Bhutan reports 17 border intrusions by China in 2009

Article Courtesy: phayul.com, published on 9th December 2009.

By Kalsang Rinchen

Dharamsala, December 9 – It's not just India that is at loggerheads with China on border issues. Bhutanese Secretary for International Boundaries, Dasho Pema Wangchuk, told the Bhutanese parliament that Chinese soldiers had intruded into Bhutanese territory as many as seventeen times in 2009 alone, reported Kuenselonline, web edition of Bhutan's national newspaper.

Dasho Pema Wangchuk was presenting an updated status report on the Bhutan-China boundary negotiations on December 4 in the Bhutanese National Assembly. Chinese soldiers have entered as far as the Royal Bhutan Army (RBA) outpost at Lharigang in the Charithang valley, according to Wangchuk.

According to Wangchuk, China started road construction work from Langmarpo stream towards Zuri ridge in 2004 but later stopped work after protests from the Bhutanese government. However, in August this year the Chinese started extension of the road construction work between Zuri to Phuteogang ridge, which overlooks the Charithang valley, Wanghuk said, adding that his government protested five times and asked China to stop construction on the basis of 1998 agreement on the maintenance of peace and tranquility in Bhutan-China border areas which states that “the two sides agree to maintain peace and tranquility in their border areas pending a final settlement on the boundary question, and to maintain status quo on the boundary as before March 1959” and that “they will also refrain from taking any unilateral action to change the status quo of the boundary”.

Dasho Pema Wangchuk said that the main reason why Bhutan has not been able to successfully demarcate the northern border with China even after many years is because of the differences of views and positions of the boundary between Bhutan and China. “At present we have four areas which are disputed in the western sector- Doklam, Charithang, Sinchulumpa and Dramana pasture land, ” Wangchuk was quoted by Kuensel online as saying.

The two countries have met 18 times since 1984 for border talks with the latest being in August 2006 in Beijing. China had proposed the 19th round of the border talks to be held in December this year but Bhutan has proposed the border talks to be held in Thimphu in January next year. Wangduephodrang MP, Gyem Dorji, said thousands of people from Tibet enter Bhutan every year to "illegally" collect Cordyceps (yartsa gunbu) along the northern border of Sephu Gewog.

Analysts say that China has not been able to woo Bhutan the way it had wooed Nepal. Bhutan has been a loyal neighbor for many years to India which has been providing various assistance to the Himalayan Kingdom.

Many Tibetans settled in Bhutan after fleeing Tibet through its southern border at Dromo after Chinese invasion. However, the Tibetan population in Bhutan dwindled after the royal government of Bhutan expelled many Tibetans and Nepalese refugees in early eighties.

********************

Pitfalls and possibilities in Obama’s Taiwan line

Article Courtesy: taiwandc.org as well as Taipei Times (published on 9th November, 2009)


By: Nat Bellocchi


As US President Barack Obama prepares for his visit to Japan, South Korea, China and Singapore, it is worthwhile to consider a number of issues that affect US-Taiwan-China relations.

On two of the three sides in this triangle, we have relatively new actors at the political helm: the Obama administration in the US and the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou.

Obama has the advantage of being at the start of a new chapter in relations with both Taiwan and China. He is relatively unburdened by the inhibitions of the past, and has the freedom to do some out-of-the-box thinking.

But there is already a tendency — similar to that seen in the administration of US president George W. Bush — that the US “needs” China to resolve major issues like global warming, pollution and the financial crisis.

While it is essential to engage China on these issues, we need to ensure that this is not done at the expense of a free and democratic Taiwan. During the past weeks, Chinese spokesmen have called on the US and other international partners to respect China’s so-called “core interests.” It would be good if Obama emphasized clearly that it is a core interest of the US that the future of Taiwan be resolved peacefully and with the express consent of the Taiwanese people.

Similarly, in his first year in office, Ma opened a new chapter and started rapprochement with China. While there is broad agreement that a reduction of tension in the Taiwan Strait is desirable, Ma has been criticized for moving too far, too fast and for allowing Taiwan’s drift into China’s sphere of influence to be accompanied by erosion of justice and a decline in press freedom.

The US’ Taiwan policy has traditionally swung back and forth between realism and idealism. The policies of president Richard Nixon and secretary of state Henry Kissinger in the 1970s, president Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s, president Bill Clinton in the mid-1990s and Bush in the period 2001-2004 are all testimony to the fact that the US made significant mid-course changes that were detrimental to Taiwan and that contributed to its international isolation, despite Washington’s statements that its policies were “unchanged” and contributed to “stability.”

From an international perspective, Taiwan is an example of a successful transition to democracy. The most rational and reasonable outcome of Taiwan’s normalization of relations with China would be acceptance of this young democracy in the international family of nations. This is a process that will need cooperation from all sides; for its part, China will need to see that it is in its own interests to come to terms with a small and democratic neighbor with which it can live in peace.

Taiwan can justifiably be proud of its achievements, economically and politically, but it needs to stay the course and strengthen its democracy, sovereignty and international relations so that it can be an equal partner in the international community.

Taiwan can also strengthen the fabric of its society by implementing judicial change, improving governance, protecting human rights and finding new niches in the international economy. All of these will enhance the nation’s acceptance and respect around the world.

The US can play a constructive role if Obama is willing to apply creative thinking and steer away from the pitfalls of the mantras that were recited in the past. The fundamental values of democracy and human rights, for which the US stands, mandate that we are more supportive of the dream of many Taiwanese that their country be accepted as a full and equal member of the international community. That would be change we can believe in.


(Nat Bellocchi is a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group.)


********************

Why is China scared?

(Article Courtesy: phayul.com, first published in “Asian Age”, Tuesday, November 03, 2009, Burma Review thanks Ms. Maura Moynihan for truth speaking and her love for Tibetan people)

By: Maura Moynihan

A special ritual of life in Dharamsala is welcoming His Holiness the Dalai Lama back to his exile home. A victory banner is strung over the road as a multinational crowd pours into the lanes of Mcleodganj and down Temple Road to His Holiness’ residence, waiting for a glimpse of the great spiritual master and honorary citizen of India, waving from the window of a vehicle escorted by a crack team of Indian commandos.


The Dalai Lama never seems to rest; he just returned from North America, to commence a week of teachings on the Diamond Sutra and the Four Noble Truths of the Buddha. It’s impossible to find a hotel room — Dharamsala quivers from the weight of tourists and pilgrims from five continents who have come to this refugee town in Himachal Pradesh to touch a piece of old Tibet that fell upon this hillside 50 years ago.


There is disquiet among Tibetan refugees and their supporters over escalating Chinese repression in Tibet and Beijing’s success in pressuring world leaders to back off from the Tibet issue.


Last month United States President Barack Obama declined to meet the Dalai Lama as it would upset the Chinese Communist Party bosses in Beijing. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said: “The stronger relationship that we have with China benefits the Tibetan people.” A statement so credulous, or cynical, it seems to have been crafted expressly by the Beijing bureau of propaganda.

The grim reality of life in China’s Tibet is told in every corner of this refugee town, especially at the Gu Chu Sum Society created by ex-political prisoners from Tibet. The office stairwell is lined with drawings depicting the torture Tibetan nationalists endured in Chinese custody. One man was hung by his ankles for hours and whipped with barbed wire. Another had his legs and arms broken, was tossed into a sewage pit and pelted with rocks. A Buddhist nun was repeatedly raped with an electric cattle prod.

This is how China governs Tibet, and the most dangerous outcome of Mr Obama’s refusal to meet the Dalai Lama is the message it sends to the Chinese Communist Party: that their barbarous rule in Tibet can continue without impediment, that they can proceed with the plunder of Tibet’s lands and the yoking of Tibet’s rivers.

China has made the mere mention of Tibet so toxic that delegates at last month’s climate change summit in Bangkok refused to address climate change on the Tibetan plateau and its deleterious effect on the rivers of nation states in south and southeast Asia, hardly a small matter.


Control of the Tibetan plateau and its vast riches is a priority for Hu Jintao’s government. Since March 2008, China has mobilised an estimated 50,000 troops along the Tibet-India border, while protesting against visits by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to Arunachal Pradesh and excising Kashmir from India in a new map and website. China is supplying Nepal with aid and weaponry, which fuels the advance of Maoist insurgencies across India. Himachal This Week just ran a two-page story on Chinese spies working in Dharamsala, with a timeline of a decade of arrests and confessions of agents with plans to attack the Dalai Lama.

Why does Beijing so fear this gentle Tibetan Buddhist master and purveyor of the Gandhian legacy of non-violence? On October 1, 2009, the Chinese Communist Party celebrated 60 years of one-party rule with a Cold War parade of massive weaponry and Maoist sloganeering. On October 2, India paid tribute to Mahatma Gandhi on his 140th birth anniversary with an inter-faith service at New Delhi’s Gandhi Smriti. Dr Singh sat upon the grass amid citizens and guests as prayers from all religions were read and sung, then scattered rose petals on the site of the Mahatma’s martyrdom with quiet dignity.


These twin ceremonies just a day apart reveal the vast gap between Mao’s and Gandhi’s visions of power. His Holiness the Dalai Lama calls Gandhi his political guru and has steadfastly pursued the path of ahimsa with the Chinese Communists who call him “an incestuous murderer with evil intentions”. But the Dalai Lama has not been broken. Witness him upon his lama’s throne, imparting the wisdom of the Buddha into the golden light of the Kangra Valley, to students from Mongolia, Vietnam and Laos, whose sanghas were laid waste by the Communists, who regard him as the Living Buddha.


“Look how much power China has, and they are so paranoid, they take such desperate measures to keep politicians away from the Dalai Lama,” says celebrated Tibetan poet Tenzing Tsundue. “The Dalai Lama has no aircraft, no money, he’s a refugee. China has weapons and banks, but they are terrified of this simple monk who wants to make peace with them. It shows their great insecurity. Our power lies in our faith in non-violence. The Tibet movement is still here after 50 years. We continue to inspire the people of the world who are looking for solutions to violence and conflict.”

(Ms Maura Moynihan is a writer who has worked with Tibetan refugees in India for many years. Now based in New York, she is researching a book on America’s failed China policy)

*************************************