Monthly Archives: January 2012

Tibetan pilgrims, soul-searching in Nepal

More reports come in about the difficulties Tibetan pilgrims face on their way back to Tibet from the Kalachakra ritual that took place in Bodhgaya (India) earlier this month. An estimated 8,000 pilgrims from Tibet attended the initiation given by His Holiness the Dalai Lama. They are subjected to harrassment at Chinese airports as well as along the Friendship Highway. The Tibetan Review reports:

There were as many as twelve heavily secured Chinese checkpoints the Tibetans had to pass through between the border Tibetan town of Dram (Chinese: Zhangmu, Nepalese: Khasa) and Tibet’s capital Lhasa. Police and the paramilitary People’s Armed Police Force personnel were reported to search all the returning Tibetan pilgrims. [...] The security personnel were reported to confiscate all medicinal and religious items possessed by the returning Tibetans, subjecting them to verbal abuses and threats of physical violence in case any of them tried to complain about such unwarranted and illegal search and seizure.

Furthermore, Zeenews reports that another group of 65 returning Tibetans were arrested in Nepal:

The Buddhist monks and nuns, who were travelling in a bus, were detained at Nagdhunga on the outskirts of the capital as they failed to produce valid identification and travel documents, police said.

Meanwhile, a good amount soul-searching is going on in Nepal about the implications of Wen’s short visit. Some the deals Nepal had hoped to secure remained, well, promises and the way in which the visit took place caused some irritation. N. P. Upadhyaya for Telegraph Nepal:

Premier Wen’s meet with the Nepali leaders in “multitude” must have been well understood by Nepal’s august leaders. He made all Nepali leaders to queue themselves and granted “audience” in series.

 

 

 

Posted in Border Review | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Agreement or disagreement?

Two weeks ago, India and China have signed an agreement to prevent flare-ups along their disputed Himalayan border. Now, Saubarah Shukla (Daily Mail) reports that the talks actually ended in a deadlock.

Menon, a former envoy to Beijing and an old China hand in India’s national security set-up, argued that under article 3 of the guiding principles of the Sino-Indian boundary discussions, all sectors (eastern, western and middle) needed to be discussed and a package solution required to be thrashed out. India argued that the western sector in Jammu and Kashmir, which includes the Aksai Chin area, should be discussed along with the eastern portion of the boundary. 

Under a previously agreed principle, the two sides had concurred in 2005 that settled population would not be disturbed. New Delhi articulated this, too, at the meeting.

India claims Chinese controlled territory in Western Tibet and Xinjiang (Aksai Chin, including the Karakoram tract linking China and Pakistan) while China claims the Indian State of Arunachal Pradesh. What seems to have happened is that the Chinese side has insisted on discussing Arunachal Pradesh first before turning to the question of the Aksai Chin area. This – if it is true — would render things much more complicated and rule out any settlement of the dispute for quite some time.

Posted in Border Review | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Poppy Production in Golden Triangle

Souksakhone Vaenkeo for The Economic Observer:

According to a new report from the United Nations Office on Drug and Crime (UNODC), opium cultivation in Myanmar and Laos has increased, with high prices offering farmers a better incentive to plant the illicit crop.

According to the report, despite the efforts of national governments to reduce the planting of opium, the area of opium plantations in Laos increased by 37 percent in 2011, up to 4,100 hectares from last year’s 3,000 hectares.

Interesting development against the background of all the Chinese efforts and investments to turn these opium farmers into producers of rubber (see, for example, the work of Antonella Diana here and here)

Posted in Border Review | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

What happened in Xinjiang?

On 29 December, Xinhua reported that seven “terrorists” were shot by police in Western Xinjiang after “kidnapping” two herders. Edward Wong put together all that is known in his piece for the New York Times on 1 January 2012 (I only found it now):

In the new report, Radio Free Asia said on Friday that four of the people detained after the confrontation in a mountainous area of Xinjiang were children, ages 7 to 17, and that they had been part of a group trying to flee the country to escape repression.

A report on Thursday by Xinhua, the state news agency, said that police officers had engaged in a shootout with 15 terrorist suspects who had abducted two people, and that seven of the suspects and one police officer had been killed. Xinhua did not specify the ethnicity of the gunmen.

An article on Friday in The Global Times, a state-run newspaper, said that a group of kidnappers had been trying to cross into Central Asia to undergo “jihadist training” and had abducted two herdsmen to force them to guide the group in Pishan County. Four of the 15 people were detained, and four others were injured, the article said.
The report by Radio Free Asia, which is financed by the United States government and has a Uighur-language service, said the group was trying to leave the country so that it could freely practice Islam, the religion of most Uighurs. The Chinese Communist Party carefully controls expressions of Islam and other religions throughout China. The report made no reference to a kidnapping and said the group had been stopped by the police on the way to the border.

More open questions than anything else.

Posted in Border Review | Tagged | Leave a comment

207 Tibetan pilgrims arrested, Wen Jiabao’s brief visit

Rebublica reports that 207 Tibetan pilgrims were arrested by Nepali police for illegally entering the country from India (according to Phayul, Kathmandu’s Chief of Police had originally put the number at 114). The pilgrims had attended the Kalachakra initiation in Bodhgaya and were on their way back home to Tibet via Nepal. At least half of them had passports and Nepali visas, which they had left behind in Kathmandu while attending the ceremony.

Just when the news got out, Nepali officials learned that Wen Jiabao decided to make a 5-hour stop-over in Kathmandu later today and meet with Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai. Wen had cancelled his planned visit in December.

Two questions arise: First, is this 5-hour stop-over the substitute for the cancelled trip? The original plan had Wen Jiabao lead a Chinese delegation of 180 people and the hopes of substantial aid and investment promises had been very high in Nepal. And second, what is the Nepali police planning to do with the 207 Tibetans? Hand them over to the Chinese authorities for a violation of Indian and Nepali immigration laws? As the majority of them has passports and given how difficult it is for Tibetans to get them, I would assume that many of them were retired government officials or well-connected business people.

Posted in Border Review | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Afghan oil and Orientalism

On 25 December, Hakeem Naim published a long article on how Orientalist rhetoric is over and over recycled in Afghanistan:

The myths of Afghanistan perfectly reflect the ontological conception of today’s Orientalism. Afghanistan has been the exotic land of beauty, romance, courage, and unconquerable tribes. She is rich, resourceful, and “pretty promising.” She can be “modern”, “free”, and “democratic” as long as the “west” conquers her, controls her or is in bed with her.

A day later, the Afghan cabinet agreed to let China’s National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) exploit natural gas and oil in country’s northeast. On 29 December, the deal was signed; according to CNTV it could earn Afghanistan $7 billion over the next 25 years.

American blogger Ron Beasly was quick to ask: “Is US blood and treasure making Afghanistan safe for Chinese exploitation?” His suggestion is that America should now withdraw and leave the problem of Afghan security to the Chinese. Pakistani analyst Syed Fazl-e-Haider (The National) writes that China is indeed working on a plan to defend its Afghan investments in resource projects (they are learning from their experience in Sudan).

Naim, Beasly, Fazl-e-Haider – three very different worlds of thought. I wonder if they read each other.

Posted in Border Review | Tagged , , | Leave a comment