DOOMED PRESIDENT GERALD FORD’S FRATERNITY HOUSE BUILDING DISCOVERS REDEEMER
I speak of Doomed Presidency of Nixon-Kissinger and Gerald R. Ford in the context of Doomed US Policy they initiated and followed. US Policy doomed for it fundamentally violates values cherished by Founding Members who enshrined those Principles in ‘Declaration of Independence’ to establish USA as Free Nation.
The historical legacy of Doomed Nixon-Kissinger and Ford Presidency trapped my life and military career since 1971. I left India in 1984 in search of ‘REDEEMER’ or ‘DISCOVERER’ to find the true purpose in my life.
My readers may not be surprised to note my interest in a story published by MLive.com giving account of historic DKE Shant Building at 611 ½ East William Street, Ann Arbor. Delta Kappa Epsilon Fraternity is not able to use this Building for their activities and listed it for lease. To my utter surprise, this Doomed Building used by Gerald R. Ford is discovered by ‘REDEEMER ANN ARBOR’ Church for their Worship Service. This historic Building got a new tenant to keep its life. The Story gives me Hope of reaching my true destination in life with guidance from my personal REDEEMER.
DOOM DOOMA DOOMSAYER
Historic DKE Shant building on Ann Arbor’s William Street listed for lease for retail user
The Shant building, which is owned by the Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity and located at 611 1/2 E. William St. is up for lease. Melanie Maxwell | The Ann Arbor News
on October 02, 2014 at 5:25 AM
Set behind a seven-foot brick wall and a padlocked cast-iron gate in downtown Ann Arbor is an unusual historic building in transition.
After serving as a space for weekly Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity rituals and later, as the international headquarters for the fraternity, the 135-year-old building at 611 1/2 E. William St. is listed for lease for a retail user.
The building is located between Hunter House Hamburgers and Tianchu Restaurant.
An online real estate listing markets the building, known as the Shant, as the “most unique building on the University of Michigan campus,” noting it’s “the first time the property has been offered to the public.” The 2,000-square-foot space is listed for lease with Colliers International Ann Arbor for an annual $35 per square foot.
“Very rare opportunity for retail coffee shop or similar uses for very unique original space on campus,” the listing says.
Listing broker Jim Chaconas described the Shant as “the building that everybody wants to know.”
A long-time fixture near campus
The Shant sticks out in its surroundings – an evolving near-campus retail area – although it’s set back from the sidewalk and behind a tall brick wall. The building has retained its historic character as the area around it continues to develop.
The historic Shant building is located on a narrow lot at 611 1/2 E. William St. Ben Freed | The Ann Arbor News
The Shant has a rich history in Ann Arbor; architect William Le Baron Jenney, later known as the “father of the American skyscraper,” designed the building for the Omicron Chapter of DKE at U-M. Jenney taught the university’s first courses in architecture.
The cornerstone for the chapter hall on East William Street was laid in 1878 and construction finished the following year.
As for the building’s name, people aren’t quite certain where it comes from.
“Nobody really knows,” said Sarah Christensen, DKE’s administrative director.
Designed in thirteenth century French style, the two-story building features a stone foundation, intricate wood arches, a vaulted ceiling and stained glass windows with the DKE symbol.
A historic photo of the Shant shows the building before 1901, when the brick wall was constructed to keep people off the property. Photo courtesy of the Bentley Historical Library, University of Michigan
When the building was completed, it was used for weekly chapter meetings and other rituals that remain a mystery to those outside the DKE fraternity.
The building was never used to house fraternity members, who stayed at a house at 609 S. State, then a house at 1912 Geddes before DKE secured its current home at 1004 Olivia Ave.
Over time, DKE has lifted the veil of secrecy surrounding the Shant building. Years ago, only fraternity members were allowed to step foot inside the house and the brick wall outside was constructed in 1901 to keep people off the property.
Christensen said in the 1970s and 1980s, DKE members and alumni would often use the Shant building as a gathering place on football Saturdays. People would sometimes watch the games on a television on the building’s second floor.
DKE almost sold the Shant in 1980 as the fraternity faced financial troubles. A fundraising effort led by DKE alumni David K. Easlick saved the building and ownership was transferred to the newly formed Rampant Lion Foundation, which supports DKE’s educational activities.
Listing broker Jim Chaconas described the Shant as “the building that everybody wants to know.”
Today, the Omicron Chapter of DKE only meets inside the Shant about twice a year.
“It might be an alumni event, it could be a physical pinning of the pledges,” Christensen said.
The fraternity’s international headquarters rents the building’s first floor from the Rampant Lion Foundation.
A look inside the building
The DKE fraternity is proud of its history.
The walls inside the Shant are lined with photographs of DKE alumni, including five U.S. presidents: Rutherford B. Hayes, Theodore Roosevelt, U-M grad Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush.
The DKE flag on display at the Shant building in 2009.The Ann Arbor News file photo
The Gerald Ford library is on the building’s second floor, featuring works by and about DKE members.
Old DKE artifacts, including a paddle from Yale’s DKE chapter, are on display on the second floor. One photograph shows the DKE flag when it was carried to the North Pole by its discoverer.
Bricks on the Shant’s outdoor patio feature names of DKE alumni, including Gerald Ford, who have donated to the Rampant Lion Foundation.
New life for the Shant
The Shant building is listed for lease as the building is in need of repairs to its four architectural chimney features. Christensen said the fraternity organization does not have the cash flow to make the necessary repairs, and selling the building would be a last resort.
The building has a 2014 assessed value of $209,300. The property’s 2013 taxes were about $4,070.
A lease agreement with a future tenant would offer discounted rent while repairs are made to the building.
“The idea is that we would rent the space and do an agreement with a reduced rent amount and the tenant would pay for necessary repairs,” Christensen said. “The tenant would get a beautiful, unusual building to lease and then we would have the building maintained.”
Chaconas, of Colliers, said to restore the chimneys with the original materials would cost upward of $60,000. To rebuild them with different materials but a similar appearance would cost about $12,000.
Chaconas said a new tenant would not alter the character of the building.
“I’ve gone to the Historical Society and City of Ann Arbor and they are going to work with us so we don’t have to disturb the structure of the Shant,” he said.
Chaconas said he’s received preliminary interest in the building and had some showings. Examples of retail tenants he cited include a coffee shop, a wine bar or a small restaurant. Christensen mentioned a yoga studio as another example.
“It’s in a hot little area, and you’ve got your outside seating,” Chaconas said. “The upstairs could be seating, and downstairs could be a little coffee bar. …Somebody is going to do really well there.”
Lizzy Alfs is a business reporter for The Ann Arbor News. Reach her at 734-255-2638, email her email@example.com or follow her on Twitter
© 2017 MLive Media Group. All rights reserved (About Us).
The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of MLive Media Group.
Community Rules apply to all content you upload or otherwise submit to this site.
DOOMED PRESIDENCY OF GERALD FORD – AMERICA’S UNFINISHED WAR
Nixon-Kissinger and Gerald Ford initiated era of Doomed US Presidency when they concluded War against Communism through negotiated Surrender. Unchecked Communist Expansionism in Southern Asia poses severe risks to vital US security interests in Asia-Pacific Region.
FORD SAYS THAT WAR IS FINISHED FOR AMERICA
At a speech at Tulane University, President Gerald Ford says the Vietnam War is finished as far as America is concerned. “Today, Americans can regain the sense of pride that existed before Vietnam. But it cannot be achieved by re-fighting a war.” This was devastating news to the South Vietnamese, who were desperately pleading for U.S. support as the North Vietnamese surrounded Saigon for the final assault on the capital city.
The North Vietnamese had launched a major offensive in March to capture the provincial capital of Ban Me Thuot (Darlac province) in the Central Highlands. The South Vietnamese defenders there fought very poorly and were quickly overwhelmed by the North Vietnamese attackers. Despite previous promises by both Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford to provide support, the United States did nothing. In an attempt to reposition his forces for a better defense, South Vietnamese President Nguyen Van Thieu ordered his forces in the Highlands to withdraw to more defensible positions to the south. What started out as a reasonably orderly withdrawal soon degenerated into a panic that spread throughout the South Vietnamese armed forces. The South Vietnamese abandoned Pleiku and Kontum in the Highlands with very little fighting and the North Vietnamese pressed the attack from the west and north. In quick succession, Quang Tri, Hue, and Da Nang in the north fell to the communist onslaught. The North Vietnamese continued to attack south along the coast, defeating the South Vietnamese forces at each encounter.
As the North Vietnamese forces closed on the approaches to Saigon, the politburo in Hanoi issued an order to Gen. Van Tien Dung to launch the “Ho Chi Minh Campaign,” the final assault on Saigon itself. Dung ordered his forces into position for the final battle.
The South Vietnamese 18th Division made a valiant final stand at Xuan Loc, 40 miles northeast of Saigon, in which the South Vietnamese soldiers destroyed three of Dung’s divisions. However, the South Vietnamese finally succumbed to the superior North Vietnamese numbers. With the fall of Xuan Loc on April 21 and Ford’s statement at Tulane, it was apparent that the North Vietnamese would be victorious. President Thieu resigned and transferred authority to Vice President Tran Van Huong before fleeing Saigon on April 25.
By April 27, the North Vietnamese had completely encircled Saigon and began to maneuver for their final assault. By the morning of April 30, it was all over. When the North Vietnamese tanks crashed through the gates of the Presidential Palace in Saigon, the South Vietnamese surrendered and the Vietnam War was officially over.
NO CHINA, NO RUSSIA – U.S. MUST CHOOSE TIBET EQUILIBRIUM
United States must define Foreign Policy before choosing allies. “AMERICA FIRST” Foreign Policy demands choosing “TIBET EQUILIBRIUM.”
Both Russia and China are major military powers of world competing for Superpower status. To achieve ‘Balance of Power’ to restore ‘Power Equilibrium’, America must choose Tibet because of its strategic location.
Tibet is second largest nation of the region and Tibet’s Independence from military occupation is the only real solution to contain and engage military powers like Russia and China.
Major Retd Rudranarasimham, DOOM DOOMA DOOMSAYER
CHINA OR RUSSIA? U.S. MAY HAVE TO CHOOSE AN ALLY
© Provided by IBT Media (UK) RTX2QS13
This article originally appeared on The Conversation.
Forty-five years ago, last February, U.S. President Richard Nixon returned from a visit to China that shocked the world and unsettled leaders in Moscow, who were awaiting a visit from Nixon a few months later.
Soviet leaders wondered if they were finally witnessing the birth of a U.S.-China alliance that they had feared ever since the breakdown of the Sino-Soviet alliance in the early 1960s.
As Washington and the media convulse over every new outrage emanating from Moscow, while President Trump repeatedly asks, “Wouldn’t it be nice if we actually got along with Russia?” U.S. policymakers are faced with the same choice between Russia and China, though this time the stakes might be even higher.
The history of persistent tensions between Russia and China suggests two choices: Accommodate and reconcile with Russia to balance against the greater power—China. Or, align with China to defend a rules-based international order from its most powerful antagonist—Russia.
It should be clear by now that we can no longer oppose Russia and China at the same time. Though that route might seem tempting and natural, given the historical aspirations of U.S. foreign policy to protect territorial sovereignty, promote human rights and provide a framework for free trade, we are no longer equal to the task.
At a minimum, that would require decisive U.S. action in Syria, firm military support for the government in Kiev, a drastic military buildup of NATO forces across Eastern Europe and a more confrontational posture in the South and East China seas. Doing that would further stretch a U.S. military that is already facing a personnel shortage. It would also represent a burden that the American people apparently no longer wish to carry.
Lost in the discussion of whether Trump’s “America First” bravado reflects militarism or isolationism are the ways in which our options have been shaped by the administration that preceded him.
Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, second from right, and China President Xi Jinping watch the Victory Day parade at Red Square in Moscow, Russia, May 9, 2015. Reuters
We have only begun to reckon with the foreign policy legacy of Barack Obama, but he has clearly done more to shape the current global predicament than Trump has. When the Russian, Iranian and Turkish foreign ministers met in Moscow in the final weeks of the Obama administration to solve the Syrian crisis by themselves without inviting
the U.S., they were making a startling declaration: The nation that had once declared itself to be “indispensable” was now very clearly dispensable. It would have been unthinkable at any point since Pearl Harbor for American interests to be discounted so brazenly in solving the most pressing international crisis.
It is hard to separate the factors that brought us to this point. Is this simply an inevitable product of relative, or even absolute, American decline? Is it a product of a president who sought to “lead from behind” and whose fundamental foreign policy principle was that sins of commission are always worse than sins of omission? Or did Obama conclude he was dealing with a country, already exhausted by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, that was no longer willing to shoulder the burden of defending the free world? Either way, Trump has inherited a country that is no longer willing and able to play the leadership role it once did in world affairs.
So where do we go from here? If we cannot oppose both Russia and China, then we need to compromise with at least one of them.
MAKE FRIENDS WITH RUSSIA?
Arguing for a Russian alignment is the notion that China already does more damage to American interests around the globe than Russia does. China damages U.S. economic interests through unfair trade practices, our standing in Asia by undermining our alliances, and our ability to promote democracy, particularly in Africa, by offering aid and investment without good governance conditions. As China grows more powerful and assertive, its efforts to drive the U.S. out of East Asia, coupled with increasing challenges to American interests around the globe, will amount to a full-spectrum challenge to the current U.S. position in the world.
In contrast, Russia’s challenges to American interests are relative pinpricks. Russia does not have the ability to turn either Eastern Europe or the Middle East into its own sphere of influence. It is even losing the competition for economic influence in Central Asia, its own post-Soviet backyard, to China.
Putin might not be an evil dictator bent on doing as much damage to the West as possible, but rather a spurned pragmatist with a realistic view of Russia’s position in the world who had initially hoped to cooperate with Western leaders, but has been embittered by poor treatment by them. Putin’s Russia, therefore, would represent not a mortal threat to the international world order, but rather a missed opportunity, one that can still perhaps be salvaged.
OR CHOOSE CHINA INSTEAD?
Alternatively, we could align with China against Russia.
This approach makes sense if you believe Putin began as a pragmatist, but that was only a temporary tack, given his KGB background and nationalist authoritarian inclinations. But now that he has seen how weak his opponents are and how much havoc he can wreak, he has set his sights higher. Fifteen years ago he might not have imagined he could break NATO or the EU, but now that seems within reach, and nothing will deter him from this chance to realize the fondest dreams of his Soviet predecessors. What could we possibly offer him to match such dreams? He would revel in the chaos that would follow.
Chaos, however, is precisely the opposite of what the leaders in Beijing desire. China’s resurgence is built on a world of peace and trade, a world ultimately sustained by American military strength. For China to seek to challenge such an order, it would have to imagine that it could not only fill the role the U.S. currently fills, but manage the transition in such a way as to avoid a chaotic interlude. Chinese leaders are far too clear-headed for such a gambit, and in any case they see no need to rush such a transition before conditions for it have matured.
President Xi Jinping is anyway preoccupied with ensuring the indefinite continuation of Communist Party rule. What could jeopardize that more than a world in chaos and economic disaster?
IS THE CHOICE EVEN OURS?
With Russia against China? With China against Russia?
There is no question such a choice is unpalatable. Not only would either alternative involve morally difficult concessions, but having to make the choice at all implies that the United States is no longer capable of defending the world order it has long sponsored. This is a difficult reality to accept.
And broaching the possibility of such a choice leads to more difficult questions.
Could Russia even be persuaded to align with the U.S. against China or China against Russia? What would we have to offer either side? What would this mean for our allies, especially in Europe and East Asia? The latter question might not be as insoluble as it may seem, because our allies have long since begun anticipating just such a scenario. But if we are no longer able and willing to perform the role we once did, we need to reckon with the consequences.
Jeremy Friedman is Assistant Professor, Business, Government, and the International Economy, Harvard Business School.
NIXON-KISSINGER VIETNAM TREASON – UNFINISHED WAR IN SOUTHERN ASIA
United States fought War in Vietnam to engage and contain the spread of Communist influence in Southern Asia. Due to Nixon-Kissinger Vietnam Treason, this War has never finished. This War is about restoring Balance of Power in Southern Asia. The Power Equilibrium shifted dangerously in favor of Communists when Red China invaded and occupied Tibet, South Asia’s second largest nation. In terms of size, and geographical location, Tibet is of high priority as compared to defending territorial rights of nations like Japan, Philippines, or Vietnam. Red China cannot claim sovereignty over Tibet and her illegal military occupation cannot wipe out the long history of Tibet’s independence. Eviction of Tibet’s illegal military occupier represents Unfinished War in Southern Asia and it cannot be avoided.
I will ask my readers to tell the US Congress and The White House to reverse the course of Nixon-Kissinger Doomed China Policy.
Our war with China another Vietnam War in the making
THE SOUTH CHINA SEA GAMBIT
In this photo released by China’s Xinhua News Agency, a Russian naval ship arrives in port in Zhanjiang in Southern China’s Guangdong Province, Monday, Sept. 12, 2016. The Chinese and Russian navies launched eight days of war games.
By BRUCE FEIN – – FRIDAY, JANUARY 27, 2017
A disastrous, purposeless war with China to defend the global credibility of the United States is imminent. Only vocal citizen opposition to the war communicated to the Congress and the White House can prevent our self-ruination. It happened in 2013 to prevent President Obama from another trillion-dollar fool’s errand against Syria. The system still works, if citizens will use it.
Secretary of State-designate Rex Tillerson testified on Jan. 11, 2017, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the United States would deny China access to islands in the South China Sea over which China claims sovereignty. (The artificial islands are thousands of miles from the continental United States and irrelevant to invincible self-defense). Mr. Tillerson declared that China’s building and militarization of the islands was “akin to Russia’s taking Crimea” from Ukraine.
He bugled: “We’re going to have to send China a clear signal that, first, the island-building stops and, second, your access to those islands also is not going to be allowed.” (How do you think the United States would respond if China denied us access to Guantanamo Bay Naval Base?)
The White House reiterated on Jan. 24, 2017, that the United States would prevent China from accessing the South China Sea islands China claims, and hinted at an American blockade. A blockade would mean war, according to a nationalist Chinese newspaper. (A blockade assumes a state of war.) Australia, a longstanding United States ally in the Asia Pacific region, balked at participation.
The White House – Tillerson bellicosity aligns with everything the United States has done since Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2011 announced a “pivot” to Asia to encircle China. We have sought to deny China a regional sphere of influence that we have exerted for almost two centuries beginning with the Monroe Doctrine. We have established a Marine training base in Darwin, Australia. We are building a THADD missile defense system in South Korea. We have negotiated the use of five military training bases in the Philippines. We have supported Vietnam in its South China Sea maritime dispute with China. We have sent aircraft carriers there. We have declared an obligation to defend Japan’s claim to the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands disputed by China.
The United States has accused China of currency manipulation and threatened to impose prohibitive tariffs on Chinese imports.
These unfriendly acts are the very definition of encirclement.
Chinese resentment against the west and the United States has been building for centuries. The First Opium War (1839-42), fought by Britain, was precipitated by China’s refusal to legalize opium. It ended with the Treaty of Nanking, which indemnified merchants for confiscated opium, granted the British extraterritoriality, opened five treaty ports, and ceded Hong Kong.
The Second Opium War (1856-60) was fought by the British to compel China to open up its ports and interior to Western trade. Other Western powers piggybacked on Chinese concessions to Britain through most-favored-nation clauses in a series of “unequal treaties.”
The 1894-95 Sino-Japanese War concluded in the Treaty of Shimonoseki by which China was obliged to recognize the independence of Korea; to cede Taiwan, the Pescadores Islands, and the Liaodong (south Manchurian) Peninsula to Japan ; to pay an indemnity of 200,000,000 taels to Japan; and to open the ports of Shashi, Chongqing, Suzhou, and Hangzhou to Japanese trade.
These Western and Japanese humiliations sparked the 1900 Boxer Rebellion to expel western spheres of influence. An international force featuring British, Russian, American, Japanese, French and German troops relieved Peking (Beijing) after fighting their way through much of northern China. The victors agreed that China would not be partitioned further. In September 1901, the Peking (Beijing) Protocol was signed. Foreign nations received extremely favorable commercial treaties, foreign troops were permanently stationed in Peking (Beijing), and China was forced to pay $333 million dollars as penalty for its rebellion.
The United States intervened in the Chinese Civil War (1946-49) in favor of Gen. Chiang Kai-shek against Mao Zedong. After Chiang was driven off the mainland to Taiwan in 1949, the United States launched covert actions against the People’s Republic of China seeking the overthrow of Mao.
Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s adventurism during the Korean War provoked China to intervene with more than 1 million troops.
Depend upon it. What will provoke war against China will be a professed need to defend our credibility everywhere on the planet. It will be said that if we do not fight China over the South and East China Sea islands as we have threatened, Russia will be emboldened to attack the Baltic States or Eastern Europe, Iran will be emboldened to attack Israel and destabilize its Sunni rivals, and North Korea will be emboldened to attack South Korea and Japan.
The Han Chinese is a proud people, and China is a proud nation. China invented gunpowder and paper. It gave the world Confucius and Sun Tzu. It possesses hundreds of nuclear weapons. After suffering humiliation and subjugation by Western imperial powers for centuries, China will fight the United States for its own sphere of influence in the South China and East China Seas.
China will never bow to the double standards of the United States. We have intervened in Mexico, Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Panama, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Chile and Grenada to maintain our sphere of influence in Central and South America and the Caribbean. Our schoolmarm-like rebuke of China over its assertion of regional hegemony takes audacity to a new level.
The Han Chinese is every bit or more nationalist than were the Vietnamese who bested the United States in the Vietnam War. The morale of United States troops in Vietnam suffered terribly because the war was about an abstraction — global American credibility — not about defending the United States from aggression.
The same will be true in our war with China, and the morale of our troops will suffer accordingly. We will be defeated for the same reasons we were defeated in the Vietnam War.
This looming calamity can be forestalled if American citizens immediately flood the White House and Congress with phone calls and emails voicing vehement opposing war with China absent actual unprovoked Chinese aggression against the United States or a Chinese declaration of war. That would represent the high water mark of self-government celebrated in the Declaration of Independence.
© Copyright 2017 The Washington Times, LLC|3600 New York Avenue NE | Washington, DC 20002 |202-636-3000
NIXON-KISSINGER VIETNAM TREASON – THE CIA’S CANCELLED WAR
‘TIBET: THE CIA’S CANCELLED WAR’ fails to describe Nixon-Kissinger Vietnam Treason during 1971-72 when Americans were fighting a bloody War in Vietnam against Communists supported by Soviet Union and Red China. As I was part of this CIA Mission in Tibet, I knew that Tibet and India were willing to help the US by fighting against Communists inside Tibet rather than directly engaging Communists in Vietnam. Tibet and India want to choose their Battlefield in full support of the US Policy to engage and contain the spread of Communism. The Central Intelligence Agency or CIA has no vested powers to wage or fight wars. “The Cancelled War” is simply an act of Treason. The 37th President of the United States chose to provide support and comfort to the Enemy during War waged on behalf of the United States.
In 1971-72, CIA Mission in Tibet never ended. The Mission continued without direct participation of American nationals. I can appreciate CIA’s unwillingness to divulge the truth about its Mission which is always sanctioned by the executive powers vested in the US President. In my analysis, this War will be fought to restore Balance of Power in Southern Asia.
TIBET: THE CIA’S CANCELLED WAR
Lhamo Tsering Collection
Resistance fighters on the Tibetan border during the early years of the CIA’s Tibet program
For much of the past century, US relations with Tibet have been characterized by kowtowing to the Chinese and hollow good wishes for the Dalai Lama. As early as 1908, William Rockhill, a US diplomat, advised the Thirteenth Dalai Lama that “close and friendly relations with China are absolutely necessary, for Tibet is and must remain a portion of the Ta Ts’ing [Manchu] Empire for its own good.” Not much has changed with the Fourteenth Dalai Lama one hundred years later. After a meeting in 2011 with President Obama in the White House Map Room—the Oval Office being too official—the Dalai Lama was ushered out the back door, past the garbage cans. All this, of course, is intended to avoid condemnation from Beijing, which regards even the mildest criticism of its Tibet policy as “interference.”
However, there was one dramatic departure from the minimalist approach. For nearly two decades after the 1950 Chinese takeover of Tibet, the CIA ran a covert operation designed to train Tibetan insurgents and gather intelligence about the Chinese, as part of its efforts to contain the spread of communism around the world. Though little known today, the program produced at least one spectacular intelligence coup and provided a source of support for the Dalai Lama. On the eve of Richard Nixon’s historic 1972 meeting with Mao, the program was abruptly cancelled, thus returning the US to its traditional arms-length policy toward Tibet. But this did not end the long legacy of mistrust that continues to color Chinese-American relations. Not only was the Chinese government aware of the CIA program; in 1992, it published a white paper on the subject. The paper included information drawn from reliable Western sources about the agency’s activities, but laid the primary blame for the insurgency on the “Dalai Lama clique,” a phrase Beijing still uses today.
The insurgency began after the People’s Liberation Army invaded Tibet following its defeat of the Nationalists, and after Beijing forced the Dalai Lama’s government to recognize Chinese administration over the region. In 1955, a group of local Tibetan leaders secretly plotted an armed uprising, and rebellion broke out a year later, with the rebels besieging local government institutions and killing hundreds of government staff as well as Han Chinese people. In May 1957, a rebel organization and a rebel fighting force were founded, and began killing communist officials, disrupting communication lines, and attacking institutions and Chinese army troops stationed in the region.
By that point, the rebellion had gained American backing. In the early 1950s, the CIA began to explore ways to aid the Tibetans as part of its growing campaign to contain Communist China. By the second half of the decade, “Project Circus” had been formally launched, Tibetan resistance fighters were being flown abroad for training, and weapons and ammunition were being airdropped at strategic locations inside Tibet. In 1959, the agency opened a secret facility to train Tibetan recruits at Camp Hale near Leadville, Colorado, partly because the location, more than 10,000 feet above sea level, might approximate the terrain of the Himalayas. According to one account, some 170 “Kamba guerrillas” passed through the Colorado program.
While the CIA effort never produced a mass uprising against the Chinese occupiers, it did provide one of the greatest intelligence successes of the Cold War, in the form of a vast trove of Chinese army documents captured by Tibetan fighters and turned over to the CIA in 1961. These revealed the loss of morale among Chinese soldiers, who had learned of the vast famine that was wracking China during The Great Leap Forward. Over the next decade, however, there was growing disagreement in Washington over the CIA’s activities in Tibet, and in 1971, as Henry Kissinger prepared for Nixon’s meeting with Mao, the program was wound down.
“Although Tibet may not have been on the table in the Beijing talks, the era of official US support for the Tibetan cause was over,” recalled John Kenneth Knaus, a forty-year CIA veteran, in his 1999 book Orphans of the Cold War: America and the Tibetan Struggle for Survival. “There was no role for Tibet in Kissinger’s new equation.” By 1975, President Gerald Ford could say to a skeptical Deng Xiaoping, China’s future leader, “Let me assure you, Mr. Vice-Premier, that we oppose and do not support any [United States] governmental action as far as Tibet is concerned.”
Many friends of Tibet and admirers of the Dalai Lama, who has always advocated nonviolence, believe he knew nothing about the CIA program. But Gyalo Thondup, one of the Dalai Lama’s brothers, was closely involved in the operations, and Knaus, who took part in the operation, writes that “Gyalo Thondup kept his brother the Dalai Lama informed of the general terms of the CIA support.” According to Knaus, starting in the late 1950s, the Agency paid the Dalai Lama $15,000 a month. Those payments came to an end in 1974.
In 1999, I asked the Dalai Lama if the CIA operation had been harmful for Tibet. “Yes, that is true,” he replied. The intervention was harmful, he suggested, because it was primarily aimed at serving American interests rather than helping the Tibetans in any lasting way. “Once the American policy toward China changed, they stopped their help,” he told me. “Otherwise our struggle could have gone on. Many Tibetans had great expectations of CIA [air] drops, but then the Chinese army came and destroyed them. The Americans had a different agenda from the Tibetans.”
This was exactly right, and the different goals of the Agency and the Tibetans are explored fully by the Tibetan-speaking anthropologist Carole McGranahan in her Arrested Histories: Tibet, the CIA, and Memories of a Forgotten War (2010). Although sometimes clouded by anthropological jargon, her account fascinatingly explores how differently from their American counterparts the Tibetan veterans remember the CIA operation. A striking example is the matter of the Chinese army documents, whose capture in a Tibetan ambush of a high-ranking Chinese officer is depicted in grisly detail in a huge painting in the CIA’s museum in Washington. In addition to revealing low Chinese morale, the documents disclosed the extent of Chinese violence in Tibet. “This information was the only documentary proof the Tibetan government [in exile] had of the Chinese atrocities and was therefore invaluable,” McGranahan notes. Yet the documents and their capture rarely came up during her long interview sessions with the veterans. “Why is it that this achievement, so valued by the US and Tibetan governments, is not remotely as memorable for [the] soldiers?”
One reason is that the Tibetan fighters were told nothing about the value of the documents, which they couldn’t read. One veteran explains to her:
Our soldiers attacked Chinese trucks and seized some documents of the Chinese government. After that the Americans increased our pay scale. Nobody knew what the contents of those documents were. At that time, questions weren’t asked. If you asked many questions, then others would be suspicious of you.
The leader of the ambush tells her that “as a reward the CIA gave me an Omega chronograph,” but he, too, had little knowledge of the documents’ importance. As McGranahan shows in extensive detail, the veterans were preoccupied above all by their devotion to the Dalai Lama, whom they wanted to resume his position as supreme leader of an independent Tibet.
After the CIA mission was ended, Tibet became increasingly marginal to Washington’s China policy, as Knaus has now made clear in a second book, Beyond Shangri-la: America and Tibet’s Move into the Twenty-First Century. The reality is that American presidents now face a world power in Beijing. In language that sums up the cats-cradle of American justifications for ignoring Tibet, ex-Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia Marshall Green recalls to Knaus, “there was nothing we could do to help the Tibetans except by improving our relations with the Chinese Communists so that we might be in a position to exert pressure on them to moderate their policies towards the Tibetans.” Green “admitted that this was ‘perhaps a rationalization.'”
President Obama will soon meet the new Chinese leader, Xi Jinping. His advisers will have reminded him of the encounter between his predecessor, Bill Clinton, and then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin on June 27, 1998. In that meeting, Clinton assured Jiang that, “I agree that Tibet is a part of China, an autonomous region of China. And I can understand why the acknowledgement of that would be a precondition of dialog with the Dalai Lama.” Banking on his well-known charm, Mr. Clinton added, “I have spent time with the Dalai Lama. I believe him to be an honest man, and I believe if he had a conversation with President Jiang, they would like each other very much.” Jiang, it is reported, threw back his head and laughed. Clinton’s suggestion was omitted from the official Chinese transcript.
April 9, 2013, 2:29 pm
© 1963-2017 NYREV, Inc. All rights reserved.
TIBET NOT PART OF CHINA – ARUNACHAL PRADESH CHIEF MINISTER
Arunachal Pradesh Chief Minister Pema Khandu reveals the truth about Tibet’s military occupation. Red China’s military occupation of Tibet cannot wipe out reality of Tibetan nation.
Indian Defence News
Thursday, April 06, 2017
INDIA SHARES BOUNDARY WITH TIBET, NOT WITH CHINA: ARUNACHAL PRADESH CHIEF MINISTER
ARUNACHAL PRADESH Chief Minister Pema Khandu today said China has no business telling India what to do regarding the Dalai Lama’s movement in the country.
“China has no business telling us what to do and what not to do (regarding the Dalai Lama’s movement). It is not our next-door neighbor. India shares boundary with Tibet, not with China,” he told reporters here.
“In reality, the McMahon Line demarcated the boundary between India and Tibet,” he said.
Khandu, who accompanied the Dalai Lama during an eight-hour-long drive from Guwahati to Bomdila yesterday, said it was a brave decision on the part of the Tibetan spiritual leader to undertake the arduous trip.
“He wanted to reach Tawang anyhow and the weather could not deter him. Let us hope that his followers here get satisfaction from his discourses,” he said.
The Nobel laureate, he said, was the country’s most respected guest since 1959 and Arunachal Pradesh deserves his visit more than any other place.
This is the Dalai Lama’s sixth visit to Arunachal Pradesh as a state guest since 1983 and he has been to Tawang every time except in December 1996.
His last visit in 2009 was planned exactly 50 years after he had crossed through Arunachal Pradesh, then North East Frontier Agency, after escaping from Lhasa.