Chakrata Karma – Page 18 – Whole Dude

THE COLD WAR IN ASIA – THE PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE OF INDIA, TIBET, AND CHINA

THE COLD WAR IN ASIA – THE PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE OF INDIA, TIBET, AND CHINA

In 1954, India signed an agreement with People’s Republic of China formulated on the Principles of Peaceful Coexistence of nations. This agreement does not mention it in words, but is based upon the presumption that the political institution of Dalai Lama will continue to exercise meaningful role across the entire Himalayan region including Mongolia. As of today, both India and Tibet are asking for meaningful autonomy for Tibet and safeguarding Tibetan Institutions of Governance.

India, China can peacefully coexist as “Brothers” if that relationship includes recognition of Tibet as ‘Brother’ with Brotherhood Rights to Self-Governance.

Rudranarasimham Rebbapragada

SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE

Doklam row not serious, Hindi, Chini Bhai-Bhai, says Dalai Lama

August 10

16:41 2017

By Boyd Miles

“There is some tension ‘but I do not think it is very serious. We need to make distinction between people and governments”.

Speaking in Delhi on Wednesday, the Dalai Lama used a phrase from Indo-China diplomacy of the 1950s to say: “Eventually, Hindi-Chini bhai bhai is the only way ahead [for India and China]”. Dalai Lama said, “Eventually, “Hindi-Chini- Bhai Bhai” is the only way; the two big nations, you have to live side by side”.

India is for a simultaneous withdrawal from Doklam, which, it says, belongs to its other neighbor Bhutan. “India and China have to live side by side”, he said.

“The responsibility for the institution of the Dalai Lama is also of the Himalayan region and Mongolia”, he said but emphasized that the next Dalai Lama may not have a political role to play in future and that China should not worry about his role. Beijing had then warned New Delhi of adverse consequences.

However, China will only up the ante now that the Dalai Lama has spoken on the issue.

The Dalai Lama has been strongly criticized by Beijing as a “splittist” threatening China’s unity while he is revered in India and the rest of the world as a spiritualist. He asserted that as India provides freedom, he is capable of doing many things and is getting more opportunity to share.

India had granted political asylum to the Dalai Lama who fled his homeland almost six decades ago, as a young monk of 24, to save himself from the Chinese Army, who sought to crush the mass uprising in Tibet against what they described as “China’s imperialist designs”.

“Our small Tibetan community fully practices democracy and I am an admirer of democracy”.

The Dalai Lama said the Chinese people are now enjoying greater freedom in comparison to those who lived four decades ago and praised President Xi Jinping for his fight against corruption.

Inserted from <http://currenthollywood.com/2017/08/doklam-row-not-serious-hindi-chini-bhai-bhai-says-dalai-lama/>

THE COLD WAR IN ASIA – INDIA RESPECTS SOVEREIGNTY OF TIBET AND BHUTAN

THE COLD WAR IN ASIA – INDIA RESPECTS SOVEREIGNTY OF TIBET AND BHUTAN

My ‘CIA CONNECTION’ is byproduct of ‘The Cold War in Asia’. In 1950s, India’s external relations along Himalayan Frontier were shaped by the fear of Communism spreading in Asia. For centuries, people of India, Tibet, and Bhutan lived with no major concerns about boundaries between these countries. Communist China’s Doctrine of Expansionism came into focus when Red China made claims of her sovereignty over territories of her neighbors.

In May 1956, the 14th Dalai Lama visited New Delhi not to celebrate 2,500 Birth Anniversary of Gautama Buddha. He came to seek help and support for Tibet is the first victim of Red China’s Expansionism. Both India, and Tibet share this fear of Communism. In September 1958, Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru visited Bhutan to forge relationships driven by fear of Communist Expansionism. India respects sovereignty of Tibet and Bhutan not because of religious or philosophical doctrine of Gautama Buddha but on account of fear of Expansionist Doctrine of Red China.

Rudranarasimham Rebbapragada

SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE

DOKLAM STANDOFF: BHUTAN’S SOVEREIGNTY

Clipped from: https://thewire.in/159651/doklam-standoff-india-china-bhutan/

Today, as two Asian powers face off with Bhutan at the center of this delicate situation, the outcome will show whether the Asian century has a chance to be a peaceful one, or whether it will replay the violence of the colonial period.

Jawaharlal Nehru at Paro 1958. Credit: India House, Thimphu

As the Doklam plateau stand-off continues well into its second month, analysts in India, China and globally have focused primarily on the India-China interaction. Those that have mentioned Bhutan – the Doklam plateau dispute is between Bhutan and China – have characterized Bhutan as either a protectorate, a state whose relationship with India limits its sovereign actions, or merely as a vassal state being bullied by India. These characterizations ignore Bhutan’s long history of fighting for its sovereignty as well the reasons (and context) in which Bhutan has pursued its special relationship with India.

The India-Bhutan relationship is often characterized by the grants and aid that India has extended to the small country, principally to the hydropower plants that provide Bhutan its largest single source of revenue. The political relationship, though, precedes the hydropower projects by decades, and is best seen in the context of Tibetan issues. The first official meeting between the leaders of the two countries after Independence took place after Jawaharlal Nehru, accompanied by a young Indira Gandhi, travelled to Bhutan via Sikkim, by plane, jeep, horseback and yak in 1958. Although the Chinese accorded a welcoming reception, and gave Nehru’s party an honor guard while passing through Chinese administered territory, the clouds of future conflict were already there.

In 1956, on a visit to India to commemorate the 2,500 birth anniversary of the Buddha, the 14th Dalai Lama had asked for refuge. In 1959, he and his entourage would flee Tibet, setting in place a conflict that continues today.

Bhutan would not have been unaware of these issues. The Haa Drung (administrator of Haa), Jigme Palden Dorji, who also acted as the prime minister of Bhutan, was in touch with Major General Enaith Habibullah, the first Commandant of the National Defence Academy, who was also quite close to Nehru. Furthermore the pressure on the monastic orders being brought to bear by the Chinese in Tibet would have been relayed very quickly to Bhutan, whose monastic order was closely linked to Tibet’s.

The relations between Tibet and Bhutan have historically been about monks. The establishment of Bhutan as a separate domain, Druk Yul, in the 17th Century under the Zhabdrung Ngawang Namgyal, was set off by the rejection of his claims to be the head of the monastic order headed by his Gyare clan. This claim was rejected by the 5th Dalai Lama, which led to the Zhabdrung being offered shelter in Bhutan and a series of battles that would end up establishing Bhutan’s independence.

In 1864 another war erupted, this time with the British. Ashley Eden, who had negotiated an agreement with Sikkim that stripped the Chogyal of his powers and utterly eviscerated the sovereignty of the Himalayan kingdom, was sent to negotiate a similar treaty with the Bhutanese. Instead he encountered Jigme Namgyal, the Black Regent. Namgyal forced Eden to sign a different treaty – one which committed the British to return the Assamese Duars already forcibly occupied by them.

Eden’s treatment was used as a pretext for war for Britain to forcibly capture the territory they wanted – ideal for growing tea, an enormously costly cash crop of that time, one for which the Opium Wars against China had also been launched. The ensuing Duar Wars are considered victories by both Bhutan and Britain. Bhutan lost the Duars, but retained its independence, even being paid a rent (though a small amount) by the British Empire for the Duars.

Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi with the 3rd king’s family. Credit: India House, Thimphu

In 1903 another war loomed when the British wanted to send the Younghusband expedition to Tibet. Caught between the two powers, Ugyen Wangchuck, the son of Jigme Namgyal, initially prepared for war against the British. It was his cousin and close advisor, Ugyen Dorji, a well-established trader based out of Kalimpong, who advised against this. Ugyen Wangchuck’s father-in-law also advised against it. Listening to their advice, Ugyen Wangchuck became the key facilitator for the Younghusband expedition, negotiating on behalf of both the Tibetans and British. He was one of the few that tried to keep some semblance of order in an expedition in which the British machine gunned Tibetans armed with muzzle loaders, some of whom were just trying to get away from the field of battle at Chumik Shenko.

It was this expedition, and the laurels that Ugyen Wangchuck won as a negotiator for both the power in the north – Tibet – and the power in the South – Britain – that set the stage for him being formally invested with kingship in 1907. The Tibetans, who had never in their history turned to Bhutan for help, offered him new ceremonial headgear in a mark of great respect. The British offered him knighthood, making him a Knight Commander of the Indian Empire.

This is the history of independence that the 3rd King of Bhutan, the Druk Gyalpo Jigme Wangchuck, carried forward when he welcomed Nehru to Bhutan in 1958. The King would have been well aware of what was going on in Tibet and its potential ramifications for Bhutan, which Mao claimed as part of Tibet. This was partially based on the defeat of Bhutanese forces by the Tibetan ruler Pholhanas in 1730 and 1732, invited into the country by the then Penlop (Governor) of Paro Valley, and the subsequent dispatch of Bhutanese leaders to kowtow before the Qing throne.

It is therefore why Nehru’s promise to Bhutan in September 1958, at his first speech to the Bhutanese public in Paro, was so important:

“Some may think that since India is a great and powerful country and Bhutan a small one, the former might wish to exercise pressure on Bhutan. It is therefore essential that I make it clear to you that our only wish is that you should remain an independent country, choosing your own way of life and taking the path of progress according to your will.”

It was based on this promise that Indian assistance to Bhutan, initially by helping fund Bhutan’s Five Year Plans, began. At that time Bhutan had no currency of its own, and was the country with the lowest per capita GDP in South Asia. Today Bhutan’s per capita GDP is $2,870 while India’s is $1,850. That growth has been facilitated by Indian assistance, but is based on Bhutan’s freedom to develop the way it wanted.

In recent times that freedom has been what has come under strain, most obviously when the Indian state abruptly, and without any explanation, stopped a subsidy for LPG in Bhutan in 2013, between the first and second round of the Bhutanese general elections. The LPG subsidy had an immediate impact, the ruling party lost, and the LPG subsidy was resumed, again without any real explanation. This was seen by many Bhutanese as undue interference. But while the action may have generated much talk, evidence of its efficacy – if that is what one can call so ham-handed a move – is slight.

Nehru with Jigme Dorji Wangchuk. Credit: India House, Thimphu

Bhutan has two rounds of elections, with a run off between two leading parties in the second round. (In 2008 there were only two parties registered, so there was no run off.) In the first round of the 2013 elections, the Druk Phuensum Tshogpa, the governing party, received 44.5% of the vote, with the three Opposition parties, two of whom merged together after the first round, received the rest. In the second round, after the withdrawal of the subsidy, the DPT received 45% of the votes. The impact of the subsidy removal may have had more impact on commentary than voter share, much of which is determined by local issues. Bhutan experienced a painful currency crisis that had deeply eroded the DPT’s popularity. After the elections the former Bhutanese prime minister first accused the Bhutanese Election Commission of misconduct, and when directed by the king to direct those complaints to the chief election commission, resigned his post as a member of parliament. Such moves indicate that issues within Bhutan – as in every other country – have a greater impact on politics than any external meddling.

None of this should be used as an excuse for Indian high-handedness vis-à-vis Bhutan, but just goes to show that Bhutan has acted based on its own self-interest. It has done so as well when it comes to managing its foreign relations. The security and diplomatic support that Bhutan receives from India allows it to focus on issues of its core concern. The 4th King, Jigme Singye Wangchuck, who abdicated in 2006 in favor of his son after ruling for 34 years, had all the necessary weight to conduct foreign policy differently if he wanted to. He could have been a very prominent actor on the world stage, and certainly has enough personal connections with high-ranking diplomats to play that role even now, instead he focused almost entirely on internal issues. His son, the 5th King, Jigme Khesar Wangchuck, became one of the few heads of state to address the joint houses of parliament in Japan in 2011. He too, could easily be an important international actor, and yet both father and son have chosen to play their roles in a low key manner, and Bhutan has avoided international entanglements, while strengthening the country internally. Part of that strengthening is the hydropower dams, built by grant and aid by India, which supply India with cheap electricity and Bhutan with much needed revenue. Neither of these actions, of diplomacy, or economic planning, are examples of “vassalage”, of a state forced into a subservience by its larger neighbor. Instead it has been a complex and delicate furtherance of Bhutanese sovereignty that keep Bhutan secure and prosperous, leaving it free of the meddling that has compromised the sovereignty and security of its Himalayan neighbors – Sikkim, Tibet and Nepal.

Nehru and Indira Gandhi on yaks. Credit: India House, Thimphu

The key question for those following the stand-off at Doklam is going to be this one: how will Bhutan continue to exercise its sovereignty? The challenge that China is throwing is not a merely military one, but rather the question of whether Bhutan’s old deal with India, or whether Chinese partnership will allow Bhutan greater freedom, and greater sovereignty.

One answer to this is obvious. In Tibet the Potala palace has been reduced to a tourist attraction. The 14th Dalai Lama cannot visit, and is regularly vilified in the domestic press. Monasteries are severely constrained. Over the last few years more than a hundred Tibetans have immolated themselves. Although this has drawn scant criticism by global actors, such actions have their impact in Bhutan, where the monastic order is an important actor. Just this last week, the Nobel Laureate and long advocate for democracy, Liu Xiaobo, died in Chinese incarceration.

Yet the news from China is not all bad, nor is the news from India all good. As China invests in the grand Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), and Bhutan’s neighboring mountain state, Nepal, dreams of using BRI to link with the world, many admirers of China’s development model in Bhutan compare this to the situation in India’s northeast, where annual floods displace millions of poor, and atrocities by state forces and militants are as common as the entrenched poverty. Today Bhutan faces the challenge of managing its two gigantic neighbors, both of whom face massive internal challenges themselves. In the 18th Century, Prithvi Narayan Shah, the Gorkha King who unified Nepal, described this challenge as being like a yam between two boulders. Bhutan chose a different path, one that now means it stands as a peaceful anomaly in the midst of the contested border between the giants of Asia.

It will take great skill and wisdom to resolve this challenge from the power in the north and the power in the south. Bhutan has done this before, becoming not a yam to be crushed, but a bridge of understanding between vastly different cultures and polities. Nevertheless that incident led to massacres and was based on aggression, an outcome of colonial policies and fears. Today, as two Asian powers face off with Bhutan at the center of this delicate situation, the outcome will show whether the Asian century has a chance to be a peaceful one, or whether it will replay the violence of the colonial period. Much of that depends on how India and China, as well as Bhutan itself, manages its sovereignty. It is no small thing, and should not be ignored. To misquote George W. Bush, it would not be wise to underestimate Bhutan.

THE COLD WAR IN ASIA – INDIA AND TIBET ARE MILITARY PARTNERS TO CONTAIN COMMUNISM

THE COLD WAR IN ASIA – INDIA AND TIBET ARE MILITARY PARTNERS TO CONTAIN COMMUNISM

I warmly appreciate His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s remarks about India and China living side by side as “Brothers(Bhai-Bhai).”

The Standoff between China and India inside Bhutan’s territory called Doklam is not really serious. The real issue is that of dangers posed by spread of Communism in Asia. Both India, and Tibet recognized this real danger to foster military partnership or alliance to checkmate, to engage, to confront, to contain, to resist, and to battle against dark, and evil forces of Communism. To that extent, both India, and Tibet must consider deployment of Reserve Duty Brigade (Mobile Reserve Force or MRF) of Special Frontier Force to defend their shared values.

Rudranarasimham Rebbapragada

SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE

DALAI LAMA INVOKES ‘HINDI CHINI BHAI BHAI’, SAYS DOKLAM STANDOFF NOT VERY SERIOUSOFF NOT

Clipped from: http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2017/aug/09/dalai-lama-invokes-hindi-chini-bhai-bhai-says-doklam-standoff-not-very-serious-1640716.html

Tibetan spiritual leader Dalai Lama. (File photo | PTI)

NEW DELHI: Describing the ongoing Doklam standoff as “not very serious”, the Dalai Lama today invoked “Hindi Chini Bhai Bhai”, a catch phrase that defined Sino-India ties in the 1950s, stressing that the two neighbors have to live side by side in peace.

Asserting that any problem has to be resolved through talks, the 81-year-old Tibetan spiritual leader said the theme of 21st century should be dialogue.

“That’s the only away. One side’s retreat and defeat is an old-time thinking. In modern times, every country is dependent on each other,” he said, speaking at the Rajendra Mathur Memorial Lecture organized by the Editors Guild of India here.

The spiritual leader, who calls himself a “chela” (disciple) of India, also needled China saying he can do more in India, which has freedom.

“Where there is no freedom, I don’t like. There is some tension, but I do not think it is very serious. We need to make distinction between people and governments. The other day, I mentioned that Hindi-Chini Bhai is the only way. India and China have to live side by side,” the Dalai Lama said, even as he added that “propaganda and wrong information make things complicated”.

The Dalai Lama, who had fled a Chinese State crackdown in Lhasa and took shelter in India in 1959, said occasionally the two neighbors use “harsh words”, and added as a reminder that the Chinese forces eventually withdrew though they had reached Bomdila in 1962.

Queried about any possible resumption of talks between the Central Tibetan Authority and the Chinese side, he said it may take place after the 19th national congress of the Communist Party of China, which is slated later this year. “But nothing is definite,” he said.

India and China have been locked in a face-off in the Doklam area of the Sikkim sector for more than 50 days after Indian troops stopped the Chinese Army from building a road in the area. China claimed it was constructing the road within its territory and has been demanding immediate withdrawal of the Indian troops from the disputed Doklam plateau.

Bhutan says Doklam belongs to it but China claims it to be its territory and says Thimphu has no dispute with Beijing over it.

External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj had recently said both sides should first pull back their troops for any talks to take place, favoring a peaceful resolution of the border standoff.

UNFINISHED VIETNAM WAR – THE ART OF KNOWING YOUR ENEMY – AMERICA’S ENEMY IN VIETNAM

UNFINISHED VIETNAM WAR – THE ART OF KNOWING YOUR ENEMY – AMERICA’S ENEMY IN VIETNAM

In my analysis, Vietnam War remains “Unfinished.” Firstly, the United States must define the term “ENEMY” to Know Enemy. United States recognized the threat posed by Communism to wage War to arrest the spread of Communism in South Asia. For that reason, United States began Vietnam War in response to threat posed by Soviet Union and People’s Republic of China.

The threat posed by Communism in Asia endures as Communists are still governing Tibet, the second largest nation of South Asia. United States has no choice other than that of Knowing People’s Republic of China as “ENEMY.” The Enemy remains Undefeated. The Enemy is alive, not in Vietnam, but in Tibet.

Rudranarasimham Rebbapragada

SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE

NORTH VIETNAM AND PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA SIGN AID AGREEMENT ON AUGUST 07, 1967

Clipped from: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/north-vietnam-and-peoples-republic-of-china-sign-aid-agreement?

Unfinished Vietnam War – The Art of Knowing Your Enemy – America’s Enemy in Vietnam. The faces of these North Vietnamese Soldiers do not truly depict the Face of Enemy in Vietnam. The Enemy remains Undefeated. The Enemy is alive in Tibet.

The North Vietnamese newspaper Nhan Dan reports that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has signed a new agreement to give Hanoi an undisclosed amount of aid in the form of an outright grant.

Chinese support to the Communists in Vietnam had begun with their backing of the Vietminh in their war against the French. After the French were defeated, the PRC continued its support of the Hanoi regime. In April 1965, the PRC signed a formal agreement with Hanoi providing for the introduction of Chinese air defense, engineering, and railroad troops into North Vietnam to help maintain and expand lines of communication within North Vietnam. China later claimed that 320,000 of its troops served in North Vietnam during the period 1965 to 1971 and that 1,000 died there. It is estimated that the PRC provided over three-quarters of the total military aid given to North Vietnam during the war.

Cold War

1964

Congress passes Gulf of Tonkin Resolution

Vietnam War

Tonkin Gulf Resolution is passed

Unfinished Vietnam War – The Art of Knowing Your Enemy – America’s Enemy in Vietnam. On August 07, 1964 US President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into Law, Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. The Enemy remains Undefeated. The Enemy is alive in Tibet.

The U.S. Congress passes Public Law 88-408, which becomes known as the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, giving President Johnson the power to take whatever actions he deems necessary to defend Southeast Asia including “the use of armed force.” The resolution passed 82-2 in the Senate.

THE COLD WAR IN ASIA – THE BATTLE AGAINST SPREAD OF COMMUNISM

THE COLD WAR IN ASIA – THE BATTLE AGAINST SPREAD OF COMMUNISM

United States supported Nationalist China during World War II to prevent Communist takeover of China.

The Cold War in Asia – Battle Against Spread of Communism. In August 1946, US placed embargo on further shipment of US arms to Nationalist China.

However, by 1944, the US relations with Nationalists cooled off. In August 1946, US placed embargo on further shipment of US arms to Nationalist China. The loss of China to Communists on October 01, 1949 resulted in the founding of the Republic of China in Taiwan (Portuguese Formosa) by Chan Kai-Shek and the Nationalists. It did not cause the end of Cold War in Asia. It continued to manifest itself with armed conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia.

The Cold War in Asia – The Battle Against Spread of Communism. Communist takeover of China in October 1949 alarmed the US, India, and Tibet. The threat remains the same.

I concede that The Cold War in Asia has not manifested as major armed conflict across Tibetan Plateau. It does not mean that there was no effort to checkmate the spread of Communism to Tibet. The United States and India tried to contain Communism that provoked Communist China’s attack across Himalayan Frontier during October 1962. The Communists claimed initial success of their armed aggression but declared unilateral cease-fire on November 21, 1962 to withdraw PLA forces from captured Indian territory.

The Cold War in Asia – The Spread of Communism. Unfinished Vietnam War. Communism poses the same threat as before. Vietnam War is not the last chapter of the history of Cold War in Asia.

In 1971-72, Nixon-Kissinger tried to normalize US – China relations without securing success in Vietnam. That was not the last chapter of The Cold War in Asia.

The Cold War in Asia – The Battle Against Spread of Communism in Asia. This Threat will persist as long as Communism survives in China.

Spread of Communism in Asia poses the same threat it had initially posed on October 01, 1949. Nations defending Freedom, Democracy, Peace, Justice, and Harmony have no other choice; they remain resolved to engage, to contain, to resist, to confront, and to combat the danger posed by Communist takeover of China.

Rudranarasimham Rebbapragada

SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE

The Cold War in Asia – The Battle Against Spread of Communism. For success of Freedom, Democracy, Peace, Justice, and Harmony in Asia, Communism must be defeated.

HOW LONG CAN CHINA AND INDIA AVOID WAR IN THE HIMALAYAS?

Clipped from: https://www.yahoo.com/news/long-china-india-avoid-war-155933378.html

The Cold War in Asia – The Battle Against Spread of Communism. India, Tibet, Bhutan Border tensions need resolution through defeat of Communism.

A remote corner of the Himalayas has become the unlikely scene of a major power standoff between China and India. Now entering its seventh week, the standoff centers on the tri-junction border shared by China, India, and Bhutan referred to as Doklam in India and Donglang in China. Neither side is spoiling for a fight, nor are they ready to back down anytime soon considering the security concerns, domestic political pressures, and regional reputational stakes. A series of quiet diplomatic interactions has not restrained the brinkmanship or ultimatums and the risk of a major armed clash between two Asian heavyweights remains.

China and India have sparred along the Himalayan border for decades, including a brief war (and clear Chinese victory) in 1962. In areas like Aksai Chin or Arunachal Pradesh, long-standing disputes still play out in regular diplomatic arguments. Yet until recently there seemed to be a settled status quo in the comparatively peaceful tri-national border area, which has special strategic significance, lying as it does above the 14-mile-wide Siliguri valley, or the “chicken’s neck,” that connects northeast India to the rest of the country. As it turns out, both sides had very different visions of just what that status quo was.

The clash of perceptions has left them both smarting, and dialed jingoistic language up to 11. To China, Doklam is its own sovereign territory based on treaties, tacit agreements, and de facto control. India considers Doklam a disputed territory and contends that any changes to the territory’s jurisdiction must be made in consultation with India per a 2012 understanding between the three parties.

Thus, when roughly 100 People’s Liberation Army (PLA) soldiers arrived on the Dolam plateau (an area within Doklam) on June 16 with bulldozers and earth moving machinery to improve and extend an existing Chinese road, a company-sized unit of Indian soldiers crossed into Dolam from a nearby Indian army post and interdicted the construction team. The Indian soldiers formed a “human chain” to physically obstruct the road-building project and urged the Chinese to “desist from changing the status quo.”

Since the Indian interdiction on June 18, PLA construction has halted and both sides remain at an impasse. Between 300-350 Indian troops have pitched tents near the standoff site and dug in for the long haul, supported by supply lines and 2,500 reinforcements. China recently threatened to move its own reinforcements into the area and conducted live-fire military exercises in Tibet. While Indian officials have voiced interest in dialogue, official Chinese statements demand India’s unconditional withdrawal before any talks can begin. After issuing a complaint against Chinese actions on June 20, Bhutan has otherwise remained studiously ambiguous as to its views of the standoff.

The Doklam standoff stems from China’s and India’s deep-seated suspicions about the other’s intentions. Conventional wisdom on international politics guides states to confront, not appease, those attempting to revise any status quo, lest it encourage further belligerence. But identifying exactly who the revisionist side is, and what the status quo was, is notoriously difficult in any case, because the definitions are vague and under-theorized. And it is especially hard amid the murky legacies of empire that make up the Himalayan frontiers.

For China, India’s military deployment into a disputed region is revising norms of sovereignty as well as long-standing public and private agreements. China believes its own actions and demands are sanctioned by existing agreements and understandings, and that India is subverting those agreements for unprecedented military deployments on foreign soil.

For India, China’s attempts to construct roads in disputed territories appears consistent with its previous “salami-slicing” maneuvers of unilaterally revising unsettled borders for territorial aggrandizement and expanded influence in the region. India believes China is deliberately exploiting the ambiguity of existing territorial disputes to expand its borders, influence, and offensive capability while its own actions are more explicitly legitimated by other treaties, arrangements, and security imperatives.

The historical and diplomatic ambiguity around the border has also created plenty of space for both sides to feel self-righteously aggrieved. China contends it has unquestioned sovereignty over Doklam based on an 1890 treaty between Great Britain and China delimiting the border between the Indian state of Sikkim and Tibet, as well as the boundary point with Bhutan. As both India and China have accepted this treaty, India had no legitimate grounds to cross the border and thus its actions constitute an “invasion” of Chinese territory. Secondly, China argues even if Doklam is disputed, India is still inappropriately interfering with and prejudicing a bilateral dispute between Bhutan and China.

India concedes its troops crossed an international border but into Bhutan, not China. India’s interdiction is furthermore justified by another treaty, India’s 2007 treaty of friendship with Bhutan, and both countries’ interest in halting China’s attempts to unilaterally revise the status quo. As several analysts have pointed out, the vagaries of colonial cartography and internal contradictions within the 1890 treaty mean it can actually be interpreted to support both Indian and Chinese claims.

Adding to the confusion is Bhutan’s ambiguous position. As a tiny Himalayan kingdom sandwiched between the region’s two major powers, Bhutan has enjoyed a “special relationship” with India since 1949 that some might describe more as suzerainty. While the 2007 India-Bhutan Friendship Treaty updates the 1949 agreement to accord Bhutan greater autonomy, India still wields considerable influence over Bhutan’s foreign policy. To justify its recent military actions, India has invoked an article which states that neither country will allow its territory to be used for activities that harm the other’s national security interests.

To date, however, Bhutan has yet to clarify whether India acted independently or at Bhutan’s request for military assistance in Doklam. China has argued that, absent a clear invitation, India lacks legitimate grounds for its involvement. India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has used more circumspect language like “coordination,” and has flubbed opportunities to clarify Bhutan’s request. It is possible Bhutan privately requested help or that India coerced its way into the dispute for its own security interests as it did in Sri Lanka in 1987.

Another point of contention is private diplomacy among the various actors. While not publicly brandished as justification, our sources suggest (and some reporting seems to corroborate) that PLA actions in Doklam may be based on a private understanding between China and Bhutan. Both countries have at least seven disputed territories between themselves and reports indicate Bhutan may have implicitly agreed to cede Doklam to China in the late 1990s — a period when China was busily cleaning up its frontiers — in favor of territorial gains on its northern border.

Thus, China deems its road-building in Doklam legitimate within this private, pre-settlement agreement, and fearing such a settlement, India’s military “invasion” seeks to challenge that agreement and Bhutan’s sovereignty. It is possible India was privy to this private Chinese-Bhutanese agreement over Doklam and may have tried to thwart it. Regardless, India would likely maintain that no formal agreement means no final settlement. In its diplomatic demarche to China on June 20, Bhutan stated that Chinese actions violated its 1988 and 1998 agreements prohibiting alteration of the status quo before the completion of negotiations. Moreover, another private and superseding 2012 agreement between India and China purportedly required the consultation of all three countries before a final determination on the tri-junction is made.

China also implicitly contends it has had a decades-long presence and effective jurisdiction over Doklam where Tibetan herdsman bring their livestock to graze. According to Chinese records, the PLA began patrolling Doklam once a year since 1975 and gradually extended its geographical coverage southward.

India argues the remoteness of Doklam, its harsh winters, and poor infrastructure mean China has not always exercised de facto control over the area. Bhutanese herdsman have also traditionally used Doklam as a grazing land, and security forces from all three countries have regularly patrolled the area, leading to occasional confrontations. China destroyed two Bhutanese military posts in 2007 and allegedly constructed Chinese posts at the same spot. One unofficial map circulated by Chinese bloggers even refers to a “line of actual control” between China and Bhutan, implying Bhutan exercises de facto control of Doklam.

China is also arguing that India’s actions are unprecedented. To China, India has not only interfered in a bilateral dispute but escalated it by deploying forces across a recognized international border into a third country. Indeed, even Indian observers have acknowledged Doklam is the first time India has engaged Chinese forces from the soil of a third country. Upending established norms of sovereignty through force in the name of self-defense could permit future “adventurism.”

Yet India’s argument is that it was responding to unprecedented Chinese revision of borders through road construction (both hardening and extension) in disputed territory. Such moves would create permanent facts on the ground with grave implications for Indian national security.

In our estimation, Chinese claims are vulnerable due to the ambiguity of treaty language, private agreements, and de facto possession claims. But Indian claims are by no means less vulnerable given the unprecedented nature of India’s actions on the plateau and Bhutan’s deafening silence. Both sides’ views of the status quo may appear to themselves entirely justifiable, yet to their adversary as thin gruel.

Seven weeks into the crisis, the continued impasse — and increasingly caustic rhetoric — indicates the potential for escalation remains high. The Indian national security advisor’s recent visit to Beijing did not yield any breakthroughs, contrary to some reporting. Aggressive signals of resolve like military exercises or mobilization or perceived windows of tactical opportunity in a different sector of the disputed India-China border could lead either side to miscalculate, resulting in accidental or inadvertent escalation. And any shooting that begins on the border could even expand into other domains like cyber- or naval warfare.

Despite the challenges, there are several possible resolutions in sight if both sides — and third parties trying to defuse tension — strive to understand what might seem like mutually incompatible perspectives.

For example, India could find alternative ways to grant Beijing a “win” by softening its position on China’s “One Belt, One Road” project, both sides could pursue international arbitration, or both sides could wait until harsh winter weather force both sides forces to quietly draw down.

Another “off ramp” to deescalate the crisis is a back-channel agreement with Bhutan appearing as the public arbiter, allowing both sides to save face. The most obvious solution, as many have identified, would be a mutual withdrawal and return to pre-June 16 positions – something which may already be slowly happening, as both draw back troops. For both sides to save face, the public narrative of their back-channel dialogue could rely on Bhutan.

For example, India could claim Bhutan “thanked” India for its support and commitment to upholding the bilateral friendship treaty, but after deploying its own monitoring force, Bhutan requests that India withdraw its forces. This would allow India to withdraw without appearing to bend to Chinese demands, send a message that China’s salami tactics will be challenged, and buttress its credibility with states concerned with Chinese encroachment. For its part, China can claim India withdrew first and quietly halt road construction until a final settlement is reached between itself and Bhutan. This would give all sides, including Bhutan, a face-saving exit necessary to appease domestic audiences. At the same time, India and China will have exchanged clear signals on just how serious they are about the border — and how dangerous assumptions about the other side can be.

Photo credit: DESHAKALYAN CHOWDHURY/AFP/Getty Images

The Cold War in Asia – The Battle Against Spread of Communism. Nations of Asia need to defeat Communism to resolve Border tensions and conflicts.

The Cold War in Asia – The Battle Against Spread of Communism. Border tensions and Border conflicts among Asian nations demand resolution through defeat of Communism.

NATURAL HISTORY OF TIBETAN PLATEAU – INDIA’S TIBET POLICY

NATURAL HISTORY OF TIBETAN PLATEAU – INDIA’S TIBET POLICY

India’s Tibet Policy must reflect reality of Tibet as established by Natural History of Tibetan Plateau. This reality of Tibet cannot be rewritten. To defend Democracy, Freedom, Peace, and Justice, India has to contain, restrain, oppose, and confront the problem posed by expansion of Communism in Asia. India as a democratic nation must pursue Tibet Policy using standards of Transparency and Public Accountability. The Cold War in Asia remains Unfinished and yet there is no need for Cold War Era secret diplomacy.

Rudranarasimham Rebbapragada

DOOM DOOMA DOOMSAYER

India should support Tibet’s historical status as an Independent country: Former Defence Minister

July 20, 2017

Posted in News Flash

By Staff Writer

(L) Mulayam Singh Yadav speaking in Lok Sabha, (R) Map/FreeTibet

New Delhi: Samajwadi Party leader and former Defence Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav on Wednesday raised the issue of Tibet in the Parliament. India’s former Defence Minister said that India’s stand on Tibet, a reference to its acceptance that the region was part of China, was a “mistake” and the time has come to support its status as an historically independent country as it had been a traditional buffer between the two big nations.

He also urged the Indian Central Government to give maximum support to His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

Speaking during the zero hour, Yadav called China India’s “real enemy” rather than Pakistan and claimed that China was ready to attack India in collaboration with Pakistan.

“If need be, we should have a rethink on diplomatic relations with China,” Yadav said.

The veteran leader also demanded a “ban on Chinese products in India in the nation’s interest”.

2017 Central Tibetan Administration

Inserted from <http://tibet.net/2017/07/india-should-support-tibets-historical-status-as-an-independent-country-former-defence-minister/>

SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE WELCOMES RESTORATION OF US AID FOR TIBET

SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE WELCOMES RESTORATION OF US AID FOR TIBET

Special Frontier Force Welcomes Restoration of US Aid For Tibet. During The Cold War Era, India and the United States worked together to promote Democracy, Freedom, and Justice to contain spread of Communism in Asia.

Special Frontier Force Welcomes Restoration of US Aid For Tibet. Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru at the tomb of Unknown Soldier. US Aid For Tibet remains Unknown due to secret diplomacy.

On behalf of Special Frontier Force, I welcome restoration of US Aid for Tibet. During 1948-49, The Cold War Era, United States commenced US Aid for Tibet in response to threat posed by spread of Communism in Asia. US Aid for Tibet began during presidency of Harry Truman, and continued by Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and all other US Presidents including Richard M. Nixon who initiated diplomatic relations with Communist China in 1972.

Special Frontier Force Welcomes Restoration of US Aid For Tibet. US President Dwight D. Eisenhower partnered with India to defend Freedom, Democracy, and Peace in Asia.

Special Frontier Force Welcomes Restoration of US Aid For Tibet. US President Dwight D. Eisenhower visited India from 09 December to 14 December, 1959 in support of Democracy, Freedom, and Peace in Asia.

Special Frontier Force Welcomes Restoration of US Aid For Tibet. During his December 1959 visit, US President Dwight D. Eisenhower announced his plan, ‘Crusade for Peace’ to defend Democracy and Freedom.

I recall President Eisenhower’s historical visit to India from 09 December to 14 December, 1959. Indians received President Eisenhower with great sense of warmth and hailed him as ‘Prince of Peace’. India, and the United States must continue their partnership to restore Freedom, Democracy, Peace, and Justice in South Asia and work together to restore Natural Order, Natural Balance, Natural Equilibrium, Natural Peace, Natural Freedom, Natural Harmony, and Natural Tranquility in Occupied Tibet.

Rudranarasimham Rebbapragada

Ann Arbor, MI 48104-4162, USA

SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE

CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE MOVES TO RESTORE US AID FOR TIBET

Clipped from: http://www.indiatvnews.com/news/world-congressional-committee-moves-to-restore-us-aid-for-tibet-392198

The appropriations will be effective for the next fiscal beginning October 1.

Special Frontier Force Welcomes Restoration of US Aid For Tibet to defend Freedom, Democracy, Peace, and Justice.

Reversing the Trump administration’s move to slash aid to Tibetans to zero, a key Congressional committee has approved a bill to maintain the decades-old American policy of providing financial assistance for Tibet and support “democracy and human rights programmes”. The administration, in its maiden budget proposal in May, had cut the US aid to Tibet to zero, resulting in a huge disappointment to the large Tibetan community around the world.

Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi had then expressed concern over the move. The US State Department, however, had described the decision as one of the “tough choices” it had to make as its budget itself had been slashed by more than 28 per cent. But in a report accompanying the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill 2018, the House Appropriations Committee said it “continues to support democracy and human rights programmes for Tibet” and that “not less than the amounts provided in fiscal year 2017” be continued for such purposes.

The appropriations will be effective for the next fiscal beginning October 1.

The committee’s recommendation includes USD 1 million for the Office of the Special Coordinator for Tibetan issues. Noting that the Tibetan language services of ‘Voice of America’ and ‘Radio Free Asia’ (RFA) provide the only sources of independent information accessible to the people of Tibet, the committee recommendation provides USD 42 million for RFA, including funds to continue the Tibetan language service.

It also recommended USD 8 million – same as the 2017 fiscal year – to support activities that preserve cultural traditions and promote sustainable development and environmental conservation among Tibetan communities in the Tibetan Autonomous Region and other Tibetan autonomous areas in China.

Noting that Tibetans in South Asia face developmental challenges, it has proposed USD 6 million to continue to support the community in India and Nepal in the areas of education, skills development and entrepreneurship.

The House Appropriations Committee in its report supported the continued allocation of funds to assist Tibetan refugees in Nepal and India – commensurate with prior years. The committee expressed concerns over the reports that Nepal has handed over Tibetan refugees to Chinese border authorities, in contravention of Kathmandu’s international obligations to protect refugees fleeing persecution.

“The committee supports efforts by the Secretary of State to work with the Government of Nepal to provide safe transit for Tibetan refugees and legal protections to Tibetans residing in Nepal,” the report said.

An ‘Economic Support Fund’ will be made available for programmes to preserve Tibetan culture, development, and the resilience of Tibetan communities in India and Nepal, and to assist in the education and development of the next generation of Tibetan leaders from such communities, according to the bill.

According to a CRS report, the total financial assistance to the Tibetan cause was more than USD 24 million in 2014. Since 2014, there has been a gradual decline in Tibetan funding. The House Appropriations Committee, however, proposes to reverse that trend.

Special Frontier Force Welcomes Restoration of US Aid For Tibet which started during 1948-49 in response to the spread of Communism in Asia.

Special Frontier Force Welcomes Restoration of US Aid For Tibet which dates back to presidency of Truman and Eisenhower. Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru in Washington DC meeting US President Eisenhower.

Special Frontier Force Welcomes Restoration of US Aid For Tibet. Special Frontier Force traces its beginning at Camp Hale, Colorado.

Special Frontier Force Welcomes Restoration of US Aid For Tibet.

RED CHINA CONDUCTS LIVE-FIRE DRILL IN TIBET – BEIJING DOOMED – FIRE WILL RAIN FROM SKY

RED CHINA CONDUCTS LIVE-FIRE DRILL IN TIBET – BEIJING DOOMED – FIRE WILL RAIN FROM SKY

Red China conducted Live-Fire Drill in Tibet to demonstrate her readiness for battlefield action in Tibet. In my analysis, Beijing’s Doom arrives as Fire Falling from Heaven, when Fire will Rain From Sky.

Rudranarasimham Rebbapragada

DOOM DOOMA DOOMSAYER

WAS CHINA’S MILITARY DRILL IN TIBET JUST AN EXERCISE IN LOGISTICS? – SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST

Clipped from: http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2103135/was-chinas-military-drill-tibet-really-just-exercise

Thousands of tons of equipment have been moved into the region since the start of a border dispute with India

A convoy of military trucks is seen heading for Tibet. Photo: Handout

China has moved tens of thousands of tons of military vehicles and equipment into Tibet since it became locked in a border dispute with India, according to state media.

The vast haul was transported to a region south of the Kunlun Mountains in northern Tibet by the Western Theatre Command – which oversees the restive regions of Xinjiang and Tibet, and handles border issues with India – the PLA Daily, the official mouthpiece of China’s military reported.

The project took place late last month and involved hardware being moved simultaneously by road and rail from across the entire region, the report said.

A medical van waits at a checkpoint. Photo: Handout

On Monday, state broadcaster CCTV reported that Chinese troops had taken part in a military exercise using live ammunition on the Tibetan plateau. The location was not far from where Chinese and Indian forces remain locked in a stand-off over a disputed border area at the tri-junction with Bhutan.

The PLA Daily report did not say whether the movement of the military equipment was to support the exercise or for other reasons.

This standoff is China telling India to accept changing realities

Ni Lexiong, a Shanghai-based military commentator, suggested it was most likely related to the stand-off and could have been designed to bring India to the negotiating table.

“Diplomatic talks must be backed by military preparation,” he said.

Another observer told the South China Morning Post earlier that the show of strength was likely a warning to India.

A soldier refuels his truck. Photo: Handout

“The PLA wanted to demonstrate it could easily overpower its Indian counterparts,” said Beijing-based military commentator Zhou Chenming.

Why is Asia locked in a competition to be ‘most humiliated nation’?

Wang Dehua, an expert on South Asia studies at the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies, said the scale of the troop and equipment movement showed how much easier it now was for China to defend its western borders.

“Military operations are all about logistics,” he said. “Now there is much better logistics support to the Tibet region.”

The military released details of the massive logistical exercise via its newspaper. Photo: Handout

In a reference to a comment made by India’s Defence minister Arun Jaitley that “this is not India in 1962”, Wang added that “China is also different from [how it was in] 1962”.

Despite China’s military superiority in the Sino-Indian border war of 1962, logistics difficulties contributed to it pulling back and declaring a unilateral ceasefire.

Now, however, the military can “easily transport troops and supplies to the frontline, thanks to the much-improved infrastructure including the Qinghai-Tibet railway and other new roads connecting the plateau to the rest part of China”, Wang said.

U.S. Congress re-introduces “Reciprocal Access to Tibet Act” amidst rise in tensions over the Dalai Lama’s travels

“RECIPROCAL ACCESS TO TIBET ACT” ENGAGES, CONTAINS, CONFRONTS, AND OPPOSES THE DOCTRINE OF COMMUNISM

Reciprocal Access to Tibet Act seeks unrestricted access to Tibet for its purpose is to engage, contain, confront, and oppose the Doctrine of Communism.

Rudranarasimham Rebbapragada

DOOM DOOMA DOOMSAYER

U.S. CONGRESS RE-INTRODUCES “RECIPROCAL ACCESS TO TIBET ACT” AMIDST RISE IN TENSIONS OVER THE DALAI LAMA’S TRAVELS

Clipped from: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/americanbuddhist/2017/05/u-s-congress-re-introduces-reciprocal-access-tibet-act-amidst-tensions-dalai-lamas-travels-rise.html

In the long shadow of the recent Trump-Xi meeting lingers a bill in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate that seeks to guarantee open access to Tibet for American citizens. Introduced just before the meeting early last month, the bill seeks greater access to the region for U.S. officials, journalists, and other citizens. The bill finds that, despite claims of openness by the Chinese government, heavy restrictions and frequent denial of travel documents has been observed, especially in attempts to visit the Tibetan region.

Senators Marco Rubio and Tammy Baldwin, described by Tenzin Monlam as “longtime supporters of Tibet,” introduced the bill in the Senate while Congressmen Jim McGovern and Randy Hultgren introduced it in the House of Representatives. (Phayul)

However, this is not the first attempt to pass this bill, with previous attempts in 2014 and 2015. And like previous attempts, this one seems unlikely to move forward as the nation’s collective attention jumps from North Korea to Health Care to the upcoming French elections.

Nevertheless, speaking to India’s The Sunday Guardian, the Tibetan government-in-exile spokesperson and Secretary, Department of Information and International Relations, Sonam Dagpo said. “[The] Central Tibetan Administration welcomes the US Congress bill to have reciprocal access to Tibetan areas. We are also grateful to the government and people of India for its support in the preservation and promotion of Tibetan language, culture and religion. India’s assistance in the education of Tibetan children will go a long way in the struggle of the Tibetan people.” (The Sunday Guardian)

The bill comes at a time of continued disagreement between China and other world powers over Tibet and the activities of the most renowned Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama has caused alarm by Beijing officials with his recent visit to the India-China border region of Tawang in Arunachal Pradesh. Arunachal Pradesh is officially a state in India, though Chinese officials believe that much of it belongs to China.

Tawang, India, Dalai Lama via Wikimedia Commons, modified.

Meanwhile, the Dalai Lama himself has sought to dispel tensions in his teachings. The day before his visit to Tawang, the Dalai Lama, at a public address, spoke of his discomfort with rising intolerance and stressed the need for mutual respect and concern and for social well-being. (The Diplomat)

Back in the United States, the Dalai Lama’s planned June commencement speech at U.C. San Diego sparked anger in many Chinese students attending the university. The Chinese Students and Scholars Association, after consulting with the Chinese consulate issued the following statement, borrowing from themes of inclusivity and respect common among campus activist groups:

UCSD is a place for students to cultivate their minds and enrich their knowledge. Currently, the various actions undertaken by the university have contravened the spirit of respect, tolerance, equality, and earnestness—the ethos upon which the university is built. These actions have also dampened the academic enthusiasm of Chinese students and scholars. If the university insists on acting unilaterally and inviting the Dalai Lama to give a speech at the graduation ceremony, our association vows to take further measures to firmly resist the university’s unreasonable behavior. (Quartz)

Countering this, the International Campaign for Tibet issued a statement supporting the university, saying that, “By objecting to the invitation to the Dalai Lama, the CSSA of UC San Diego is doing the work of the Chinese government. The University of [California], San Diego’s invitation to the Dalai Lama is a reflection of the tremendous American public interest in and support for his thoughts and vision for the broader world…” In an interview with Inside Higher Ed, Robert Barnett, a Columbia University scholar of Tibet, echoed these sentiments, asking, “Does the university accept to be bullied by the foreign government in terms of who it selects as a speaker, especially when that subject of that foreign government’s bullying is almost certainly, without any serious question of all, not deserving of that bullying and is certainly being misrepresented and indeed demonized by the Chinese government? Do we allow the Chinese government’s propaganda to dictate major cultural decisions in other countries?” (Inside Higher Ed)

In their announcement to host the Dalai Lama, university Chancellor Pradeep K. Khosla said: “We are honored to host His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama at UC San Diego and thankful that he will share messages of global compassion with our graduates and their families, as well as with a broad public audience. A man of peace, the Dalai Lama promotes global responsibility and service to humanity. These are the ideals we aim to convey and instill in our students and graduates at UC San Diego.” (UCSD News)

Currently there are no plans to cancel the invitation, which will constitute the Dalai Lama’s first stop on his 2017 U.S. tour.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr1872/text/ih

http://www.phayul.com/mobile/?page=view&c=1&id=38888

http://thediplomat.com/2017/04/the-dalai-lamas-tawang-visit-the-aftermath/

https://qz.com/908922/chinese-students-at-ucsd-are-evoking-diversity-to-justify-their-opposition-to-the-dalai-lamas-graduation-speech/

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/02/16/some-chinese-students-uc-san-diego-condemn-choice-dalai-lama-commencement-speaker

http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/feature/tenzin_gyatso_his_holiness_the_14th_dalai_lama_to_speak_at_uc_san_diego

MISSION IMPOSSIBLE – THE DANGERS OF COVERT OPERATIONS

MISSION IMPOSSIBLE – THE DANGERS OF COVERT OPERATIONS

A fundamental feature of Democratic Governance is that of Transparency and Public Accountability. Democratic nations need to conduct foreign relations in transparent manner with due public support for such relations of either friendship or adversity.

Peoples’ Republic of China adheres to the doctrine of Communism and may conduct her national affairs without Transparency and Public Accountability.

While I appreciate the need for gathering “Intelligence,” the United States must abide by the Principle of Transparency and Public Accountability. There should be no doubts in the minds of US citizens about the resolve of United States to oppose, contain, engage, and confront the doctrine of Communism.

Rudranarasimham Rebbapragada

DOOM DOOMA DOOMSAYER

MISSION IMPLAUSIBLE! CHINA MEDIA CLAIMS ‘VICTORY’ OVER US SPY KILLINGS, BUT RIDICULES REPORT

Clipped from: http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/mission-implausible-china-media-claims-victory-over-us-spy-killings-but-ridicules-report/ar-BBBnInB#image=BBofhHi|17

© Jason Reed/Reuters. The logo of the US Central Intelligence Agency is shown in the lobby of the CIA headquarters in Langley An influential Chinese newspaper claimed a “sweeping victory” after a report that Beijing’s intelligence agencies had killed or jailed more than a dozen covert sources who supplied information for the CIA.

But the state-run Global Times also dismissed the dramatic account of China’s dismantling of US spying activities as a Mission Impossible-style fantasy.

The New York Times reported on Saturday that US intelligence agencies suffered their biggest setback in decades between late 2010 and the end of 2012 when China uncovered their spying network in the country.

Intelligence officials never discovered whether the US was betrayed by a mole within the CIA or whether the Chinese hacked a covert system used by the CIA to communicate with foreign sources, the report said.

“We would like to applaud China’s anti-espionage activities,” said the Global Times, which often publishes nationalist editorials.

“Not only was the CIA’s spy network dismantled, but Washington had no idea what happened and which part of the spy network had gone wrong.

“It can be taken as a sweeping victory. Perhaps it means even if the CIA makes efforts to rebuild its spy network in China, it could face the same result.”

The most chilling detail in the NYT report – which cited 10 anonymous current and former security officers – was that Chinese agents shot a CIA source in front of colleagues, in an apparent deterrent to others.

However, that detail was rejected by the Global Times, a newspaper which is published by the People’s Daily, the Communist Party’s official mouthpiece newspaper.

“That is a purely fabricated story,” the newspaper said. “Most likely a piece of American-style imagination based on ideology.”

The editorial, which appeared in both the Chinese and English-language editions, then goes on to ridicule the report, accusing the New York Times journalists of watching too many Hollywood spy-thrillers.

“The NYT report seems to be a white-knuckle beginning for a new version of Mission: Impossible: American spies who worked in China disappeared, and some of them died miserably,” it said.

“However, no one knew the reason for their deaths. The journalists who wrote the report must have been deeply addicted to the franchise.”

Hu Xijin, the Global Times’ editor, repeated the claim that the world of espionage was being over-dramatized by the New York Times in a video that was posted by the newspaper on Sina Weibo, China’s version of Twitter.

The video also included publicity pictures from Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, a 2011 blockbuster starring Tom Cruise and Simon Pegg.

Mr. Hu said: “The New York Times report depicted government buildings as places of executions, which is divorced from China’s reality.”

The New York Times’s website is blocked in China, but many people have posted comments about the report on Chinese social media.

“I will put my hands up and support the shooting of these spies,” said one Weibo comment. “Anyone who has sold their souls should not only be executed, but their bodies should not be buried and instead fed to wild dogs.”

Other comments reminded the netizen that Chinese spies were also operating abroad.

Related: People you didn’t know were spies (Provided by Microsoft GES)

It is the 70th anniversary of the National Intelligence Authority on Jan. 22, 2016. The authority was a committee set up to monitor the Central Intelligence Group (CIG) which was later absorbed into the Central Intelligence Authority (CIA) in 1947. On this occasion, we take a look at some famous people you might not have known were spies at some point of their lives.

Josephine Baker

The celebrated American-born French dancer-actress worked as a spy for the French Resistance during World War II. She leveraged her celebrity status to get close to high-ranking Japanese and Italian officials and extract information from them. She would sneak secret messages in invisible ink on her music sheets and help smuggle people to safety. She was awarded the Medal of the Resistance with Rosette and named a Chevalier of the Legion of Honor by the French government. At her death, Baker became the first American woman buried in France with military honors.

Cary Grant

During the Second World War, the United States government was suspicious of the presence of Axis sympathizers in the homeland, especially within the entertainment industry. This led the intelligence agencies reaching out to producers and actors to keep an ear to the ground and matinee idol Cary Grant was one of them. His most sensational reveal was that fellow actor Errol Flynn was allegedly a Nazi sympathizer and even wrote letters of support to Hitler.

Julia Child

Before she became a celebrated chef and cookbook author of French cuisine, Julia Child was employed at the Office of Strategic Services. Initially hired as a clerk, she later went on to work as a researcher assisting in the development of a shark repellent to keep undersea predators away from explosives. She was also posted to Sri Lanka and China, where her responsibilities included transcribing classified information from listening posts.

Greta Garbo

The Swedish-born Hollywood actress was one of the greatest screen stars during the ’20s and ’30s. However, she suddenly quit films in 1941 and became famously reclusive. It was believed that she started working with MI6 during this time and was tasked with gathering information on one of the world’s richest men, Swedish millionaire industrialist Axel Wenner-Gren. She allegedly played a pivotal role in smuggling physicist Niels Bohr from Copenhagen to Britain; Bohr went onto develop the atomic bomb later.

Roald Dahl

The author of “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” was a Royal Air Force pilot during World War II before a near-fatal accident rendered him unfit for flying operations. He was next posted at the British embassy in Washington, D.C. at a desk job, using his flair for language to pen British propaganda for American newspapers. Dahl quickly established himself as a ladies’ man in the elite society and was tasked with developing friendships with influential women, or the wives of powerful men, to find out American secrets and information.

Ian Fleming

The creator of secret service agent James Bond was a spy himself. Fleming worked as a British Naval intelligence officer during World War II, maintaining communications between the admiralty and the branch of intelligence tasked with sabotage behind enemy lines. Given his skills, he was involved in drawing up a detailed organizational chart for setting up the Office of Strategic Services — an early version of the CIA created during World War II by President Franklin Roosevelt. In 1942, he was put in charge of a commando group called the 30 Assault Unit that would accompany infantry advances to seize documents from enemy headquarters.

Noel Coward

The flamboyant playwright, composer, director, actor and singer of the ’40s was trained along with Ian Fleming in covert action at Bletchley Park. He was later appointed the head of the British Secret Service bureau in Paris to liaise with the French Ministry of Information. Talking about his wartime espionage work, Coward once said, “Celebrity was wonderful cover. My disguise would be my own reputation as a bit of an idiot…a merry playboy.”

Marlene Dietrich

One of the most glamorous leading ladies of the ’30s and ’40s, the German singer-actress was considered a spy in her adopted homeland of the United States, despite entertaining U.S. troops during the war and abandoning Nazi Germany. According to declassified FBI files, there was a formal espionage investigation against her from 1942 to 1944 at the order of then FBI boss J. Edgar Hoover. Dietrich attempted to win the trust of FBI officials by volunteering to spy for America instead. Her role involved “collecting observations about subversive activities in Europe” while on trips to the front to entertain the troops.

Christopher Lee

The iconic Hollywood actor was recruited to the Special Operations Executive, a top-secret group organized to conduct sabotage and espionage actions in occupied Europe during World War II. The details of Lee’s missions during this time are still classified. “I was attached to the Special Air Service from time to time but we are forbidden — former, present, or future — to discuss any specific operations. Let’s just say I was in Special Forces and leave it at that. People can read in to that what they like,” he said in an interview in 2011.

Frank Sinatra

While many believe that the legendary singer had strong Mafia connections, his association with the CIA is a fact not many are aware of. According to his daughter, the secret service agency agreed to overlook Sinatra’s mafia ties in lieu of his working as a CIA courier — smuggling documents and even people in his private jet on cross-country or cross-Atlantic flights.

Harry Houdini

The master escape artist assisted British and American intelligence agencies with information gathered during his traveling magic acts throughout Europe. He had a significant fan following in the German and Russian elite society who would unknowingly spill war details to the magician during after-parties which Houdini would pass on to the secret agencies.

Arthur J. Goldberg

The former associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States worked for the Office of Strategic Services during the Second World War. He took a break from practicing law during the war and started developing an information-gathering network behind enemy lines across Europe.

John Ford

The multiple Oscar-winning director was a naval reserve officer before making films. While working as a secret agent during WWII, he alerted the agency about a suspected Japanese presence near the coastal areas of Baja in northwestern Mexico. Later, Ford directed many U.S. wartime propaganda films.

Charles Luciano

As the head of the powerful Genovese family, Charles “Lucky” Luciano was the undisputed boss of organized crime on the U.S. East Coast during the ’40s. However, he was sentenced for 50 years for promoting prostitution. Luciano offered to work as a conduit in the search for information about saboteurs who sank a French liner at the New York City dock in exchange for a commuted sentence. The association proved to be a success, and the mobster’s services were sought again ahead of the Allied invasion of Sicily. Luciano was subsequently released after serving just 10 years of his sentence and deported to Italy.

Moe Berg

Graduating from Princeton University with a degree in modern languages and a law degree from Columbia University, the U.S.-born Major League Baseball catcher was often dubbed “the brainiest man in baseball.” During WWII, he became an officer at the Office of Strategic Services where one of his assignments was to assassinate Werner Heisenberg, the head of Nazi Germany’s atom-bomb project. The plan was eventually called off.

Sterling Hayden

The tall, handsome actor was dubbed “The Most Beautiful Man in the Movies” by Paramount Pictures. However, after appearing in two films, Hayden went on to join the U.S. Marine Corps under the name John Hamilton. He was subsequently commissioned as an undercover agent during WWII. His role during the period involved shipping supplies to Nazi-resistant groups in Yugoslavia and parachuting into Croatia.

17/17 SLIDES