On Oct. 29, British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, issued an important statement, indicating that the British government now recognizes Tibet as a part of the People’s Republic of China and regretted not making this recognition earlier. This statement is a 180 degree turn from the diplomatic stance that Britain has held in the last 94 years with regard to Tibet, which only recognized China’s “special position” in Tibet, not sovereignty. Robert Barnett, the director of Modern Tibetan Studies program at Columbia University, suspected in his New York Times opinion article that this shift is a part of a major trade off between the two government—PM Gordon Brown asked China to contribute more funds to the IMF in exchange for not only more voting power in the financial institution but apparently also recognition by a major western power on its sovereignty over Tibet. Meanwhile, Chinese media lauded Miliband’s statement as a noble act that “tidies up an obscure detail of British foreign policy.” See article
More recently, China has unilaterally withdrawn from attending the high-profile summit with the EU because the current president of the EU, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, has made a very visible declaration of his meeting with the Dalai Lama a few days after the summit. The Dalai Lama is also scheduled to visit the Czech Republic and Belgium and address the EU Parliament in Brussel in December.
Although these two events vary in natural, they both point to the lack of strength and prudence of the European Union’s foreign policy vis-à-vis a stronger and more coherent set of policy from China. Using its economic leverage during the current global recession, China essentially manhandled Great Britain and forced the British government to not only beg China to pump more money into the IMF but also completely alter its previous diplomatic stance on Tibet. France’s Sarkozy, on the other hand, continues to display his reckless ego and carelessly angers a very sensitive Chinese foreign policy establishment. Sarkozy could easily reschedule his meeting with the Dalai Lama to a day that is not so near the China-EU summit and avoid the embarrassment that China’s withdrawal has caused to all the other EU members, who are probably eager to engage China. This is, unfortunately, very much in line with Sarkozy’s other display of imprudence when he publically stated that the Czech Republic, the country that is schedule to succeed France as the next EU president, is not a worthy country for the position and France should be able to extend its current EU presidency.
Unfortunately, the sole victim of this string of European diplomatic incompetency is Tibet, whose international position is weakening by the day. Although the recent conference of over 600 Tibetan delegates in Dharamsala, the location of the Tibetan Exile Government, still formally approves the continuity of the Dalai Lama’s “middle way” philosophy in his negotiation with the Chinese government to ensure autonomy and cultural preservation for the Tibetan people, resentment is growing especially among the younger Tibetan population. If there is no progress in the near term, the Dalai Lama may be forced to take a stronger if not violent stance against the Chinese, which may completely delegitimize the whole Tibetan movement as one of peace and respect. On the other hand, the Chinese government has not shown any serious gesture of negotiating with the Dalai Lama—it is content in waiting for either the death of the now 73-year old Dalai Lama or his descent as the sole spiritual and political leader of the Tibetan people. By then, the Chinese can easily take over Tibet either by force or aggressive assimilation without much consequence.
The only way Tibet can even hope to improve its prospect of autonomy under the Chinese is with, at the basic level, diplomatic support from strong western nations who have a strong record on human rights and a moral commitment to advance human rights across the world. It is clear that Tibet can’t count on Gordon Brown’s Britain to help, nor can Tibet count on an egoistic Sarkozy, who is more interested in staying in the spotlight than offering substantive assistance to the struggling Himalayans. Because of the global recession, many economists are calling for a closer partnership between China and the U.S. to save the world’s sagging economy, so it is likely that the issue of Tibet will continue to be marginalized in the context of the shared economic interest between China and the new U.S. administration. The future of Tibet is grim. Although I do not support Tibetan independence for a host of different reasons, I do believe the Tibetan people deserve full cultural autonomy and a significant degree of political autonomy, along with other ethnic groups and regional populations in China. Unfortunately, thus far, no country has been able to step up to the plate for Tibet in a meaningful and constructive way.
China's Other Western Friend
Because of the rising prominence of a rapidly growing China, China’s relationship with the rest of the world has been an important topic both in the political and the business world. While China’s relations with powerful western nations dominate the discussion, there is another country on the west of China that is receiving increasing attention from Beijing: Kazakhstan.
Bilateral trade between China and Kazakhstan has grown significantly in recent years. According to the Xinhua News Agency, China’s official news source, trade volume between the two countries reached 13.87 billion USD in 2007—a 66 percent jump from the previous year. On a symbolic level, the overseas portion of the 2008 Olympics torch relay kicked off in Almaty, Kazakhstan and President Nazarbayev was the first torch bearer outside of China. It is clear that both in terms of hard numbers and political gestures, China sees Kazakhstan as a strategic partner on its western border.
There are two main reasons why China regards Kazakhstan with such high importance. First reason, predictably, is the strategic resources that Kazakhstan possesses. China’s global hunt for oil to fuel its burgeoning economy is a well documented phenomenon and Kazakhstan is an important target of this pursuit. Because of its rich reserves and geographical proximity, Kazakhstan is an ideal partner for China. The long border that the two countries share would give China the advantage of ensuring safe and direct delivery of the resources with relatively low investment on security protection and pipelines (still under construction). With the global economic slowdown deepening by the day, President Hu Jintao will be working particularly hard to maintain his country’s economic growth and fight off the global recession, in order to maintain the legitimacy of his one-party rule—and Kazakhstan’s resources play a pivotal role in this ambitious campaign.
The second reason why Kazakhstan is strategically important is the country’s unique potential to help China quell its western border problems. Considering the long border between Kazakhstan and the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, having Kazakhstan’s cooperation will significantly help China stop weapon trafficking, minimize refugee flow, and catch key leaders of the Uyghur independence movement. Although the issue of ethnic suppression on the Uyghurs has received relatively little international coverage compare to its Tibetan counterpart, it is an acute and sensitive topic in China. With the small scale bombings in Shanghai and Yunnan prior to the Olympics and the possibility of more attacks before or during other major events, e.g. the 2010 Shanghai World Expo, the Uyghur independence movement will continue to be China’s top domestic security priority. Nepal has thus far been cooperative in combating Tibetan resistance. By flexing its economic muscles, China is looking for Kazakhstan to do the same against the Uyghurs.
During my travel to Kazakhstan, China’s influence in the former Soviet satellite is easily detectable. Whether it is the high-rising skyscraper of the China National Petroleum Corporation or the conversations I had with Kazakh businessmen, who spoke to me in broken Mandarin, it is clear that China has a solid presence in Kazakhstan and aims to expand it. This expansion will not be without resistance. Kazakhstan has already rejected China’s proposal of a free-trade zone between China and Central Asia because it fears that China’s economic advantages will exploit its less developed industries. Russia is also wary of China’s growing influence in its backyard and is using its legacy to compete for power. Historically, Central Asia had always been a geopolitically critical region of the Eurasia landmass, and, as the largest country in Central Asia, Kazakhstan’s geopolitical significance will only grow; therefore, the development of Sino-Kazakh relation must be closely watched.
Staying with the topic, I hope all readers of this blog who still have doubts about Obama's substance to read his first memoir, "Dreams from My Father," which I am about to finish very soon. It is an authentic and unfiltered look at Obama, whic h you rarely get these days with the media surrounding him 24/7, each with a hidden agenda of its own. It is an easy read that is very well-writtened, and will give you a good look at the struggles that he has had and his incredible ability to bring people together, make good judgment and tough decisions in the face of challenges.
I look forward to more exchanges on this topic and will hopefully bring everyone some juicy inside take as I begin my work for the campaign.
]]>To jumpstart the blog, I want to focus on a piece of news that is very much under-publicized and under-emphasized and that is the potential for Islamic terrorism in the upcoming Beijing Olympics. It is ironic how little attention this topic has received considering every other imaginable story related to the Olympics has been dominating all headlines in the last month (air pollution, uniforms for the official welcoming committee, algae near the coast that may hamper the sailing competition) and will continue to do so. However, a recent video was released by an overtly terrorist group known as the Turkestan Islamic Party, which is closely affiliated with the whole independence movement of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. In the video, the leader, Commander Seyfullah, claimed responsibility for the recent bombing attacks in Shanghai and Yunnan, celebrating the success of its jihads and boasting more violent activities during the Olympics. What is more disturbing is that this news has received very little coverage and reporting in mainstream western media. I first became aware of this on the Singaporean newspaper, ZaoBao, where its headline featured a screenshot of the video and hauntingly resembles previous videos released by bin Laden and other Islamic terrorists. But the story only received secondary attention from BBC, which has had a tradition of extensive and often critical coverage of China. The BBC article cursorily mentioned the content of the video and stated that the Chinese government has rebuked the videos claim that the bombings were acts of terrorism. The International Herald Tribune produced an equally hasty coverage of the news, which I had to search through its Asia-Pacific section to locate. While a similar video that targets western countries would immediately make headline in all major media outlets, this video targeting China has received minimal attention at best. It is predictable that the Chinese media would downplay the impact of such a video in order to ensure a stable and secure procession of the Olympics. But it is intriguing, if not insulting, that that western media would devote so little attention to something that they will normally jump head over heels on if the targeted country is different.
Many people hate China for different reasons and I can sympathize with the majority of those reasons. Many human rights activists, Tibet/Uyghur sympathizers, and maybe even unemployed workers in the Mid-West probably hope that the Beijing Olympics turn into a disaster. But whatever grievance you have against China, it is no excuse for perversely hoping for the suffering of innocent people at the hands of terrorism simply because you don't like their government. My reaction to this lack of attention on terrorism in Beijing maybe an overreaction and I certainly hope so. But so far, I have not seen due attention paid to terrorists threats against China, which are legitimate and palpable. China has a brutal government, especially regarding its policies on minority issues, but, like I said, no innocent Chinese people deserve suffering because of their government's imperial policy, just like how no one out of the 3,000 plus who died on 9/11 deserve their fate because of THEIR government's imperial policy in the Middle East.
If the War on Terror is truly global, then we need not only a global attack strategy but a global commitment to protecting citizens around the world. The next bulls-eye is clearly China, and we must watch the terrorists there closely.
Bush and Fukuda passionately justify their decision by separating sports from politics. But we all understand that Olympics have always been political, sometimes resulting in very unfortunate and unfair consequences for the athletes. So why did Bush decide to go? In my understanding, Bush's decision to please China is intimately related to his success in the North Korea non-proliferation issue--arguably his only positive legacy on both the foreign and domestic front. The Bush team deserves credit for North Korea's recent move to turn over detailed documents of its nuclear program and subsequently destroying one of its reactors, and it is likely that China has been playing a continuous role in facilitating this development behind closed doors. Bush has taken North Korea off the terror list, which made many East Asian neighbors, including Japan, very unhappy. But what is done is done and the last thing Bush wants to see is North Korea turning back on its promises, which will make him look like a fool and squander his only chance of leaving a positive legacy in foreign affairs, at least in the foreseeable future. (It is still, in my opinion, unclear whether Iraq will be a positive or negative chapter in Bush's presidency; the war isn't over yet.) Therefore, to keep his success in North Korea on course, he must make sure China stays with him, and attending the Opening Ceremony and offending some human rights activists is a small price to pay.
Fukuda also has good reasons to please China. Since he took over the Japanese Diet, he's been much more pro-China than his two predecessors, Abe and Koizumi. He has made major efforts to improve relation between the two countries, from his visit to China that has "brought spring" to the bilateral relations, to the most recent settlement of the border and resource dispute in the East China Sea. Although the details on the border agreement and agreement to jointly excavate natural resources are still unclear, it is clear that both China and Japan are mindful of improving their relations at every step of the way. Seeing how increasingly dependent the lacklustre Japanese economy is on China and the vast prospect of wealth and strength the two Asia giants can bring to each other if their relationship continues to improve, attending the Ceremony is again a small price to pay for Fukuda, especially considering that the human rights organizations' presence is weak in Japan.
China has already scored major diplomatic victories for its Olympics, earning approval from the two top economic nations. Europe is still giving China the cold shoulder, but from China's recent reaction to Sarkozy's refusal to go to the Ceremony if China doesn't engage in genuine negotiation with the Tibetans and improve its human rights record, it's clear that China could care less about what Europe thinks at this point. The Chinese state media sent a less-than subtle message to Sarkozy, essentially saying that his presence is not welcomed and the Chinese people don't even want him here. This will certainly not go well with the EU since Sarkozy is not its president, but China has found a new sense of confidence, if not arrogance, when it comes to running its Olympics. This is a dramatic reversal from 3 months ago when China was under siege from the world for its violent crackdown in Tibet. There's still lots of time left between now and the Olympics, but so far China is leading the gold medal standing.
]]>The continuation of Mugabe’s dictatorship in Zimbabwe deals a heavy blow to all who believes in democracy and freedom's power to bring prosperity and justice. When evaluating the situation further, it is even more disappointing to realize that there was little international intervention during the months of political violence--where innocent people were killed or detained and women were raped or abused all because of their political affiliation and civil opposition to the Mugabe government--to stop the repression and provide the necessary security to conduct a fair run-off election. It was a golden opportunity for the U.S. to exercise its global leadership, regain its international standing, and deliver the good that its democracy promoting platform promises. In her recent essay in Foreign Affairs, Secretary of State Condolezza Rice, forcefully and eloquently articulated a foreign policy platform where democratization continues to be the centerpiece of a so-called "American Realism" (combination of idealism and classic realism). Unfortunately, in the case of Zimbabwe, the U.S. failed to put its money where its mouth is, and allowed the opportunity to slip by. Since the Iraq War, the U.S. foreign policy establishment has been seemingly plagued by a shroud of fear of intervention even when its leadership is clearly called upon. The Burmese monk protest was one of these missed opportunities. The post-election violence in Kenya was another, but thanks to the aggressive leadership of Kofi Annan, a power-sharing deal was brokered and the Kenyan democratic institutions prevailed, though the U.S. had very little to do with it. The chaos in Zimbabwe presented another chance for President Bush to deliver his promise of democracy and end his disastrous foreign policy record on a high note, but he simply decided to put his hands in his pockets and went to Europe.
With one missed opportunity after another, it is not hard to become skeptical of the neo-conservative, democracy promoting doctrine of the Bush-Rice era, no matter how inspiring in words this doctrine sounds. Although Zimbabwe weighs very little in the calculus of U.S. national interest, it is not difficult to see how much benefit a humanitarian success story can bring to U.S. image around the world. This is not to say that we should only embark on a humanitarian mission if it improves our reputation; when people are suffering from brutal oppression from their leaders, the United States has an obligation to intervene to bring security and justice if a clear case for intervention is present. Two prominent scholars from the Center for Strategic and International Studies have already devised a workable plan for the U.S. to remove Mugabe's dictatorship and help improve and stabilize Zimbabwe's fledgling democracy, but our administration has decided to ignore it altogether.
Whether it is for our own interests or the interests of others, we should have intervened in Zimbabwe for the sake of democracy, freedom and humanitarianism--three concepts that should be resonating across the world but have been instead perceived as sugar coats for a selfish U.S. foreign policy. If the United States is truly committed to promoting democratic values and principles, which I imagine it will at least rhetorically, doesn't matter who becomes the next president, we must be ready to back our words with action when a justifiable case of intervention presents itself. Iraq of 2003 was not one of those cases, Zimbabwe of 2008 is. And until we deliver our promise, U.S. foreign policy will continue to bring more caution and fear than hope.
To Vicky: I do believe the Japanese political drama is strongly influenced by Obama's ascendency into international prominence and popularity. The drama's title is "Change," which I think is no coincidence, and the Prime Minister's young and handsome image, as well as his struggle with older politicians both expresses Obama's current image and appeal and foreshadows his future challenges if he does become president. Obama craze in Japan has been around for quite a while now, with the Japanese town named Obama attracting thousands of tourists simply because its name is the same as the Illinois Senator's. However, the drama's rating has declined in recent weeks, so I guess the Japanese's disdain for politics in their pop culture is trumping even Obama's appeal. But there is no question that Obama's influence has penetrated the hearts and minds of the Japanese culture like no other foreign politician before him.
To David: Thank you for your thoughtful response, especially the article on Obama, Japan. Fascinating. I think you are absolutely spot on on Obama's need to encircle himself with like-minded foreign advisers. I would also like to add that it is even more important that he has a group of like-minded military advisers, especially the people on his Joint Chief of Staff. He will be facing some tough military decisions with Iran, and given his lack of foreign policy experience, he is vulnerable to blindly accepting the advise of his military confidantes and delegating too much power away from himself.
As far as I know, Obama's FP advisors are former national security advisors Zbigniew Brzezinski (under Carter) and Anthony Lake (under Clinton and likely pick for Secretary of State), former assistant secretary of state Susan Rice (Clinton), former navy secretary Richard Danzig, Joseph Cirincione (specializes in nuclear proliferation), Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress, and Richard Clarke. As we all know, prominent scholar, Samantha Power, quit because she called Hillary a monster during an interview. I have not heard Hagel being a member of Obama's foreign policy inner circle, but his background and experience, especially as a moderate Republican, can definitel add a new and much-appreciated perspective in Obama's team. I am actually rooting for Hagel to be the VP, thus completing the ultimate unity ticket.
Obama also has a formidable opponent in McCain who not only is more experienced in foreign policy but has a strong circle of advisors as well. I just found out that Randy Shriver and Mike Green are his two advisors on China and Japan respectively. While canvassing today, I talked to an African American man who strongly supports McCain because he thinks McCain can protect this country from attacks, especially by bin Laden, while Obama will only sit around, be a pansy and try to negotiate. This man says he cannot relate to Obama at all because he went to Ivy league schools and is an elite, while is a regular blue-collar worker. If Obama cannot convince his African American base that he is strong on foriegn policy, he will be in trouble this Fall. To prevent this scenario, I stand by my position that he should focus more on the economy in the the general election season.
]]>Ironically, his biggest opposition is at home. If Obama were to win the election, foreign policy will not be his trump card. His experience is thin and his track record is essentially non-existent. While there are many intangible appeals to his charisma and moving personal history, voters will look more towards experience and track record when they think about national security. McCain definitely has the edge in this debate, and it would be smart for Obama to steer the election towards the ailing economy, not on security, defense, or foreign policy. His team has already realized this it seems, as Obama embarks on a two-week tour through all the major battleground states to undermine McCains economic policies while re-introducing and re-enforcing his own.
I am confident that Obama's character and judgment will quickly and dramatically improve U.S. foreign policy and American standing in the world. But in order to do that, he must first win the election. And to win the election, he must first stick with the economy and exploit McCain's weakness.
]]>As my first entry for the Watsonblog community, I feel it is appropriate that I provide a brief introduction of myself and what I hope to bring to the blogging community to keep things fresh, fun and fulfilling. This will be the only post where I will not focus on any specific topic, region, theme or event, but I hope this will shed light on things to come.
Born in China, immigrated to Canada at the age of 10, then to the United States at the age of 14, my politics and worldview are mostly shaped and affected by what I see and whom I have met, but rarely by what I've grown up hearing from my family. Having traveled to places that can be considered at least uncomfortable if not hostile for a Chinese national (i.e. Japan, Tibet, Xinjiang) and having worked for almost three years for a long-time Chinese political dissident who was imprisoned for 16 years, my views hardly resemble what you may get from a typical Chinese-American youth but there are certain elements of my belief that are shaped by the simple fact that I am an ethnic Chinese, and I have no intention of shedding these elements for they are an integral part of my identity.
It should be no surprise that the majority of my posting will focus on East Asian affairs, for I have a strong personal affinity to the region and a natural linguistic advantage that allows me to access more materials. However, I do intend on covering all major regions of the world. My interest in international affairs is truly global, and through blogging, I hope to motivate myself to learn more about parts of the world that I am unfamiliar with. I hope my friends and readers of this blog will keep me disciplined and accountable to my commitment.
I will try my best to compose high quality entries, with concise, pointed and insightful analysis of world affairs and avoid aimless rambling. However, I do not intend to keep my political and personal views consistent for the sake of uniformity because I am still in the process of shaping my perspectives, and it is important for me (and for everyone) to reserve some space for intellectual flexibility. Through blogging and interacting with your (hopefully constant, provocative and profanity-free) comments, I hope to wrestle with many different ideas that will eventually help me develop a sensible understanding of the world and myself. One thing is for certain, I will not blindly adhere to any ideology for the sake of consistency and belonging. My goal is to synthesize ideologies and theories with realities and, most importantly, common sense, in order to interpret the events and trends of our world in a way that offers optimism and opportunity for the advancement of human civilization.
I appreciate your time and consideration, and I look forward to many scintillating discussions in the future.
KX