NEVER FORGET JUNE 04, 1989 – BEIJING DOOMED
NEVER FORGET JUNE 04, 1989 – TIANANMEN ANNIVERSARY – BEIJING DOOMED
I ask my readers to remember events of June 04, 1989. Beijing Doomed because of her own evil actions.
LEARN FROM US ON DEMOCRACY, TAIWAN TELLS CHINA ON TIANANMEN ANNIVERSARY
Sun Jun 4, 2017 | 8:49am EDT
A paramilitary policeman keeps watch underneath the portrait of former Chinese Chairman Mao Zedong in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square, China June 4, 2017. REUTERS/Thomas Peter
By J.R. Wu and Katy Wong
| TAIPEI/HONG KONG
Taiwan’s president on Sunday offered to help China to transition to democracy, on the 28th anniversary of China’s bloody crackdown on pro-democracy protests in and around Beijing’s Tiananmen Square, as thousands gathered in Hong Kong for an evening vigil.
Nearly three decades after Beijing sent tanks and troops to quell the 1989 pro-democracy, student-led protests, Chinese authorities ban any public commemoration of the subject on the mainland and have yet to release an official death toll.
Hong Kong, a former British colony that returned to Chinese rule in 1997, is the only place on Chinese soil where a large-scale commemoration takes place, symbolizing the financial hub’s relative freedoms compared with the mainland.
This year’s events are especially politically charged, coming just a month before an expected visit of President Xi Jinping to mark 20 years since Hong Kong was handed back to China.
“When Xi Jinping comes, he’ll know the people of Hong Kong have not forgotten,” said Lee Cheuk-yan, a veteran democracy activist and an organizer of the annual candlelight vigil.
“The students who died still haven’t got what they deserve. They fought for their future, in the same way we’re fighting for our future,” 17-year-old Yanny Chan, a high school student, said.
In Taiwan, President Tsai Ing-wen said that the biggest gap between Taiwan and China was democracy and freedom, needling Beijing at a time when relations between China and the self-ruled island are at a low point.
“For democracy: some are early, others are late, but we all get there in the end,” Tsai said, writing in Chinese on her Facebook page and tweeting some of her comments in English on Twitter.
“Borrowing on Taiwan’s experience, I believe that China can shorten the pain of democratic reform.”
Beijing distrusts Tsai and her ruling Democratic Progressive Party because it traditionally advocates independence for Taiwan. Beijing says the island is part of China and has never renounced the use of force to bring it under its control.
After nearly 40 years of martial law, the island in the late 1980s began its own transition to democracy with presidential elections being held since 1996.
On Friday, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said China had long ago reached a conclusion about June 4.
“I hope you can pay more attention to the positive changes happening in all levels of Chinese society,” she said without elaborating.
In Beijing, security was tight as usual at Tiananmen Square, with long lines at bag and identity checks. The square itself was peaceful, thronged with tourists taking photos.
One elderly resident of a nearby neighborhood, out for stroll at the edge of the square, said he remembered the events of 28 years ago clearly.
“The soldiers were just babies, 18, 19 years old. They didn’t know what they were doing,” he told Reuters, asking to be identified only by his family name, Sun.
While some search terms on China’s popular Twitter-like microblog Weibo appeared to be blocked on Sunday, some users were able to post cryptic messages.
“Never forget,” wrote one, above a picture of mahjong tiles with the numbers 6 and 4 on them, for the month and day of the anniversary.
(Reporting by J.R. Wu; Additional reporting by Ben Blanchard and Philip Wen in BEIJING; Venus Wu and James Pomfret in HONG KONG; Editing by Tony Munroe, Kim Coghill and Jane Merriman)
Reuters is the news and media division of Thomson Reuters. Thomson Reuters is the world’s largest international multimedia news agency, providing investing news, world news, business news, technology news, headline news, small business news, news alerts, personal finance, stock market, and mutual funds information available on Reuters.com, video, mobile, and interactive television platforms. Learn more about Thomson Reuters products:
Inserted from <http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-tiananmen-idUSKBN18V06C>
TIBET EQUILIBRIUM vs THUCYDIDES TRAP – UNFINISHED VIETNAM WAR
Special Frontier Force represents military organization that symbolizes ‘Unfinished Vietnam War’. The US fought bloody War in Vietnam to contain, to engage, to confront, and to oppose the spread of Communism in South Asia. Red China’s Evil actions Destined US-China War. ‘Tibet Equilibrium’ is good reason to fight Unfinished Vietnam War to its rightful conclusion.
Could the U.S. and China end up in a terrible war that neither wants?
May 30 at 6:00 AM
Chinese troops marching to commemorate the 70th Anniversary of the ‘Victory of Chinese People’s Resistance against Japanese Aggression and World Anti-Fascist War’ at Tiananmen Square in Beijing on Sept. 3, 2015. China planned to increase its defense budget in 2016 by 7 to 8 percent (European Pressphoto Agency/Rolex Dela Pena/poll/file)
Is a dangerous pattern emerging in U.S.-China relations? International relations scholar Graham Allison coined the term “Thucydides Trap” in 2012 to explain how a rising power can instill fear in an existing power, leading to hostility and mistrust that can escalate into war.
In his new book, Allison argues that China and the United States are falling into this trap, which owes its name to Greek historian Thucydides’s famous history of the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta, which proved disastrous for both sides. Fast-forward a couple of millennia, and some observers worry that Washington and Beijing are heading toward the same fate.
But the focus on whether the United States and China will follow this path has obscured another insight from Thucydides’ classic work, “The Peloponnesian War” — how the geography of East Asia would shape what a U.S.-China war might look like, and just how dangerous and destructive such a war may be.
There is another way to look at rising powers
The Thucydides Trap we often see in debates about rising powers is actually a simple version of power transition theory, which dates back to the 1950s. The idea is that a war between great powers is more likely when a rising state seeks to topple the international pecking order. It is easy to see why this idea might be applicable to contemporary U.S.-China relations.
There are other ways to view the situation. Some scholars have argued that things may be more stable when two leading powers are at similar strength; others argue that the sources of war lie elsewhere. And the empirical record does not provide a lot of evidence that rising and dominant powers fight directly, or for the reasons that power transition theorists suggest. This leads some scholars to suggest that the power transition model is a poor guide to understanding U.S.-China relations.
None of this discussion means that U.S. and Chinese analysts should ignore Thucydides, although perhaps they should look for inspiration from other parts of his book.
The other Thucydides Trap isn’t pretty
Thucydides is best remembered for his short argument about the causes of war, but he said much more about its conduct. His insights are quite relevant for a hypothetical clash between the United States and China. This is especially the case in his commentary on the first few years of the Peloponnesian War, where he describes how Athens and Sparta stumbled into a protracted fight that neither side expected.
How they got there has to do with a very different kind of Thucydides trap. They wanted a quick victory, and they wanted to avoid their respective enemies’ comparative military advantages. Both opponents fell victim to delusions about bloodless victory without hard fighting. After their early efforts failed, they faced a terrible dilemma: capitulate or settle into a long and uncertain war.
And both sides faced the same basic challenge when the war began in 431 B.C. — how to avoid engaging on terms that favored the enemy. Sparta (like China today) was a dominant land power while Athens was the dominant naval power (like today’s United States). Sparta needed to figure out how to defeat Athens without challenging its navy directly. Meanwhile, Athens needed Sparta to concede without taking the risk of a pitched battle on land against the formidable Spartan army.
Neither side had a good solution — but they pursued operational fantasies about how to win without having to challenge the enemy’s main area of strength. Athens wanted to use its navy to assist land forces that would conduct raids on Sparta’s allies, while simultaneously encouraging a slave insurrection in the Spartan homeland. Sparta, for its part, thought that others would take on the Athenian navy on its behalf — and then it could focus instead on fighting on land.
Not much came out of these plans for the first few years. As long as Sparta and Athens were unwilling to challenge their counterparts directly, neither was able to hurt the enemy enough to force surrender. Neither side was willing to back down. And because they could both retreat to reliable sanctuaries — Sparta on land, Athens at sea — they didn’t need to seek terms.
A toxic blend of geography and politics conspired against the Greek great powers, and the result was an exhausting war that no one wanted. Geography enabled retreat, while political pressures encouraged continued fighting. Meanwhile the military balance held, with Sparta dominant on land and Athens controlling the water. What followed were years of costly but indecisive campaigns. Neither side was strong enough to win — nor weak enough to lose.
Geography would factor into any U.S.-China war
Here’s how this applies to U.S.-China relations today. As I explain in a forthcoming article in the Journal of Strategic Studies, the United States and China risk slipping into this pattern.
War is far from inevitable, of course. But if it did break out, the United States and China — like Athens and Sparta — would each be able to retreat safely in the event of early wartime setbacks. When we read about potential flash points that could spark a confrontation, especially over Taiwan and disputed maritime claims, this geographic risk lurks in the background.
Wartime setbacks that send each side retreating to its safe haven are possible, perhaps even likely, given that both sides are placing their bets on elaborate plans to win quickly. In this scenario, China and the United States would each put a premium on interfering with the other’s communications and blinding its intelligence capabilities to inject confusion on the battlefield and make it hard to coordinate complex operations.
For the United States, the goal would be to seize the initiative, ensuring freedom of movement in the waters near the Chinese mainland, overcoming anti-access weapons, and buying time for superior reinforcements to arrive in the region. For China, it means forcing the United States to fight farther from the shore, which might prevent it from effectively defending its regional allies and partners.
These plans might sound good in theory, but both sides are investing in efforts to secure their communications against debilitating attacks. The normal fog and friction of war also work against operational plans that depend on precise attacks with little margin for error. Leaders might also become so concerned about nuclear escalation that they scale back their opening moves, further decreasing their effectiveness. For all these reasons, both sides may end up disappointed by the result of the first volley.
A quick political settlement might be the rational response in this case, but the fact that both sides were willing to take the gigantic risk of war suggests they will find it hard to stomach the prospect of backing down, especially if they haven’t suffered many casualties. This is a recipe for a long and grinding war.
This is the kind of Thucydides trap that looms over any U.S.-China conflict. Geography, politics and the maritime-land balance in East Asia create a situation likely to lead to prolonged fighting. The central task for strategists is figuring out how to escape it. If they cannot, the only alternative is avoiding war in the first place.
Joshua Rovner holds the John Goodwin Tower Distinguished Chair in National Security and International Politics at Southern Methodist University, where he also serves as director of the Security and Strategy Program (SAS@SMU).
10:32 AM EDT
On behalf of Special Frontier Force, I confirm the possibility of war between the US and China. We wanted to fight this War to relieve pressure on the US Armed Forces fighting bloody war in Vietnam. President Nixon-Kissinger continued using bombing campaign while knowing that it was not effective. Special Frontier Force as a military organization symbolizes the Unfinished Vietnam War. US was fighting against the spread of Communism in South Asia. The fall of Soviet Union has not eliminated the problem of Power Equilibrium in Asia. If not the tensions of South and North China Sea disputes, the great problem of ‘Tibet Equilibrium’ will be a good reason to check, to contain, to engage, and to oppose Red China.
10:20 AM EDT
Odd that it does not include North Korea in the discussion. The most likely scenario is a US – N. Korea conflict with China taking sides with N Korea. But that does not fit the simplistic model of dominant vs challenging state that is the book’s theme.
10:46 AM EDT
Tibet is the second largest nation of this region sharing border with China. In terms of size, Tibet is second to China. Korea receives plenty of media attention. The problem of Balance of Power demands action to accomplish ‘Tibet Equilibrium’.
7:54 AM EDT
I don’t see how the US and China could stumble onto war. What’s the motive for a war when there is so much trade going between these 2 countries? There is no common border between the two, no known historical animosity between the two people, no known problem that only a war could solve. The Taiwan problem is likely to be solved sometime in the future by the Chinese themselves. If the US wanted to defend Taiwan in the first place, Taiwan and the US would already have a mutual defense treaty. I don’t see any US military base in Taiwan either.
10:52 AM EDT
That’s not correct reading of the US history. President Harry Truman tried his best to avert Communist victory in China. Apart from giving support to Nationalists, the US made modest efforts to deliver arms and ammunition to Tibet during 1948-49. Tibet maintained policy of Isolationism until China’s military conquest in 1950s. Since that time, the US is helping Tibetan Resistance. The plans for a future war are not yet buried.
7:42 AM EDT
Excellent article, thank you. I’ve been teaching in China for the past seven years and worry about what to do if war breaks out – can I make it across the border into Hong Kong? Would the Chinese expel all Americans or intern them or worse? From this end of the pond, it’s pretty easy to see how rising Chinese confidence could lead to miscalculations, spilled blood and war. The Chinese think they can overcome US supremacy in submarines by building out a huge network of sea floor sensors in the South China Sea – who knows what that type of arms race combined with territorial expansion could lead to?
7:22 AM EDT
A good article, but I would have liked to read how the author feels our economic inter-dependency would factor into the equation.
10:56 AM EDT
In the past, Communist Powers like Soviet Union encouraged people and nations to oppose European Colonial Rulers. Now, the world of geopolitics and geoeconomics have changed. Now, the US would encourage people and nations to oppose Red China’s Neocolonialism.
7:10 AM EDT
Only someone with a worldview based in the capitol of the U.S. Bible Belt would spew this. What horse shout; I subscribed to Wash Post for this?
11:00 AM EDT
Don’t worry about your subscription. You can still read this story without being a subscriber. The realities of the world are described by Red China’s occupation of the second largest nation of South Asia. As long as that occupation prevails, there will be Power Imbalance. Tibet Equilibrium cannot be dismissed as wishful thinking.
SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE REMEMBERS JOHN F KENNEDY’S LEGACY ON 35th PRESIDENT’S 100th BIRTHDAY
On behalf of Special Frontier Force, I feel honored to share John F Kennedy’s Legacy on 35th President’s 100th birthday. Due to Cold War Era secret diplomacy, Kennedy’s role in Asian affairs is not fully appreciated in India. In 1962, during presidency of Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, second President of Republic of India, Kennedy joined hands with India and Tibet to transform Tibetan Resistance Movement into regular fighting force.
Special Frontier Force symbolizes Unfinished Vietnam War, America’s War against the spread of Communism in South Asia.
John F Kennedy’s life and legacy remembered on 35th president’s 100th birthday
Published May 29, 2017
In this Feb. 27, 1959 file photo, Sen. John F. Kennedy, D-Mass., is shown in his office in Washington. Monday, May 29, 2017 marks the 100-year anniversary of the birth of Kennedy, who went on to become the 35th President of the United States. (AP Photo, File) (AP 1959)
As Americans celebrate this Memorial Day, they also will remember the life and legacy of President John F. Kennedy who was born 100 years ago this Monday.
While the 35th president left a mixed legacy following his assassination in Dallas in 1963, Kennedy remains nearly as popular today as he did during his time in office, and he arguably created the idea of a president’s “brand” that has become commonplace in American politics.
“President Kennedy and First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy worked hard to construct a positive image of themselves, what I call the Kennedy brand,” Michael Hogan, author of ‘The Afterlife of John Fitzgerald Kennedy: A Biography.’ “And because history is as much about forgetting as remembering, they made every effort to filter out information at odds with that image.”
In commemoration of JFK’s 100th birthday, Fox News has compiled a rundown on the life of the 35th president:
Born on May 29, 1917 in Brookline, Massachusetts to Joseph “Joe” Kennedy and Rose Elizabeth Fitzgerald Kennedy
In 1940, Kennedy graduated cum laude from Harvard College with a Bachelor of Arts in government
From 1941 to 1945, Kennedy commanded three patrol torpedo boats in South Pacific during World War II, including the PT-109 which was sunk by a Japanese destroyer
In 1946, Kennedy was elected to Congress for Massachusetts’s 11th congressional district and served three terms
Elected to the U.S. Senate to represent Massachusetts in 1952
Kennedy marries Jacqueline Bouvier, a writer with the Washington Times-Herald, in 1953
Receives the Pulitzer Prize in 1957 for his book “Profiles in Courage”
Elected President of the United States in 1960, becoming the youngest person elected to the country’s highest office, and the first Roman Catholic president.
He is credited with overseeing the creation and launch of the Peace Corps
Sent 3,000 U.S. troops to support the desegregation of the University of Mississippi after riots there left two dead and many others injured
Approved the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in April 1961 intending to overthrow Cuban leader Fidel Castro
In 1962, Kennedy oversaw the Cuban Missile Crisis — seen as one of the most crucial periods of the U.S.’s Cold War with the Soviet Union
Signed a nuclear test ban treaty with the Soviet Union in July 1963
Asked Congress to approve more than $22 billion for Project Apollo with the goal of landing an American on the moon by the end of the 1960s
Escalated involvement in the conflict in Vietnam and approved the overthrow of Vietnam’s President Ngô Đình Diệm. By the time of the war’s end in 1975, more than 58,000 U.S. troops were killed in the conflict
Assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. 2017 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved. All market data delayed 20 minutes.
WHOLE DUDE – WHOLE MARRIAGE – WHOLE TRADITION
Whole World needs Whole Tradition to experience bliss called Whole Marriage. The tradition of man proposing to a woman of his choice kneeling in front of her with a ring is outdated. Woman must be able to say with full confidence, “I’m just going to be myself.” This attitude demands Whole Tradition while saying “YES” or “NO” to potential life partners while seeking Whole Bliss of Whole Marriage.
To give expression to this desire, “just going to be myself,” in the context of finding a life partner, woman must take the initiative to find her person of choice and make proposal kneeling in front of him with a ring held in her hand.
To find the right man, woman must reject all other unwanted men who try to get her attention. While saying “NO” to unwanted suitors, woman must use grace, charm, and modesty that beholds dignity of human being.
I am introducing “Whole Tradition” to reject unwanted suitors. Woman while announcing her choice to reject her suitor, must kneel before him and ask him to accept her “Non-Wedding Wedding Ring” with a solemn promise to never ever marry him in her life.
Whole Dude – Whole Planet
‘Bachelorette’ 2017: Which Of Rachel’s Season 13 Contestants Stood Out, Were Sent Home In Episode 1?
By CAITLYN HITT @NyItiaccc On 05/22/17 AT 11:02 PM
Rachel Lindsay signed up for “The Bachelor” in the hopes of finding love and, while that didn’t work out, she’s not giving up. “The Bachelorette” began her second shot at love on Monday and things are looking up.
When Bachelor Nation first catches up with the Dallas native as she’s shooting promotional photos for her gig as “The Bachelorette” on ABC. Although her starring role’s been made official, she’s in shock about the journey she’s about to embark on. Ever the forward thinker, however, Rachel’s got a plan for succeeding in matters of the heart on “The Bachelorette.”
“I’m just going to be myself,” she says with a smile.
Before Rachel’s season of “The Bachelorette” gets underway, Bachelor Nation is introduced to a select few guys hoping to woo the show’s star. The first contestant introduced is Kenny, a wrestler and proud dad. We then meet Alex, Lucas (or the Waboom guy as some “Bachelorette” fans may know him), Blake E. and Josiah. And while some left a lasting impression on fans for the right reasons, others stood out for the wrong ones.
Rachel then reunites with host Chris Harrison in Season 13, episode 1 before meeting her 31 potential suitors. The pair share a moment before the first limo full of “Bachelorette” contestants pulls up in front of the mansion.
Which Of Rachel’s Guys Stood Out?
Josiah’s the first to exit the limo. He wow’s Rachel with his confidence and knowledge of legal jargon, telling her, “I am convinced that by the end of our experience you will have no reasonable doubt that I’m the one for you.”
Bryan introduces himself to Rachel oozing charm. He kicks thing up a notch by showing off the fact that he’s bilingual.
Brady arrives at the “Bachelorette” mansion with an ice block and hammer in tow. Rachel’s slightly thrown off at first, but giggles once she realizes he’s physically breaking the ice.
Although Rachel’s warned about him by former “Bachelor” co-star Whitney, “The Bachelorette” star can’t help but get swept up by DeMario. She loves his confidence.
Rachel meets a familiar face while standing outside the “Bachelorette” mansion. Fred arrives with a yearbook in tow, but Rachel didn’t need to see her photo to recognize Fred. She recalls him as “a very bad kid.” Can she shake that impression of him?
Fred reminds Rachel Lindsay of their past history in Season 13, Episode 1 of “The Bachelorette” — but can she get beyond her bad memories of him? Photo: ABC
Lee steps out of the limo singing, which Rachel seems to enjoy.
Forget the dolphin girl from “The Bachelor” Season 21 — Matt the penguin guy is here to win over the hearts of America and, with any luck, Rachel on “The Bachelorette.”
Matt opted to impress “Bachelorette” star Rachel Lindsay with his outfit during Season 13, Episode 1. Photo: ABC
Lucas is one contestant “Bachelorette” fans were looking forward to meeting before Season 13 premiered. He does not disappoint in episode 1 when he steps out of the limo with a bullhorn in tow and his own face airbrushed on his tank top. In addition to sharing details about his height and weight, Lucas reveals to Rachel that one of his testicles is bigger than the other, which is one way to stand out.
Inside The Mansion
After the introductions, the guys are joined by Rachel for a cocktail party. They spend some time sizing one another up while Josiah makes an aggressive first move. He’s the first of the “Bachelorette” Season 13 cast members to steal the star for some one-on-one time.
He opens up to Rachel about his troubled past and how it set him on his path to being a lawyer. Josiah also shares with Rachel the tragic story about his brother’s suicide and the effect it had on him at such a young age. He’s able to keep Rachel engaged, though she doesn’t seem as enamored by him as she was with other “Bachelorette” hopefuls.
Although it’s a proven way to make a statement in the Bachelor Nation franchise, it doesn’t sit well with some of the men on the show. They decide to step up their game and begin fighting for time with Rachel. She’s overwhelmed when lines start forming while she’s chatting with other suitors.
Dean and Rachel Lindsay bond while playing in the sand during “The Bachelorette” Season 13 premiere. Photo: ABC
She also steps aside by Dean, who takes her to build a sand castle, and Bryan, whose directness may just be a match for Rachel. He pulls her into a private area outside the house for another showcase of his Spanish-speaking abilities and a smooch. While Rachel admits she didn’t plan to lock lips with any “Bachelorette” contestants in episode 1, she enjoys the kiss and seems really interested in Bryan.
Who Gets The First Impression Rose?
Josiah’s confidence gets the better of him during Season 13, episode 1 of “The Bachelorette.” He’s so certain he’s getting the first impression rose he puts it on at one point, which his co-stars joke may be “the kiss of death.” Rachel returns to the mansion to deliver the rose, bypassing Josiah and making a beeline for Bryan.
Josiah’s disappointed to learn he’s not chosen to receive the first impression rose in Season 13, Episode 1 of “The Bachelorette.” Photo: ABC
Rachel and Bryan share another special moment together. “The Bachelorette” star tells him she feels something with him that she can’t explain. She’s unclear whether it’s his bilingual flirtation, the kiss they shared, or something else, but Rachel’s into it.
At the end of their chat Rachel and Bryan share another kiss. “The Bachelorette” contestant Mohit, or Mo, looks on from a few feet away. He provides a little comic relief, narrating the situation in horror.
Who Went Home In Week 1?
At the end of episode 1, Rachel gathers the men for their first rose ceremony. Eleven men are sent packing including Kyle, Robert, Milton, Blake K., Grant and Jedediah. Both the men who were cut and the ones who made it through are shocked to see Lucas get the final rose of the night.
Milton’s the only one to get emotional about his elimination, though it’s not clear if it’s losing out on the chance to date Rachel or not getting to show off his outfits that he’s distraught about. He maintains that he’s the best man who arrived at the “Bachelorette” mansion.
Tune in to “The Bachelorette” Season 13, episode 2, next Monday on ABC at 9 p.m. EDT.
Rachel Lindsay meets her 31 potential suitors in Season 13, episode 1 of “The Bachelorette.” Photo: ABC
© Copyright 2017 Newsweek Media Group. All Rights Reserved.
SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE – MEMORIAL DAY TRIBUTE TO UNKNOWN SOLDIERS:
On Memorial Day, United States honors its citizens who have died in War. Originally commemorating soldiers killed in the American Civil War, the observance was later extended to all US war dead. The holiday is observed on the last Monday in the month of May and an official tradition began in 1971, the same year during which I had witnessed the death of some young soldiers who served in Special Frontier Force, which is known as Establishment No. 22 in India. Approximately, one million men and women died in defense of the United States since 1775. I cannot give a precise count of the men and women who died serving the cause of Freedom at Special Frontier Force.
The custom of honoring the graves of the war dead began before the close of the Civil War. In 1868, Commander-in-Chief John A. Logan of the Grand Army of the Republic issued a general order designating May 30, 1868 “for the purpose of strewing with flowers or otherwise decorating the graves of comrades who died in defense of their country during the late rebellion.”
Tibetan soldiers with whom I served in Special Frontier Force died in the remote jungles of Chittagong Hill Tracts while our military action code-named ‘Operation Eagle’ initiated Liberation of Bangladesh during November – December 1971. We buried them or cremated them and our fallen comrades have no graves which I can visit for purpose of strewing with flowers or otherwise decorating the sites where they died to defend the cause of Freedom. However, I am pleased to remember them and honor them on this Memorial Day for we fought our battles with weapons, ammunition, field gear, medical supplies, rations, radio sets, and other military supplies provided by the United States. We are partners with India and the United States to defend Tibet and restore its lost Freedom.
On this Memorial Day while I pay my tribute to honor memory of the fallen Tibetan soldiers of Special Frontier Force, I respectfully remind the US and India to renew our pledge to work in support of Peace, Justice, Freedom and Democracy in Occupied Tibet.
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-4162, USA
SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE
THE FUTURE OF RED CHINA’S EXPANSIONISM – BEIJING DOOMED
People’s Republic of China in 1949 embraced Communism as State Doctrine and lost no time to announce ambitious plan of Territorial, Maritime, Economic, and Political Expansionism. While others painfully reflect upon ‘The Future of the Tibetan Resistance Movement’, I express optimism by announcing Beijing’s Doom, sudden downfall, as consequence of her own evil actions. This predestined Disaster, Catastrophe, Cataclysm, Calamity, Apocalypse, Doom will bring Regime Change and The Evil Red Empire cannot ward it off by paying ransom.
TIBETAN PROTEST MOVEMENT – THE NEWS LENS INTERNATIONAL EDITION
Friday, May 26, 2017
PODCAST: Tibet, Protest and China; The Future of the Tibetan Protest Movement
Photo Credit: Reuters
These small acts have reverberations and impact way beyond what we can see through the media and numbers. – Tenzin Dorjee.
Earlier this month, Radio Free Asia reported that a Tibetan monk, Jamyang Losal, had died after setting himself on fire in China’s northwestern Qinghai province. Losal was the 150th Tibetan to self-immolate since 2009 when Tibetan monks started taking their own lives in protest of China’s rule. But it seems these desperate protests are having little impact on China as it continues to crack down on any signs of dissent in Tibet.
In this episode of The News Lens Radio, we are bringing you the views of three Tibetan leaders to discuss the efforts to keep the protest movement alive both inside and outside Tibet. They say not only is the Chinese government continuing to rule Tibet with an iron fist, it is also increasingly working beyond its own borders to shut down the movements calling for Tibetan autonomy or independence from China.
About today’s guests
Tenzing Jigme is the president of the Tibetan Youth Congress, an international organization with about 30,000 members advocating for Tibetan independence.
Pema Yoko is the interim executive director of the New York-headquartered Students for a Free Tibet.
Tenzin (Tendor) Dorjee is a U.S.-based author and program director with the Tibet Action Institute. He is also the former executive director of Students for a Free Tibet.
This podcast is available via SoundCloud, Stitcher and iTunes apps.
Editor: Olivia Yang
Cold Shoulder: Why Beijing Snubbed Singapore at the Belt and Road Summit
Angela Han is a Research Associate in the Polling Program. She holds a Masters in European and International Studies from the University of Trento and a Graduate Diploma in Transnational Governance from Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna. She has also spent six months abroad learning Mandarin at the China University of Political Science and Law in Beijing. Prior to undertaking her Masters, Angela spent two years as a researcher of labor and economic policies in her home country of Singapore.
Beijing did not invite Singapore’s Prime Minister to attend the Belt and Road event in Beijing this week, signifying strain in Sino-Singapore relations.
Among the 29 Heads of State who converged on Beijing for the Belt and Road Summit earlier this week were leaders of seven of the ten ASEAN states. One leader was noticeably missing: Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
Various observers have noted this absence, including Hugh White, who suggested it was no co-incidence that, like others – Japan, India, Australia and “most western countries” – who had not sent their national leaders to Beijing, Singapore was aligned with the U.S. and uneasy about China’s rise – “or perceived to be so.”
However, it has since emerged that Singapore was never given the choice. China had not invited Singapore’s prime minister in the first place.
This is surprising, especially as Singapore has been one of the biggest advocates of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). While many other states were initially hesitant in signing up to BRI, including some of its ASEAN neighbors, Singapore’s support has been unequivocal from the beginning. Many high-level cooperation talks between China and Singapore on the subject have taken place, with both sides warmly welcoming cooperation on BRI.
In light of this past co-operation, Beijing’s snub is significant. It is fair to conclude that, if China continues to freeze out Singapore, there could be significant implications on at least three levels.
What it might mean for Sino-Singapore relations
First, this marks a low point in Sino-Singapore relations. Since its independence 50 years ago, managing the U.S.-China dichotomy has been a key tenet of Singapore’s foreign policy. Despite close defense partnerships with the U.S., China has referred to Singapore as an “important partner and a special friend of China.” This long-standing relationship has been fostered not only by historical and cultural linkages, but also the deep bond that existed between former leaders, Lee Kuan Yew and Deng Xiaoping. When Lee Kuan Yew died in 2015 there were video tributes on Chinese state media, and he was described as “an old friend of the Chinese people” by President Xi Jinping.
Of late, however, the bilateral relationship has been less than smooth, particularly since remarks made by the Singaporean prime minister at a White House state dinner in August last year. At that event, Lee Hsien Loong praised the U.S. rebalance and endorsed the arbitral tribunal ruling on the South China Sea. In a separate incident, a Chinese tabloid accused Singapore of bringing up the tribunal ruling at the Non-Aligned Movement Summit, which led to a very public spat between the Global Times editor and Singapore’s Ambassador to China.
Singapore is not a claimant state but the fear that China might extend its reach in the South China Sea is nevertheless acute for the tiny island-state. Given its trade volumes are 3.5 times its GDP, any instability in the region would affect Singapore’s trade routes, and therefore its economy. When Singapore advocates for a rules-based order, it is not just values that it seeks to defend but its economic lifeblood.
Singapore’s stance on the South China Sea did not please China. In November nine of Singapore’s armored troop carriers were impounded in Hong Kong on their way back from Taiwan. At the time, many saw Beijing’s heavy hand at work behind the scenes and believed the incident reflected China’s displeasure with Singapore’s joint military exercises with Taiwan, even though these dates back decades.
In their usual quiet diplomatic style, Singapore diplomats worked hard behind the scenes to eventually secure the vehicles’ return after two months. This was then quickly followed up by a high-level bilateral cooperation forum, postponed the previous year due to strained ties. Yet, China still raises the South China Sea matter at bilateral forums.
Implications for other middle powers
China’s snub is yet another example of the narrowing diplomatic space that small states like Singapore have in which to maneuver. Relying on its hard-nosed pragmatism has, for half a decade, served Singapore well. But with most of its ASEAN neighbors increasingly willing to set aside the South China Sea disputes in return for a massive influx of Chinese investment, it is increasingly difficult for Singapore to both protect its national interest and maintain an independent foreign policy of not picking sides.
This has implications for other countries like Australia, which occupy a very similar position in the world. Like Singapore, Australia has strong historical, security and defense ties to the United States, while China is now far and away from its biggest trading partner. Perhaps one lesson from this incident is that it is becoming harder to compartmentalize politics and economics.
Implications for China’s role in the world
Finally, what does the incident say about the Belt and Road Initiative and more broadly, China’s role as architect of global initiatives? Although the BRI is as much about geoeconomics as geopolitics, it is undeniable that just on the basis of scale, access to and participation in Chinese initiatives have a tendency to draw lines in the sand; clearly distinguishing between who is a friend of China, and who is not.
The snub demonstrates Beijing now has another diplomatic tool in its arsenal. Such “sanctions with Chinese characteristics” are proving to be increasingly effective at asserting dominance and deterring actions counter to China’s interest. It is clear that China’s already considerable diplomatic and economic clout is increasing and its reach is becoming more pervasive. This too makes it more difficult for states that seek to steer a middle course.
This article originally appeared in the Lowy Interpreter. The News Lens has been authorized to republish this article.
TNL Editor: Edward White
NEWS WORTH KNOWING, VOICES WORTH SHARING
Copyright © 2016 The News Lens
Inserted from <https://international.thenewslens.com/article/69284>
HEAVENLY STRIKE TO UNTANGLE GORDIAN KNOT
Tibetans, Indians, Americans, and Chinese are caught up in the mess of ‘Gordian Knot’. If not Alexander the Great’s Sword, Heavenly Strike can untangle this Gordian Knot giving Freedom to Tibetans to live their lives without confusion.
DOOM DOOMA DOOMSAYER
The Tibet, India and China Triangular Tangle
Posted on: May 23, 2017 Updated on: May 23, 2017
As India enters a period when a great economic expansion is most possible, it would be unwise for it to get involved in an expensive and debilitating international rivalry
Mohan Guruswamy Delhi
Tibet is not only India’s largest geographical neighbor but also its most significant in terms of the environmental impact. Many major Indian rivers like the Brahmaputra, Indus and Sutlej originate in Tibet. Though we have been brought up to believe that the Himalaya are an impenetrable barrier, they are in fact quite porous and the ethno-cultural traits of the people who inhabit the crest of India amply reflect the influence of Tibet in Indian culture. This to and fro movement of people continues even today despite the deployment of the world’s two largest standing armies in a bid to define borders. India’s influence on Tibet too has not been insignificant.
Despite a political identity that has historically been entwined with China’s, Tibet has traditionally looked towards India for economic and spiritual sustenance. Tibet has also had a long history of struggle with China and this Dalai Lama is not the first one to seek refuge in India. The British had an active policy to create a buffer against China in the form of an independent Tibet. Not only that, the British also sought to open Tibet to the world and to its influence. When the Tibetans proved recalcitrant the British sent in a military expedition led by Col. Francis Younghusband to do just this. The Chinese Amban in Lhasa watched the Younghusband expedition’s exertions in Tibet passively and one immediate consequence of this was an assertion of Tibet’s independence.
Almost immediately after their civil war triumph in 1949, the Chinese Communists reasserted control over Tibet, which had by then enjoyed over four decades of relative independence. Since then India has tried to head off the Tibet problem by accepting its annexation by the People’s Republic of China. In these 56 years, the Chinese Communists initially tried to solve the Tibet problem by attempting to wipe out Tibetan nationalism and Buddhism with Mao’s Communism. It didn’t succeed. This policy has now been replaced by creeping “Hanization” and massive doses of economic development. These too have worked only partially for the Chinese, but they seemed to do better with this than with the Maoist iron hand. Though Tibet is now relatively passive, it remains a dry tinderbox and the Chinese dread the likelihood of any spark that may set off a fire.
For India, too the policy has worked partially. Nearly 150,000 Tibetan refugees now live in India, and India has willy-nilly become the fulcrum of a worldwide struggle by the Tibetans to regain their nation. In short the Tibet issue, though dormant now, is still very much alive and whether India likes it or not, it is being played out in its front yard.
THE STATURE OF THE DALAI LAMA
Central to this sustained struggle has been the ever-increasing international stature of the Dalai Lama who has become the symbol of many ideals and images. The mix of new age spiritualism, ethics, ecological values and politics has won for the Dalai Lama many influential and wealthy western adherents to Tibetan Buddhism and supporters of Tibet’s cause. McLeodganj today is a magnet that draws large numbers of young westerners seeking a new meaning to and purpose in life.
True, the Dalai Lama has become many things to many people but what should be relevant to us is that he has emerged as a man of great stature and influence. Presidents and Prime Ministers now vie to receive him and the pictures that get transmitted the world over electronically remind the world that there is still a Tibetan nation yearning to be free and peacefully struggling for it. This is a powerful image.
Stalin did not live to see his wry question about the number of divisions with the Pope answered. But one must wonder what he would have had to say if he had witnessed the Polish priest who became the Pope catalyzing the collapse of the Communist regime in Poland, which in turn unraveled the Warsaw Pact and Soviet hegemony over Eastern Europe. The Chinese have a better sense of history and hence rightly worry about the broad wake the peripatetic Dalai Lama leaves behind as he reiterates his message all over the world. India too must worry about this.
Tibetans believe the Dalai Lama to be a living God. But he is also human and must die like all humans. He is now in his 81st year and time is certainly not on his side. If he is alive he keeps the embers of Tibetan nationalism from conflagrating with the blanket of the new age Buddhism that he has woven. When this Dalai Lama is gone, the embers might just combust.
POST-DALAI LAMA SCENARIO
We can be certain that it is the present Dalai Lama’s stature that keeps the lid on Tibetan militancy. After him, the political power of the next Dalai Lama will almost certainly be challenged. Many of the younger Tibetans in exile will not accept the legitimacy and leadership of another incarnation. The incarnation will, in any case, take many years to grow into mature adulthood and till then some manner of bureaucratic regency will be in charge. This regency may not have the moral and spiritual stature of the present Dalai Lama. That will have to be earned and only time can tell if the next incarnation chosen by the regency will fit the bill.
The chosen leadership of the exiles will not go unchallenged. The Chinese will almost certainly try to foist their own incarnation and will try to legitimize it with all the power available to them. It is unlikely that they will succeed, but it will certainly obfuscate the situation and preclude any future compromise on the issue of the spiritual leadership of the Tibetan Buddhists.
While the spiritual leadership may be contested, it is almost inevitable that a new generation of Tibetan exiles will stake a claim for the temporal leadership of the Tibetan nationalist movement. If this is contested by the regency around the India-based incarnation, then we will almost certainly see a competition for the hearts and minds of young Tibetans and this will inevitably lead to more assertive postures as the factions jockey for power. Such internal struggles often result in greater militancy.
On the other hand, we may see a duality of leadership emerging among the Tibetan exiles, a spiritual leadership that tends to the soul and a militant leadership that leads the struggle for attainment of political goals. It is due to the Dalai Lama’s foresight and sagacity that the contours of such a dual leadership are emerging with the second tallest Buddhist ecclesiastical figure, Ugen Thinley, the Karmapa, and the just re-elected Sikyong (Prime Minister) of the government-in-exile, Lobsang Sangay. Both now enjoy much stature among émigré Tibetan groups and with vast sections of Tibetans in Tibet.
The splintering of the exile leadership into two or even more factions would be a desirable objective for the Chinese. From the Indian perspective, the rise of an alternative religious leader in the interim would well prevent the splintering of the Tibetan Buddhist movement. The young Karmapa might well provide this.
SOME POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES FOR INDIA
This will not be without consequences for India. People who have closer ethno-linguistic links to Tibet than to the plains populate the entire Himalayan region from Ladakh to Arunachal Pradesh. Geographically, much of Ladakh is an extension of the Tibetan Changthang and the main language spoken is a Tibetan dialect. The Tawang tract, at the other end, was, till it was annexed by India in the early 1950s, under the temporal control of the Dalai Lama in Lhasa. The Bhotias of Sikkim are also a Tibetan race speaking a Tibetan dialect. The term Tibet derives from Tho Bhot, the original denotation for Tibetans. It is not difficult to see the relationship between Tho Bhot and Bhotia.
The Dalai Lama has so far shown great restraint by not overtly interfering with the functioning of the numerous monasteries, but a future religious leadership might not be so restrained, particularly when there is so much easy western money involved. In a nation where sub-national separatist movements are constantly erupting, the possibility of this being stoked in the Himalayan region should not be excluded.
We must not forget that the border dispute with China is a border dispute with Tibet. It is another matter that if Tibet was independent, and hence weak, it would have been unable to assert its claims in the manner the Chinese did. The Chinese claim to the Tawang tract is largely based on a claim made by the present Dalai Lama in the late 1940s when he wrote a letter to the government of newly independent India laying formal claim to it.
THE PRESENT SITUATION
The Chinese are very clear about what they think about the Dalai Lama. They mince no words and describe him variously as a duplicitous, treacherous and fraudulent troublemaker who is more of a political leader and less of a religious preceptor. They also darkly hint from time to time that the Dalai Lama is the sharp end of a deep wedge sought to be driven into China to disrupt its historical unity. They also unequivocally dismiss all claims of an independent Tibetan existence for over a thousand years at least. They describe the Dalai Lama espousing the yearnings of a suppressed Tibetan people as the yearnings of a power-hungry feudal wishing to re-establish a primitive and medieval system once again over a long-tyrannized people. The Chinese believe that the majority of the Tibetan people are happy and thriving after their liberation by the Communist Party. They may well be right, but history tells us that it is always a determined minority that empires should worry about.
The new post-Communist China thus reserves the highest premium for “internal harmony” while it is embarked on the rapid transformation of its economy within the window of opportunity its current demographics offers. Three decades from now, China will be an aging nation and hence it feels that it must make the best of the present opportunity. This is the dominant mood among China’s leaders and they would be extremely loathed to let the ambitions of a relatively small number of Tibetans distract them from the goals they have set for China. China can contemplate two or more systems within one nation, as is now the case with Hong Kong and on offer to Taiwan. This is essentially a common economic system with a generous allocation of administrative power, as we see in the case of Hong Kong. What system can the Chinese offer the Tibetans? The Dalai Lama is increasingly speaking about a Buddhist way of life in Tibet within China. How can China agree to this when it essentially undermines the political authority of the Centre?
This story is from the print issue of Hardnews: MAY 2017