NPC). In the recent situation, the executive head of the Government of India, Dr Manmohan Singh held a bilateral meeting with number three person in the Chinese hierarchy! This anomalous situation must be corrected by amending the bilateral protocol whereby the executive heads of the two countries can deal directly with each other. Some in India gloated over the activation of the hotline between Dr Manmohan Singh and Wen Jiabao. The relevant question, taking the same analogy, would be why not establish a hotline between the Prime Minister  of India and the President of China?

The stapled visa

India should not have agreed to a visit by Wen Jiabao till the stapled visa issue was solved satisfactorily to India’s viewpoint. China has brandished this new irritant in the bilateral relationship as it has become economically and militarily stronger. By not dealing with the issue forcefully, India lost another opportunity to assert its sovereignty. China only promised to have the stapled visa be discussed with and looked into by minor level Chinese visa officers. China will do everything to keep this issue alive for next few decades as it has changed its strategy in the Indian sub-continent and seeks to force parity and hyphenation of India with Pakistan. More emboldened with India’s naivete, China will manufacture more such issues implying geographical shrinkage of India’s official boundaries.

Preserve our boundaries

On the eve of the Wen Jiabao visit, Xinhua stated that the Indo-China border is 2000 km. This was a deliberate attempt to imply that the borders of of Jammu & Kashmir with Xinjiang (Eastern Turkistan) and the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) are not part of the official Indo-China border. China has already disputed the boundaries in India’s east, calling Arunachal Pradesh as Southern Tibet. There is a fitting answer to China’s newly nuanced Chinese ploy in Jammu & Kashmir, as also the policy they follow vis-à-vis Arunachal. India should not accept the TAR as part of China, but clearly enunciate that Tibet is a colonised Asian country that has had civilisational relations with India for centuries. The border with TAR should be termed as the Indo-Tibetan border and not part the Indo-China border. Indeed, the Chinese used force to grab the nation of Tibet as war booty in 1949. Continued Chinese imperialism and usurpation of the territory of independent Tibet for natural and fresh water resources should no longer be acceptable to future Governments of India. Similarly Eastern Turkistan (Xinjiang) was an independent country in the 20th century till the Chinese forces overran it and was annexed as new frontiers.

Skewed bilateral trade

India has agreed to increase bilateral trade to $100 billion by 2015 without any chance of balanced and fair trade. Currently bilateral trade is heavily in favour of China. The Chinese have always been very business-minded. The international trade policies and long-term commercial strategy of the Government of China has always been predicated on mercantilism, intellectual property theft and deception. China continues to have both bilateral and multi-lateral problems with other trading nations of the world on currency issues, trade surpluses and stolen intellectual properties. This was a good opportunity for India to ensure fair trade practices with China prior to engaging deeper on bilateral trade issues. Currently China has trade imbalance with India of $19 billions and this situation could have been rectified in the recent visit but was not done. Promises never make a difference with China. Denial of markets is the only solution to force the Chinese towards fairer trade practices. Going slow on bilateral trade would take the steam out of China as Western markets have been drying up owing to the economic meltdown. Trade barriers and shipping costs (which increase with energy costs) will eventually neutralize the China price of manufactured goods and take away the Chinese trade advantages and surpluses.

Will China endorse India’s quest at the UNSC?

India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru gave up the opportunity for permanent membership of UN Security Council in the 1950s, which was then encouraged by the US administration because he was too scared of the Chinese dragon. In 1971 when Communist China was seated for the first time in the UN General Assembly after manoeuvring to get Taiwan unseated, India’s permanent representative in the UNGA welcomed China by thumping the table. During the recent visit of the Chinese premier, there were high hopes that China would be persuaded to endorse India’s quest for permanent membership of the UNSC. China, of course, only promises to understand India’s aspiration to serve in the UNSC as a permanent member! No concessions there! In context, we need to remember that China was pretty much forced to support the US-India civil nuclear energy deal in the NSG by the US administration.

The Sino-Pak all weather relationship

After many promises of positive Chinese intentions in New Delhi, Wen Jiabao travelled to Islamabad and promptly announced $20 billion bilateral deals including a Pak-China civil nuclear deal that has now, not only been approved but also ‘blessed” by the US! Why did we (India) not insist on de-hyphenation and demand a stand-alone India visit? May be next time an Indian Prime Minister visits China, on the way back home he or she needs to take a refueling stop in Taipei and discuss some trade and business deals with the Republic of Taiwan.

The dragon’s necklace

It was good that in the joint statement there was no mention of India endorsing a ‘One China’ policy. However, there was no mention about China’s ‘String of Perals’policy which will lead to a strategic encirclement of India. In future, in bilateral communiques with China, a statement renouncing this strategy should be mentioned. If China refuses to do so, India needs to enunciate a ‘One China, One Taiwan, One Tibet’ doctrine openly. India needs to explore naval bases in North-eastern Asia to reciprocate this policy of encirclement.

Bully thy neighbour

Chinese national character is mired in feudalism despite professing equality and liberty. While decrying serfdom in pre-1949 Tibet, China has always considered itself as a divine power with all its neighbours as vassals or tributary states. This national trait manifests periodically in saber-rattling and pressure-tactics towards neighbours. China did the same during the 2008 Olympics and on the issue of participation in the Noble peace prize award ceremony to Chinese dissident political activist, Liu Xiaobo. During his recent visit, Wen Jiabao blamed the free Indian press for souring bilateral relations. Similarly, the Chinese Ambassador to India described bilateral relations as fragile because Indian print and electronic media have rightly taken a more stringent view of the dangers coming from China as compared to the one by the central Government of India.

He admonished Obama about interfering in the internal affairs of China especially about the issue of human rights in Tibet, the Dalai Lama and the pledge for non-use of force in attempts to annex Taiwan. Since Hu Jintao became Communist Party General Secretary in 2002, repression in Tibet has intensified steadily as already witnessed immediately before and after the Beijing Olympics. Politely but very firmly Hu acknowledged human right problems in China but then dismissed any need for corrective measures by proclaiming that China is still a developing country with different problems that take precedence over human rights. In public Obama meekly hoped that in 30 years from now China would be less repressive on human rights front. Whether Obama meant that for mainland China proper with its pre-1949 boundaries or did he include the so-called Tibetan autonomous region as well? What would be the status of Tibet in 30 years time-period?

Even prior to Hu’s “General Secretarial” visit to Washington, DC, two cold warriors from the US had already laid a welcome mat for the Chinese dictator. Both of them were very instrumental in embracing China in the seventies in order to contain the Soviet union. Both these ancient worthies Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brezezhinski very glibly advocated ignoring Chinese threats and impudence and rooted for recreating a kind of G2. Hu Jintao got a 21 guns salute, a private dinner with the Obamas in the White House and a state dinner with all the pomp and pageantry that is usually involved in a summit meeting. Of course when your banker comes to your home with his calling card reminding you about your trillion dollars debt, all you can do is mouth some benign platitudes and offer a nice dinner in the hope that the banker will not auction your house. Obama announced $45 billion worth of American export deals to China, supposedly creating 235,000 jobs in the US. Even old deals were recycled as new by the Salesman-in-chief in order to generate a good photo-op and claim the credit for bolstering the anemic US economy. Many US business houses competed with each other to bestow favours on Chinese state owned companies. G.E. announced a partnership deal with a state-owned Chinese company. GE is willing to share its most sophisticated airplane electronics, including some of the same technology used in Boeing’s new 787 Dreamliner.

The warm welcome fit only for a king that Hu Jintao received from the Obama administration would definitely bolster Chinese audacity in Asia. It may encourage China to harass India further by using its proxy Pakistan. It will also increase Chinese appetite for more territory from all its neighbors. Already before setting foot on the US soil, China got one thousand square kilometers from Tajikistan in the Pamir Mountains region. The dispute between China and Tajikistan dated back to the 19th Century, when Tajikistan was part of Czarist Russia. China had initially claimed more than 11,000 square miles (28,000 square kilometers) from Tajikistan. On January 12th 2011, the Parliament of Tajikistan passed a resolution and agreed to give away one thousand square kilometers of its territory to China in a bid to put an end to the land dispute. This has implications for India regarding the Arunachal Pradesh which China chooses to characterize as the so-called Southern Tibet and also in Ladakh sector. Chinese claims on Spratly Islands and Paracel islands in South East Asia will become shriller. China will get into a game of chicken with Japan on the Senkaku islands chain dispute.

Because of the voyages and conquests of the Chinese eunuch admiral Ho in the 14th century, whole of the South East Asia is supposedly a vassal or a tributary state. An expansionist China is already planning to economically infiltrate the whole of Siberia. Just like it did on its new western frontiers during the period between 1949 and 1956 when Tibet and Eastern Turkistan (Xingjian) were militarily subjugated and annexed gradually. One hopes that the Russians are watching these expansionist Chinese moves very carefully. 

India needs to be very clear in her mind while dealing with an assertive China on territorial disputes. Apparently, China has no intention of solving these border disputes with India soon. Chinese analysts have been talking about balkanizing India into more than twenty states. China hopes to be stronger and stronger, and not just economically but also militarily when it can impose its dictates on India, just like it did in Tajikistan. China hopes to overtake the US as the sole superpower in the world. It will continue to manufacture more stapled visa issues not just pertaining to the states of J & K and Arunachal Pradesh. Giving an inch of territory to China is an invitation to further irrational demands for Indian Territory by China. India needs to pursue its national interests vigorously and acquire comprehensive national power to meet the challenges in the years ahead.

It is likely that there will be a significant lag period in developing thorium fired nuclear energy reactors. It is also a fact that we as a nation will not be able to mine uranium in Meghalaya on a larger scale owing to political reasons. Japan is still reluctant to do nuclear commerce with India. We continue to have difficulty with Australia in brokering a civil nuclear energy agreement. They refuse to sell uranium to India while doing so without any qualms to China. Such a scenario limits our sources of raw uranium for nuclear energy production. We will have to diversify our sources for raw uranium for our nuclear energy needs. It is thus time to look to other sources for our requirements, a possible source being the Republic of Niger, a developing, landlocked, Francophone country of fifteen million tribal population.

The Republic of Niger has been troubled by numerous military coups but still maintains a legal, rule-based system of international commerce. It remains at peace with its neighbours. Niger pursues a moderate foreign policy and maintains friendly relations with the West and the Islamic world as well as non-aligned countries. It belongs to the United Nations and its main specialised agencies and in 1980-81 served on the UN Security Council. It maintains a special relationship with its former colonial power France. Indeed, France had provided India with nuclear fuel for the Tarapore Nuclear reactor (TAPS) when the US reneged on the bilateral contractual agreement. France had taken a very pragmatic view of Pokhran-II in 1998 unlike rest of the Western world. France has been an ardent supporter of India’s civilian nuclear programme even prior to the 2005 Indo-US agreement. France had signed a civil nuclear agreement with India following the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) waiver which preceded the formal Indo-US agreement. India needs to exploit the special relationship France enjoys with the Republic of Niger in forging a trilateral nuclear commercial and mercantile relationship.

The Republic of Niger’s subsistence economy is  based on two or three commodities. Uranium ore (yellow cake) is Niger’s largest export. Foreign exchange earnings from livestock export are second. Export of other raw materials also helps the national exchequer. Substantial deposits of phosphates, coal, iron, limestone, and gypsum also have been found in the Republic of Niger. The persistent uranium price slump has brought lower revenues for Niger’s uranium sector, although uranium still provides 72 per cent of national export proceeds. Therefore, this is the time for India to sign a long-term agreement with Niger at a low fixed price for several decades. It is important to remember that the Republic of Niger is not a member of the NSG. It will be easier to negotiate an agreement with a non-NSG member like Niger because it would not make signing the NPT as a pre-requisite unlike Australia or Japan.

The Republic of Niger enjoyed substantial export earnings and rapid economic growth during the 1960s and 1970s after the opening of two large uranium mines near the northern town of Arlit. When the uranium-led boom ended in the early 1980s, however, the economy stagnated, and new investment since then has been limited. Niger’s two uranium mines—SOMAIR’s open pit mine and COMINAK’s underground mine—are owned by a French-led consortium and are operated by French interests. However, as of 2007, many licences have been given to other companies from countries such as Canada and Australia in order to exploit new deposits. It is time that Indian companies too, both private and public sector, open their account in the Niger and obtain these independent licences to exploit new deposits of uranium ore. The sooner we do that, better it would be for our long-term national interests.

China should not upstage India yet again in harvesting this important source of yellow cake. Nor do we wish Pakistan to play the Islamic card as Niger is a Muslim majority nation-state. Let us not forget that Pakistan is multiplying its nuclear arsenal at an astonishing pace. It is single-handedly blocking any efforts to negotiate the Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty, despite being a US ally. The Department of Atomic Energy and the Ministry of External Affairs need to do their homework fast and approach the national government of Republic of Niger for a long-term agreement for mining uranium ore for India. Some Indian investment in the cash-starved economy of Niger will help create a win-win situation. If we can rope in our French friends in a multi-lateral venture in the Republic of Niger, all the better.

In reality, these were multidimensional talks between the world’s two largest democracies on 18 different subjects ranging from world economy, climate change, clean energy, health care, women’s empowerment, higher education, poverty reduction, counter-terrorism, high technology, and of course on security issues including Afghanistan. Keeping in view this multi-dimensional range of dialogue, it would be really a misnomer to call this special dialogue as merely “strategic”. It also creates unnecessary paranoid rumblings in both China and Pakistan about the nature of India-US relationship if it is portrayed as strategic only.

Furthermore, there is a realistic appraisal on both the sides that the US and India are not allies, just partners. India does need her own strategic autonomy on the world stage and can never become a “camp follower” of the US like Australia or the UK. Nor would India agree to become a client state of the US like “Pakistan” or “Chile” under General Pinochet. The US policy establishment does realize this important fact and respects India’s independent thinking now. The attempt on both sides is to increase the areas of convergence in thinking and reduce the areas of bilateral divergence and harmonize this important bilateral relationship.

Since the nature of evolving partnership between these two great nations is indeed of civilizational proportions, it may be prudent to call this dialogue as “ Civilizational and Strategic Dialogue” (CSD) because the gamut of issues involves this planet and the survival of the whole human civilization. Those who intensely abhor diplomatic hyperbole may feel more comfortable in characterizing this special dialogue as “Economic, Commercial & Strategic Dialogue” or ECSD. In any case, the nature and the depth of this relationship has not fully matured as yet. Ultimately, only the “Time” will tell the reality. However, the word “Strategic Dialogue” remains totally inadequate to describe as far as what is happening in this bilateral relationship which has been very aptly characterized as US-India 3.0 by the Secretary of State Hillary.

Before the next round of this annual bilateral dialogue takes place in New Delhi in year 2011, we need to change the name from the terminologically inexact phrase “Strategic Dialogue” to a more appropriate and factually correct but indeed a mouthful epithet of “Civilizational and Strategic Dialogue” or CSD. We will indeed be wiser if we change the name now rather than waiting for this relationship to mature and then try to change the name. Indeed, the names, like perceptions, do matter in diplomacy.