AS PART of its largest peace mission ever, the United Nations on Sunday oversaw one of the world’s most ambitious experiments in democracy. Millions of eager voters lined up outside schools and community centers across the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), formerly known as Zaire, to elect a president and parliamentary representatives.
The run-up to the DRC’s first multiparty election in over 40 years was gripped by fears of an upsurge in violence. After all, until four years ago, the DRC was a battleground for domestic armies as well as soldiers from a half-dozen other African countries.
Although the war has formally ended, thousands of rebels and soldiers continue to terrorize the people. The transitional government, comprising former warring factions, was dysfunctional. The former rebel armies continue to pillage and feud over control of mines and other resources in the country the size of Western Europe.
However, fears of mass attacks on polling stations proved unwarranted. There were isolated attacks on the electoral commission in East and West Kasai provinces, strongholds of the opposition Union for Democracy and Social Progress, which boycotted the polls. A voting station was set on fire the night before the polls. After the balloting ended, rampaging youths in one town destroyed 52 polling stations.
In the end, as the Israeli-Hezbollah fighting grabbed the international spotlight, DRC voters took another bold step to end a war in which nearly 4 million may have died. International institutions played an impressive role. The U.N. force numbers 17,500, and its election administration has spent more than $400 million raised from international donors. The European Union, which provided much of that funding, dispatched its own force of 2,000 to help with security.
There is palpable apprehension inside the DRC and abroad that the world is using the election to ratify the rule of President Joseph Kabila, who has served since his father, Laurent, was assassinated in 2001. In this heated atmosphere, armed factions that stand to lose power may trigger fresh violence. Ominous sounds are already being heard. Three of the DRC’s vice-presidents, including two former rebel leaders, challenged Kabila. If the losers are unwilling to accept the results of this round of voting the DRC could find itself in a new spiral of violence.
Even if a clear and unchallenged winner emerges, the international community cannot afford to pull out of the DRC and hop into the next crisis zone. The country needs a sustained campaign to reform and train the other tools of statecraft – the bureaucracy, judiciary, army and its newly elected legislators. With so much invested in the peace process and so much promise already evident, the DRC project must be followed through to its logical end.
Monday, July 31, 2006
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Al Zawahiri Again. Where’s Bin Laden?
The most striking aspect of Al Qaeda’s deputy leader Ayman Al Zawahiri’s latest video broadcast is its relative freshness. It took only two weeks after Israel began its attacks on Lebanon and Gaza for Al Zawahiri to warn, via the Arabic satellite TV channel Al Jazeera, of a massive response.
Al Qaeda could not remain silent in the face of a “Crusader war,” Al Zawahiri states, adding that it saw “all the world as a battlefield open in front of us.” Events in Lebanon and Gaza showed the importance of the battle in Afghanistan and Iraq, he added.
More revealing is the following: “The war with Israel is not about a treaty, a ceasefire agreement... It is rather a jihad for the sake of God until the religion of God is established. It is jihad for the liberation of Palestine, all of Palestine, as well as every land that was a home for Islam, from Andalusia to Iraq.”
Clearly, the tenor of the text suggests that it was written after the scale and severity of the Israeli attacks triggered international calls for a ceasefire – which makes the video even newer.
Over the past two years, Al Zawahiri has released many his statements in the form of videos. His boss, Osama bin Laden, uses audio statements. Does this mean Al Zawahiri has a greater ability to move around?
On the other hand, could bin Laden’s reliance on old video or still pictures suggest that his appearance has declined lately? If so, he certainly would not want to give the impression of weakness or infirmity to the faithful. Or is the Al Qaeda chief relying on the audio format to reduce the chances of Western intelligence tracking his location?
In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Al Qaeda tapes, once recorded, ostensibly had to cross a complicated distribution network. The obvious risks inherent in physically transporting the tapes to a broadcast outlet may have delayed their eventual transmission. More recently, Al Qaeda appears to have chosen to transmit its tapes directly via the Internet. The easy availability of equipment, coupled with improvements in high-speed access, may have assured faster dissemination of audio and video.
But if these technological advances have worked for Al Zawahiri, couldn’t they do the same for bin Laden?
Furthermore, the Al Qaeda chief might have considered issuing this particular statement himself, especially considering the firmness with which his organization has underscored the international dimensions of jihad.
Or maybe bin Laden has undergone plastic surgery or any other such alteration in his physical appearance to avoid detection – in which case a video appearance would make little sense.
Al Qaeda could not remain silent in the face of a “Crusader war,” Al Zawahiri states, adding that it saw “all the world as a battlefield open in front of us.” Events in Lebanon and Gaza showed the importance of the battle in Afghanistan and Iraq, he added.
More revealing is the following: “The war with Israel is not about a treaty, a ceasefire agreement... It is rather a jihad for the sake of God until the religion of God is established. It is jihad for the liberation of Palestine, all of Palestine, as well as every land that was a home for Islam, from Andalusia to Iraq.”
Clearly, the tenor of the text suggests that it was written after the scale and severity of the Israeli attacks triggered international calls for a ceasefire – which makes the video even newer.
Over the past two years, Al Zawahiri has released many his statements in the form of videos. His boss, Osama bin Laden, uses audio statements. Does this mean Al Zawahiri has a greater ability to move around?
On the other hand, could bin Laden’s reliance on old video or still pictures suggest that his appearance has declined lately? If so, he certainly would not want to give the impression of weakness or infirmity to the faithful. Or is the Al Qaeda chief relying on the audio format to reduce the chances of Western intelligence tracking his location?
In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Al Qaeda tapes, once recorded, ostensibly had to cross a complicated distribution network. The obvious risks inherent in physically transporting the tapes to a broadcast outlet may have delayed their eventual transmission. More recently, Al Qaeda appears to have chosen to transmit its tapes directly via the Internet. The easy availability of equipment, coupled with improvements in high-speed access, may have assured faster dissemination of audio and video.
But if these technological advances have worked for Al Zawahiri, couldn’t they do the same for bin Laden?
Furthermore, the Al Qaeda chief might have considered issuing this particular statement himself, especially considering the firmness with which his organization has underscored the international dimensions of jihad.
Or maybe bin Laden has undergone plastic surgery or any other such alteration in his physical appearance to avoid detection – in which case a video appearance would make little sense.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Royal Thai Democracy
THAIS have once again had the opportunity to reflect on their good fortune in the person of King Bhumibol Adulyadej. The world’s longest reigning monarch has ended a long spell of political uncertainty by setting new elections for October 15.
Bhumibol, a constitutional monarch in the truest sense, emerged to end the political impasse created by the outgoing prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra. The expensive snap poll Thaksin held three months ago had been invalidated by Thailand’s constitutional court, casting a shadow on the country’s political future.
To be sure, Thaksin’s decision to seek a fresh mandate fell within his constitutional prerogative. A huge corruption scandal involving the premier and his family had fueled months of street protests against his policies.
As a democratically elected premier, Thaksin had every right to hold the April 2 elections, since governing had increasingly become difficult. Moreover, the protests consuming the Thai capital and other urban centers could not obscure the massive support Thaksin continues to enjoy in countryside.
Much time, money and political capital could have been saved had the opposition parties participated in the snap elections and campaigned to defeat Thaksin. But the Democrat, Chart Thai and Mahachon Parties boycotted the election, arguing that it was unfairly set to favor the prime minister.
Although his Thai Rak Thai Party won the election, Thaksin had to step down under the combined pressure of an incomplete mandate and continuing opposition protests.
Since then the country has been plunged into a political stalemate for months, without a functioning parliament and run by a caretaker government. The king had asked the nation's top three courts to work out a solution for the crisis.
While the subversion of the democratic process was undoubtedly a source of much concern, the fact that political developments could take their own course under a sagacious monarch testifies to the maturity Thailand’s democracy has attained.
Until the early 1990s, Thailand’s military – with its long record of coups and other acts of direct political interference – was capable of stepping into the vacuum democrats had created.
The new elections are an opportunity for Thailand’s political parties to make a clean break from their record of squabbling. Thais can continue to rely on the monarchy’s wisdom to sail through crises. But they do expect their politicians to exhibit the commitment and resolve needed to consolidate the democratic process.
Bhumibol, a constitutional monarch in the truest sense, emerged to end the political impasse created by the outgoing prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra. The expensive snap poll Thaksin held three months ago had been invalidated by Thailand’s constitutional court, casting a shadow on the country’s political future.
To be sure, Thaksin’s decision to seek a fresh mandate fell within his constitutional prerogative. A huge corruption scandal involving the premier and his family had fueled months of street protests against his policies.
As a democratically elected premier, Thaksin had every right to hold the April 2 elections, since governing had increasingly become difficult. Moreover, the protests consuming the Thai capital and other urban centers could not obscure the massive support Thaksin continues to enjoy in countryside.
Much time, money and political capital could have been saved had the opposition parties participated in the snap elections and campaigned to defeat Thaksin. But the Democrat, Chart Thai and Mahachon Parties boycotted the election, arguing that it was unfairly set to favor the prime minister.
Although his Thai Rak Thai Party won the election, Thaksin had to step down under the combined pressure of an incomplete mandate and continuing opposition protests.
Since then the country has been plunged into a political stalemate for months, without a functioning parliament and run by a caretaker government. The king had asked the nation's top three courts to work out a solution for the crisis.
While the subversion of the democratic process was undoubtedly a source of much concern, the fact that political developments could take their own course under a sagacious monarch testifies to the maturity Thailand’s democracy has attained.
Until the early 1990s, Thailand’s military – with its long record of coups and other acts of direct political interference – was capable of stepping into the vacuum democrats had created.
The new elections are an opportunity for Thailand’s political parties to make a clean break from their record of squabbling. Thais can continue to rely on the monarchy’s wisdom to sail through crises. But they do expect their politicians to exhibit the commitment and resolve needed to consolidate the democratic process.
Saturday, July 22, 2006
Condi’s Element Of Surprise
Clearly, the rest of the world seems to believe Israel’s disproportionate response to the Hezbollah-Hamas kidnappings is President George W. Bush’s fault. The real bad news is that the White House seems to believe that, too.
President Bush has decided to dispatch Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to convey Washington’s interest in scaling down the conflict. Not to the extent, though, of forcing Israel to declare a unilateral ceasefire. This is wise.
Equally prudent is the Bush administration’s move to present Rice’s journey as a prelude to her visit to Rome where she will meet with Arab officials at an international conference on Lebanon.
The obvious question: If a ceasefire or any similar initiative is off Rice’s agenda, then why bother to visit the region at all. The element of surprise.
Admittedly, Israel and the United States have been closely coordinating efforts to give the Israeli military sufficient time to carry out their offensive against Hezbollah.
What Rice’s visit would do is create the perception of active U.S. engagement. This might seem disingenuous to the president’s critics. But it is a brilliant way of discouraging other entities from stepping in. Once Israel achieves its military objectives against Hezbollah, it could be expected to goad the Bush administration toward formulating a cease-fire.
Hezbollah is banking on its ability to spring surprises on Israel and the United States. But every move is directed from Damascus and Teheran. If Condi can leave the Iranians, Syrians and the Hezbollah equally baffled over what American might be up to next, we’re all for it.
President Bush has decided to dispatch Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to convey Washington’s interest in scaling down the conflict. Not to the extent, though, of forcing Israel to declare a unilateral ceasefire. This is wise.
Equally prudent is the Bush administration’s move to present Rice’s journey as a prelude to her visit to Rome where she will meet with Arab officials at an international conference on Lebanon.
The obvious question: If a ceasefire or any similar initiative is off Rice’s agenda, then why bother to visit the region at all. The element of surprise.
Admittedly, Israel and the United States have been closely coordinating efforts to give the Israeli military sufficient time to carry out their offensive against Hezbollah.
What Rice’s visit would do is create the perception of active U.S. engagement. This might seem disingenuous to the president’s critics. But it is a brilliant way of discouraging other entities from stepping in. Once Israel achieves its military objectives against Hezbollah, it could be expected to goad the Bush administration toward formulating a cease-fire.
Hezbollah is banking on its ability to spring surprises on Israel and the United States. But every move is directed from Damascus and Teheran. If Condi can leave the Iranians, Syrians and the Hezbollah equally baffled over what American might be up to next, we’re all for it.
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Bush’s 1st Veto: Good Economics, Better Ethics
For the first time in his five-year-old presidency, George W. Bush has used his veto – against federal funding for stem-cell research. How could something that enjoyed wide support from Democrats and Republicans finally break Bush’s reluctance to use a prerogative previous presidents have employed with abandon.
Moreover, which part of the debate forced Bush to describe the Senate vote as having “crossed a moral boundary?
Supporters claim stem cells can turn into any kind of cell in the body and may prove to be
extremely useful medically, for example in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease, spinal-cord injuries and Alzheimer’s. They argue that the most promising research into such cells has come from using human embryos. Now that infuriates the religious right.
Bush has said he would allow federal funding for research only on already existing colonies, or “lines”, of embryonic stem cells. By a large margin—63 to 37—senators voted to expand federal funding for research on new lines.
Several prominent Republicans supported the bill, which passed 63- to 27. Majority leader Bill Frist, a medical doctor, and John McCain, both seen as presidential candidates in 2008, were for the bill.
The politics are clear. Opinion polls suggest that stem-cell research is popular. So the Democrats are virtually united in the matter. In the GOP, too, strong alliances have been forged. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger joined Nancy Reagan, who watched her husband suffer from Alzheimer’s disease, were united in asking the president to sign the bill.
Did Bush – rumbling along the final years of his presidency – veto the bill merely because he felt he could afford to dispense with political considerations? Or was his move intended to bolster the Republicans’ image ahead of November’s midterm poll. Americans would be more likely to admire Republican lawmakers who stood up to
a president of their own party.
Or maybe Bush has long grappled with some serious questions. Perhaps the promise of embryonic stem cells is overrated. If they can offer greater prospects of breakthrough than the existing lines of cells, then why aren’t private-sector investors rushing in with cash?
Economics must have given way to ethics. Might a flood of unintended consequences ensue? For instance, would cash-strapped women be encouraged to get pregnant simply to produce and sell embryonic stem cells?
Take that a step further. What if cost-cutters flooded the developing world for their raw materials? Compassionate conservatism rings with enough pejoratives. There’s no room for genetic colonialism.
Moreover, which part of the debate forced Bush to describe the Senate vote as having “crossed a moral boundary?
Supporters claim stem cells can turn into any kind of cell in the body and may prove to be
extremely useful medically, for example in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease, spinal-cord injuries and Alzheimer’s. They argue that the most promising research into such cells has come from using human embryos. Now that infuriates the religious right.
Bush has said he would allow federal funding for research only on already existing colonies, or “lines”, of embryonic stem cells. By a large margin—63 to 37—senators voted to expand federal funding for research on new lines.
Several prominent Republicans supported the bill, which passed 63- to 27. Majority leader Bill Frist, a medical doctor, and John McCain, both seen as presidential candidates in 2008, were for the bill.
The politics are clear. Opinion polls suggest that stem-cell research is popular. So the Democrats are virtually united in the matter. In the GOP, too, strong alliances have been forged. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger joined Nancy Reagan, who watched her husband suffer from Alzheimer’s disease, were united in asking the president to sign the bill.
Did Bush – rumbling along the final years of his presidency – veto the bill merely because he felt he could afford to dispense with political considerations? Or was his move intended to bolster the Republicans’ image ahead of November’s midterm poll. Americans would be more likely to admire Republican lawmakers who stood up to
a president of their own party.
Or maybe Bush has long grappled with some serious questions. Perhaps the promise of embryonic stem cells is overrated. If they can offer greater prospects of breakthrough than the existing lines of cells, then why aren’t private-sector investors rushing in with cash?
Economics must have given way to ethics. Might a flood of unintended consequences ensue? For instance, would cash-strapped women be encouraged to get pregnant simply to produce and sell embryonic stem cells?
Take that a step further. What if cost-cutters flooded the developing world for their raw materials? Compassionate conservatism rings with enough pejoratives. There’s no room for genetic colonialism.
Sunday, July 16, 2006
Cold War Comfort Amid Shadowy Insecurity
The comforting part of the craziness of the last week is that the world seems finally to have slipped back into some of the certitudes of the Cold War years.
Post 9/11, our fears emanating from shadowy non-state actors have left us additionally confounded. There’s no way of knowing for sure whether our leaders are projecting the terrorist threat to protect us or their own jobs? A return to more definitive issues of life and death can only be reassuring.
In waging war on two fronts, Israel has proved that conventional notions of security remain at the forefront for those who care. With the Israelis ready to widen the war, the Middle East is in the throes of the kind of regional conflagration that erupted once a decade between the 1940s and 1970s. With Egypt and Jordan formally at peace with the Jewish state, the Hamases and Hezbollahs weren’t inclusive enough among their own constituents to create anything akin to the multi-state combustion of the past.
Unlike past wars, when Iran’s monarchy actually served as a pillar of stability, Teheran is on the side of Hezbollah, the ayatollahs’ clients. Under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s words carry great commercial value, too. Every time he threatens to nuke Israel, oil prices shoot up several dollars. But, hey, Ahmadinejad is an elected president. He knows where rhetoric should end and reality must prevail. Deep inside, he probably worries that Israel might extend its right to self-defense all the way to extinguishing Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Russian President Vladimir Putin, buoyed by rising oil prices, has brought his country firmly into that exclusive international club called the G8. His desire to focus the St. Petersburg summit squarely on energy security and infectious diseases may have been upset by the convulsions in the Middle East. But Putin’s ebullience remains undiminished.
While US President George W. Bush lies wounded in his final years in power, Putin is toying with the idea of changing the constitution to extend his tenure in the Kremlin. Now that Putin believes his dog is better than Bush’s, he’s salivating to make his mark on international peace and security. By threatening to veto any U.N. Security Council resolution against North Korea’s missile development program under Chapter VII, Moscow has revived the patron-client relationship that thrived under the communist gerontocracy. (In a pre-summit analysis, one Washington Post columnist anointed Putin as the head of the globe’s anti-democracy bloc.)
The real shift in international equations is underscored by China, whose abstention on key Security Council resolutions Washington and the wider West had come to count on in recent years. Beijing joined Moscow in opposing a Chapter VII resolution on North Korea. The unanimous resolution the Security Council finally adopted has none of the teeth to leave the kind of bite the Bush administration wants on Kim Jong-il’s bottom.
For all the reassurance a return to the verities of the Cold War offers, there is a scary part. Al Qaeda and its cohorts desire precisely this does of complacency in order to plot something big.
Post 9/11, our fears emanating from shadowy non-state actors have left us additionally confounded. There’s no way of knowing for sure whether our leaders are projecting the terrorist threat to protect us or their own jobs? A return to more definitive issues of life and death can only be reassuring.
In waging war on two fronts, Israel has proved that conventional notions of security remain at the forefront for those who care. With the Israelis ready to widen the war, the Middle East is in the throes of the kind of regional conflagration that erupted once a decade between the 1940s and 1970s. With Egypt and Jordan formally at peace with the Jewish state, the Hamases and Hezbollahs weren’t inclusive enough among their own constituents to create anything akin to the multi-state combustion of the past.
Unlike past wars, when Iran’s monarchy actually served as a pillar of stability, Teheran is on the side of Hezbollah, the ayatollahs’ clients. Under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s words carry great commercial value, too. Every time he threatens to nuke Israel, oil prices shoot up several dollars. But, hey, Ahmadinejad is an elected president. He knows where rhetoric should end and reality must prevail. Deep inside, he probably worries that Israel might extend its right to self-defense all the way to extinguishing Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Russian President Vladimir Putin, buoyed by rising oil prices, has brought his country firmly into that exclusive international club called the G8. His desire to focus the St. Petersburg summit squarely on energy security and infectious diseases may have been upset by the convulsions in the Middle East. But Putin’s ebullience remains undiminished.
While US President George W. Bush lies wounded in his final years in power, Putin is toying with the idea of changing the constitution to extend his tenure in the Kremlin. Now that Putin believes his dog is better than Bush’s, he’s salivating to make his mark on international peace and security. By threatening to veto any U.N. Security Council resolution against North Korea’s missile development program under Chapter VII, Moscow has revived the patron-client relationship that thrived under the communist gerontocracy. (In a pre-summit analysis, one Washington Post columnist anointed Putin as the head of the globe’s anti-democracy bloc.)
The real shift in international equations is underscored by China, whose abstention on key Security Council resolutions Washington and the wider West had come to count on in recent years. Beijing joined Moscow in opposing a Chapter VII resolution on North Korea. The unanimous resolution the Security Council finally adopted has none of the teeth to leave the kind of bite the Bush administration wants on Kim Jong-il’s bottom.
For all the reassurance a return to the verities of the Cold War offers, there is a scary part. Al Qaeda and its cohorts desire precisely this does of complacency in order to plot something big.
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Bashar Al Assad’s Grin
Amid Israel’s stepped-up military strikes on Lebanon, in retaliation for the Lebanese Shiite group Hezbollah’s abduction of two Israeli soldiers, it is hard not to wonder how wide a grin Syrian President Bashar Al Assad must be sporting.
President George W. Bush’s assertion holding Damascus responsible for Hezbollah’s actions must have provided much amusement in official Syrian circles.
During earlier Israel-Hezbollah clashes, the American president could pick up the phone and ask President Hafez Al Assad – Bashar’s dad – to sort things out quickly. For all the bad press he got, Assad Sr. was known for keeping promises – at least the parts that he meant seriously.
Hafez Assad’s love-hate relationship with the US was legendary. Syria would be on or around the State Department’s list of states sponsoring terrorism. But Warren Christopher, secretary of state during Bill Clinton’s first term in the White House, would have no problem waiting for hours in Damascus to meet the wily old man.
These days, things have gotten a lot complicated, especially since last year when Syria was forced to pull out its troops from Lebanon. Lots of Lebanese disliked the presence of Israeli troops in the south, too. The Israelis withdrew in 2000, providing the rest of the world the unencumbered opportunity to focus its pressure on the Syrians.
The assassination of Rafik Hariri, the billionaire former prime minister of Lebanon, in February last year sealed the Syrians’ fate. The suspected complicity of Syrian government officials in the assassination triggered widespread revulsion, eventually forcing Bashar to call his 14,000 forces home.
The crafty Syrians didn’t exactly lose from the pullout, though. Damascus still calls the shots in Lebanon, especially when it comes to Hezbollah. But now the Syrians don’t feel they have to take responsibility.
Against the backdrop of the indiscriminate Israeli bombing of Lebanese targets, some in the Hariri family, too, must be having second thoughts about the wisdom of evicting the Syrians.
President George W. Bush’s assertion holding Damascus responsible for Hezbollah’s actions must have provided much amusement in official Syrian circles.
During earlier Israel-Hezbollah clashes, the American president could pick up the phone and ask President Hafez Al Assad – Bashar’s dad – to sort things out quickly. For all the bad press he got, Assad Sr. was known for keeping promises – at least the parts that he meant seriously.
Hafez Assad’s love-hate relationship with the US was legendary. Syria would be on or around the State Department’s list of states sponsoring terrorism. But Warren Christopher, secretary of state during Bill Clinton’s first term in the White House, would have no problem waiting for hours in Damascus to meet the wily old man.
These days, things have gotten a lot complicated, especially since last year when Syria was forced to pull out its troops from Lebanon. Lots of Lebanese disliked the presence of Israeli troops in the south, too. The Israelis withdrew in 2000, providing the rest of the world the unencumbered opportunity to focus its pressure on the Syrians.
The assassination of Rafik Hariri, the billionaire former prime minister of Lebanon, in February last year sealed the Syrians’ fate. The suspected complicity of Syrian government officials in the assassination triggered widespread revulsion, eventually forcing Bashar to call his 14,000 forces home.
The crafty Syrians didn’t exactly lose from the pullout, though. Damascus still calls the shots in Lebanon, especially when it comes to Hezbollah. But now the Syrians don’t feel they have to take responsibility.
Against the backdrop of the indiscriminate Israeli bombing of Lebanese targets, some in the Hariri family, too, must be having second thoughts about the wisdom of evicting the Syrians.
Saturday, July 08, 2006
China Lays Geopolitical Tracks
Apart from being a grand engineering feat, China’s new railway linking the city of Golmud in Qinghai province with Lhasa, the capital of Tibet, is a major geopolitical triumph.
The line is aimed at promoting tourism and trade in the region, as well as at helping with the mining of Tibet’s rich deposits of coal, copper, gold and zinc. Tibet, which has been under the control of Beijing since the 1950s, could soon become less reliant on grants from the central government.
Geopolitically, the railway brings China closer to South Asia, a region traditionally dominated by the other Asian giant, India.
As part of an effort to bolster its growing ties with India, China has teamed up to re-open the Nathu La pass between southern Tibet and India's northeastern state of Sikkim. That pass had remained closed ever since China and India fought a brief blood bloody war in 1962.
For India, the move represents a diplomatic victory of sorts. Beijing has not recognized the incorporation of Sikkim, formerly an independent monarchy, into the Indian union in 1975. Of late, Beijing seems to have moved closer toward recognizing the merger. If anything, the reopening of Nathu La should have been the clearest signal yet of Beijing’s acquiescence.
Indian analysts, however, are more inclined to see the opening of the pass as part of China’s effort to strengthen its foothold in South Asia. And they have good reason.
Last November, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal succeeded in bringing China into the seven-nation South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) as an observer. This move caught India by surprise. New Delhi eventually acceded to Beijing’s entry as a price for Afghanistan’s inclusion as a full-fledged member of SAARC.
The following month, India found itself virtually excluded from an emerging East Asian community of nations with China at the center.
The Indian media, which for long had avoided taking up the China-as-an-adversary line, has stepped up coverage in that light. Leading commentators continue to warn the Indian government against placing too much confidence on the burgeoning ties with China. Some have drawn parallels with the months preceding the 1962 war.
Building on its close political and military ties with Pakistan and Myanmar, China is using economic and military means to draw India’s other smaller neighbors into its own sphere of influence. The People’s Liberation Army’s recent incursions and road construction in Bhutanese territory are aimed at pressuring the tiny Himalayan kingdom to end its protectorate ties with India.
Amid a downturn in India’s relations with Bangladesh, over such issues as illegal immigration, Islamist terrorism and trade, China has gained naval access to the Chittagong port. Through a road link with Bangladesh via Myanmar, China hopes to access Bangladesh’s vast natural gas reserves.
China, the major arms supplier to Bangladesh, recently offered to provide Dhaka with nuclear reactor technology, heightening Indian anxieties.
For now, India seems to have brought Nepal back into its own sphere of influence after the kingdom’s heavily pro-Chinese tilt under King Gyanendra’s 15-month direct rule. Although the monarch has lost all of his political powers following weeks of protests – driven in large part by New Delhi – that brought pro-Indian parties back in the saddle, Beijing’s influence in Nepal remain considerable.
China’s growing ties with the Nepalese military and its stated goal of extending the railway line from Lhasa all the way to the Nepalese border suggest it has the landlocked Himalayan nation close in its sights both in terms of its regional policies and the wider imperative of defeating the United States’ policy of containment.
The Qinghai-Tibet railway, built at a cost of around $4.2 billion, runs for 1,140 km at an average elevation of 4,000 meters, making it the highest railway in the world. The project has been one of the most difficult to build, with its long sections of elevated tracks and bevy of bridges and tunnels. The route crosses an active seismic zone and traverses frozen ground saturated with water that can rise or fall by meters as the temperature changes.
Against this background, experts expect a massive overhaul will be needed within a decade. Given the stakes involved, Beijing can be expected to bear both the massive physical challenge as well as the hefty financial cost of keep the trains rolling.
The line is aimed at promoting tourism and trade in the region, as well as at helping with the mining of Tibet’s rich deposits of coal, copper, gold and zinc. Tibet, which has been under the control of Beijing since the 1950s, could soon become less reliant on grants from the central government.
Geopolitically, the railway brings China closer to South Asia, a region traditionally dominated by the other Asian giant, India.
As part of an effort to bolster its growing ties with India, China has teamed up to re-open the Nathu La pass between southern Tibet and India's northeastern state of Sikkim. That pass had remained closed ever since China and India fought a brief blood bloody war in 1962.
For India, the move represents a diplomatic victory of sorts. Beijing has not recognized the incorporation of Sikkim, formerly an independent monarchy, into the Indian union in 1975. Of late, Beijing seems to have moved closer toward recognizing the merger. If anything, the reopening of Nathu La should have been the clearest signal yet of Beijing’s acquiescence.
Indian analysts, however, are more inclined to see the opening of the pass as part of China’s effort to strengthen its foothold in South Asia. And they have good reason.
Last November, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal succeeded in bringing China into the seven-nation South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) as an observer. This move caught India by surprise. New Delhi eventually acceded to Beijing’s entry as a price for Afghanistan’s inclusion as a full-fledged member of SAARC.
The following month, India found itself virtually excluded from an emerging East Asian community of nations with China at the center.
The Indian media, which for long had avoided taking up the China-as-an-adversary line, has stepped up coverage in that light. Leading commentators continue to warn the Indian government against placing too much confidence on the burgeoning ties with China. Some have drawn parallels with the months preceding the 1962 war.
Building on its close political and military ties with Pakistan and Myanmar, China is using economic and military means to draw India’s other smaller neighbors into its own sphere of influence. The People’s Liberation Army’s recent incursions and road construction in Bhutanese territory are aimed at pressuring the tiny Himalayan kingdom to end its protectorate ties with India.
Amid a downturn in India’s relations with Bangladesh, over such issues as illegal immigration, Islamist terrorism and trade, China has gained naval access to the Chittagong port. Through a road link with Bangladesh via Myanmar, China hopes to access Bangladesh’s vast natural gas reserves.
China, the major arms supplier to Bangladesh, recently offered to provide Dhaka with nuclear reactor technology, heightening Indian anxieties.
For now, India seems to have brought Nepal back into its own sphere of influence after the kingdom’s heavily pro-Chinese tilt under King Gyanendra’s 15-month direct rule. Although the monarch has lost all of his political powers following weeks of protests – driven in large part by New Delhi – that brought pro-Indian parties back in the saddle, Beijing’s influence in Nepal remain considerable.
China’s growing ties with the Nepalese military and its stated goal of extending the railway line from Lhasa all the way to the Nepalese border suggest it has the landlocked Himalayan nation close in its sights both in terms of its regional policies and the wider imperative of defeating the United States’ policy of containment.
The Qinghai-Tibet railway, built at a cost of around $4.2 billion, runs for 1,140 km at an average elevation of 4,000 meters, making it the highest railway in the world. The project has been one of the most difficult to build, with its long sections of elevated tracks and bevy of bridges and tunnels. The route crosses an active seismic zone and traverses frozen ground saturated with water that can rise or fall by meters as the temperature changes.
Against this background, experts expect a massive overhaul will be needed within a decade. Given the stakes involved, Beijing can be expected to bear both the massive physical challenge as well as the hefty financial cost of keep the trains rolling.
Monday, July 03, 2006
Iran In Putin’s G-8 Gambit
In the run-up to the Group of Eight (G-8) summit he is hosting later this month, Russian President Vladimir Putin is sounding increasingly assured about his country’s role in that exclusive club and the wider world.
Although Russia has been invited to attend annual summits of the world’s industrialized democracies for some years now, this is the first year it has been accepted as a full member of the G-8.
In fact, Moscow was invited to join the G-8 without having attained the economic or democratic development of the other members -- United States, Canada, Japan, Britain, Germany, France and Italy. This exception was made in an effort to spur Russia’s continued progress on the road of free-market economic reforms and as a reward for the post-Soviet democratization process.
As the host of the July 15-17 summit, Putin has shaped the agenda around energy, education, and the eradication of infectious diseases. European nations rely significantly on Russian natural gas supplies. Moscow, which exports oil around the world, recognizes competitively stable energy prices as the key to its long-term economic prosperity.
The other G-8 members, too, have energy high on their minds – but in a less enthusiastic spirit. The Kremlin’s recent effort to tighten control over energy exports has raised concern in Europe. The Putin administration’s suspension of natural gas supplies to Ukraine several months ago – ostensibly for the former Soviet republic’s efforts to pull itself out of Moscow’s orbit -- left Europe with shortages. Europeans seeking assurances of reliable gas supplies from Russia confront a government setting most of the terms.
On the political front, Russia is sliding back to a form of authoritarianism, although not exactly Soviet-style repression. Moscow, moreover, is growing more confrontational in the articulation and implementation of foreign policy.
With Russia having turned its back to the political and economic obligations underpinning its G-8 membership, Putin could find himself having to justify Moscow’s continued presence in the organization.
Putin, for his part, can be expected to use the Iran nuclear crisis to establish Russia’s credentials as a responsible international player, mindful of its effectiveness in deflecting criticism of the Kremlin’s domestic and foreign policies.
Although Russia has been invited to attend annual summits of the world’s industrialized democracies for some years now, this is the first year it has been accepted as a full member of the G-8.
In fact, Moscow was invited to join the G-8 without having attained the economic or democratic development of the other members -- United States, Canada, Japan, Britain, Germany, France and Italy. This exception was made in an effort to spur Russia’s continued progress on the road of free-market economic reforms and as a reward for the post-Soviet democratization process.
As the host of the July 15-17 summit, Putin has shaped the agenda around energy, education, and the eradication of infectious diseases. European nations rely significantly on Russian natural gas supplies. Moscow, which exports oil around the world, recognizes competitively stable energy prices as the key to its long-term economic prosperity.
The other G-8 members, too, have energy high on their minds – but in a less enthusiastic spirit. The Kremlin’s recent effort to tighten control over energy exports has raised concern in Europe. The Putin administration’s suspension of natural gas supplies to Ukraine several months ago – ostensibly for the former Soviet republic’s efforts to pull itself out of Moscow’s orbit -- left Europe with shortages. Europeans seeking assurances of reliable gas supplies from Russia confront a government setting most of the terms.
On the political front, Russia is sliding back to a form of authoritarianism, although not exactly Soviet-style repression. Moscow, moreover, is growing more confrontational in the articulation and implementation of foreign policy.
With Russia having turned its back to the political and economic obligations underpinning its G-8 membership, Putin could find himself having to justify Moscow’s continued presence in the organization.
Putin, for his part, can be expected to use the Iran nuclear crisis to establish Russia’s credentials as a responsible international player, mindful of its effectiveness in deflecting criticism of the Kremlin’s domestic and foreign policies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)