|
|
||
|
Home | Hindi | Kabir | Poetry | Workshop | BoloKids | Writers | Contribute | Search | Contact Shop Online |
|||
|
|
|||
|
My Word
China proclaims it is one nation with two systems. It is also one government with two faces. So does it have two heads that work sometimes in conflict and sometimes in concert? Or is it simply double-faced? China’s policy towards India has been covertly hostile. For years India has been encircled by South Asian neighbors that are either unstable or hostile. The government’s inept diplomacy was only partly responsible. China’s role in creating these conditions was no less the cause. Evidence of this needs no reiteration. But recent gestures suggest China may change course eventually. China’s latest utterances on Nepal coincided with India’s stated interests. Recently Begum Khaleda Zia visited Delhi to confer with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Both leaders resolved to fight terrorism. Would Begum Khaleda have defied Beijing to do this? Only Pakistan struck a sour note. Peeved over the Indo-US nuclear deal President Musharraf said if America would not sign a similar deal with Pakistan he had the Chinese option. Pakistan’s foreign minister added: “The NPT will be finished. The US should be conscious of the sentiments of this country. People compare US to China and feel it has not been a constant friend the way China has.” Did these words reflect a Chinese assurance? Or was it whistling in the dark? Is China changing or is it still following the Maoist dictum: “Fight, fight, talk, talk?” Thanks to the Dalai Lama we may soon find out. Tibet was an independent nation forcibly annexed by China while India watched impotently. The voluminous historical and legal data that exists to vindicate this does not bear repetition. Currently China draws its legal claim from the Agreement signed between China and Tibet in 1951. That Agreement lacks legal validity. It was signed by Tibet under duress while Chinese forces occupied Tibet and China threatened a further advance to Lhasa if the Treaty was not signed. A treaty imposed by force is illegal unless force is used against an unlawful aggressor, or force is used to implement a UN resolution. Neither condition was fulfilled. China “peacefully liberated” Tibet which it claimed had always been part of China. So from whom was it liberated? From the Tibetans themselves? However all this is water under the bridge. The Dalai Lama made a huge compromise in search of a settlement. Young Tibetans would call it surrender. In a press conference in Israel last February 15 Dalai Lama said he was seeking only genuine autonomy for Tibet, not independence or separation from China. Perhaps wisdom dictated him to say this. In a changing world sovereignty is rapidly diluting while human rights and open societies are becoming global imperatives. Whatever the reason, Dalai Lama has moved more than half-way to address China’s concerns. So how will President Hu Jintao react? By the
time this appears in print President Bush and President Hu will be
meeting in Washington. America and China have a symbiotic relationship
going back decades. It is sealed by a 200 billion dollar trade surplus
for China which has accumulated foreign exchange reserves of 853 billion
US dollars by 2006. Both nations have been described as Siamese twins
joined at the hip. Discussions between both Presidents will doubtless
revolve on trade and energy needs. But they may also touch on human
rights and the future of Tibet. Despite Beijing’s protests Washington
will host a meeting between President Bush and Dalai Lama shortly after
the Hu visit. Dalai Lama is expected to visit Beijing in May – after
nearly 40 years – to confer with Chinese leaders. That might well be the
culmination of the dialogue process between Chinese and Tibetan leaders
which started in 2002. April 19, 2006 The Week of April 16, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Home | Bolography | BoloKids | Columns | Hindi | Kabir | Poetry | Quotes | Workshop | Writers | Contribute | Search | Contact |
|
|