The Dalai Lama is a holy person first and a politician second. It is worth remembering this during his visits to Seattle and elsewhere in America, in the current emotionally charged atmosphere over China’s Olympic Games.

When I met him in Dharamsala, India, the Dalai Lama said his mind was on “Shoonya”, a Sanskrit word for emptiness experienced as profound serenity. It was in 1990 and he was coming to terms with China’s suppression of uprisings in which several hundred people died.

He subsequently spoke of the cultural destruction of his beloved nation. This year, he formally called it cultural genocide.

He spoke of Shoonya to build everyone’s inner strength to live through the repeated tragedies of his people. For him, Shoonya is emptiness so full that it operates like a seed containing all the unexpressed possibilities of hope, peace, success and happiness.

In 2008, this understanding gives him the courage to tell his people not to shed blood for freedom. Instead, he wants all of us to sow such strong seeds in the Shoonya of our own hearts that China will lose the will to subjugate Tibetans by force.

I empathised because my mother had described the innate dignity of destitute Tibetan refugees escaping from Chinese occupation through the Himalayan town of Shimla in the 1950s. She took their misery to heart partly because her own family had arrived in Shimla as refugees from Pakistan just a few years earlier.

The Dalai Lama is trying to perpetuate a brave tradition of non-violent acceptance and dignity in today’s harsh world. In despair hides the sapling of hope, if the path is one of non-violent “Satyagrah”, another Sanskrit word meaning “Insistence on truth.”

China is trying to draw a veil by switching off the Internet and stopping foreign journalists from reporting freely on the spot. It is vilifying the Dalai Lama, but he alone has the moral authority to revive cultural resurgence in Tibet and grant the domestic peace to China that guns and repression can never bring.

He is telling his people as well as their outraged friends in all countries that the way to pacify the bigoted rulers of Beijing is to insist repeatedly on the truth. That truth is Tibet’s priceless contribution to human spirituality, including its struggle to keep alive traditions of belief, language and culture against the rising tsunami of modern Chinese materialism.

Determined insistence on this truth will do more to save Tibetans than humiliating Beijing through boycotts. The Beijing government has indoctrinated its people to hate the Dalai Lama and Tibetans as evil forces trying to dismember the nation. The people will see any successful boycott as a public humiliation of Han Chinese and will blame Tibetans not the Beijing regime.

The challenge for the rest of the world is to ensure that the Chinese person-in-the-street does not react with disproportionate violence towards innocent Tibetans. Beijing does not care to be loved by the world. It wants to perpetuate its domestic power and be feared by its people.

It will deal with the Tibetans on its own terms behind opaque curtains after the Olympics. The angrier the Han Chinese, the more face Beijing will gain through brutality against Tibetans when the time comes for revenge. The regime’s domestic opponents will also get a clear message.

All of us may come to bitterly regret the Dalai Lama’s moderation, if China bears down with full force on the Tibetans later this year. But it is only realistic to recognize that neither the US government nor anyone else has the power or political will to protect Tibetans against a combination of Han Chinese anger and the regime’s cruelty.

Beijing is unlikely ever to leave Tibetans at peace since greater Tibet equals nearly 25% of China’s territory and contains wealth like oil, gas, uranium and lithium, all of which are very valuable currently. These are hard to extract but investing in them is coming closer each day with rising prices. China has the necessary know how and the money.

Above all, Tibet is probably the world’s richest reservoir of fresh water and the starting point of major Asian rivers. A few decades from now, when world powers fight over water instead of oil, Tibet will be a global El Dorado.

Perhaps, the only way to prevent Chinese punishment for Tibetans later this year is to find a means of protest that does not damage the Olympics while making foreign disapproval very clear. All foreign athletes competing in Beijing should agree to sit on the ground in silence for three minutes at the opening ceremonies during their parade, and before each event throughout the Olympics.

Beijing will not be able to blame foreign governments because the athletes do not answer to those governments. It will blame the International Olympic Committee but insisting on the athletes’ expulsion would simply ruin the Games. The IOC may also benefit by recognizing that it can no longer interpret the sporting spirit to include coercing athletes to ignore intense human suffering.

The impact on the people in China through TV and the media would be huge. They will see athletes using a non-violent and dignified method of expressing their disapproval of cultural genocide without disrupting the Games.

No government in Beijing could disregard this bad publicity in the eyes of its own people. Above all, it will hesitate to impose vengeance upon Tibetans afterwards because ordinary Chinese will be forced to think again about its propaganda.

The emerging shape of battle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is not reassuring. Obama won hearts because he filled them with hope for an America marked by cleaner politics and more ethical interaction with the world. Clinton won many minds by making those who worry about America’s enemies and economic troubles feel that she offers a more masterly set of hands at the tiller.

She played dirty but Barack kept the high road until the shocks of Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island. It now seems that he too is stepping into the dirt and readying for a knife fight with the wily lady. This should give everyone pause for thought because it opens new ways in which Hillary can give pain to Barack.

It’s early days but European analysts are already turning away from Barack. For them, he does not seem to have what it takes to change America. Instead the American electorate is changing him. He looked blue-collar America in the eye in Ohio and blinked.

Even that was done too late to convince the working classes that he is not an upper middle class white American who is using his black skin color to make us believe that he knows life on slummy urban streets or the red neck rural and industrial heartland.

Read the rest of this entry »

Many optimists think Main Street voters have moved beyond the “Guess who’s coming to dinner” syndrome of 1967. They think that all Barack Hussein Obama Jr. must do to win the Oval Office is to compete fairly and squarely with Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

Among other arguments, they point to the support of white voters for Obama in Georgia and several other states on Super Tuesday and later in Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington.

I would love to be persuaded but fear their optimism is like the hopes in 2000 of those who thought Christianity could no longer be a deciding factor in modern US elections. They rejected right wing fundamentalists as politically puny bags of hot air. Look what happened since.

The Clintons and others have already poked at Obama’s race and Muslim middle name to stoke doubt and fear at this early stage in the contest. They are hardly likely to switch off when the real bloodletting starts.

Just one generation ago, black people sat at the back of buses in several parts of America. It is laudable that some of them have reached extraordinary heights so quickly in almost all spheres of American life. But let us not be hasty.

Partly because of laws cloaking racial prejudice, one in six black males has been or is in prison and one in three is likely to be imprisoned during his life time.

Perhaps, the era of overt racism is over but covert racism is hard to eliminate in one short generation. Added to these are anti-Muslim feelings. I want to be wrong but see little evidence that Main Street voters are ready to choose Obama as President over a war hero and conservative white male, John McCain.

Obama is credited with attracting crossovers, independents and young people. This is possible in a primary faced with a cold fish like Clinton, who is less ethical to boot. There’s no real proof at this time that Obama can pull it off against McCain. Even Clinton may lose to McCain, especially if it is true that Southern white males prefer to vote against a woman in any case.

White people may have gone beyond race during the past 40 years but new racially prejudiced people have entered Main Street. Many are Hispanics, Koreans, Asians and East Indians. There is little to suggest that their majority will vote positively for a black President.

The intention here is not to berate people for prejudice or intolerance whatever their color and origin. The point being made is that political battles over the Oval Office are won on Main Street, and Main Street may not be ready for Obama even if he wins the Democratic nomination.

Capturing the nomination requires persuading persons well versed in politics. Being elected President involves overcoming a lot of irrationality born of the fears of Main Street voters about such daily personal struggles as livelihoods, medical care and redress for injustice.

Obama’s success so far brings optimism to those who hope for fair leadership and beneficial change in politics and governance. Such people usually have full stomachs, basic security and some education.

The Main Street’s masses are not so well cared for by destiny or society. They are lower middle class, low income or poor so they are less moved by the language of change and ideals. The change they want is to escape the indignities of daily life inflicted by low incomes and unpaid mortgages.

As yet, Obama has not said much to these people. The only real path to victory for him is to win over their minds and hearts. Inspiring thoughts mean less to them than putting more on the dinner table.

The dinner table’s composition has changed since Poitier, Tracy and Hepburn played out their drawing room comedy and John F. Kennedy resurrected Camelot. People drowning in bills want reassurance that their leader has the guts and fire needed to quickly deliver a better future. They do not care to understand the thoughts of a new Camelot Kennedy.

It may be politically correct to argue that being black and of partly Muslim blood is a minor not major hurdle for Obama. But sweeping these things under the rug does not remove the bump.

It may also be wise to acknowledge that many non-white Americans will hold Obama to a higher standard of proof to win their votes over McCain. Many of them are too young as Americans to be traditional Democrats or Republicans so they look at politics through a different filter.

Celebrating his near equality with Hillary Clinton after Super Tuesday, Barack Obama said in Chicago that there are many rounds to fight in the remaining fierce competition but “we’re turning out to be a scrappy little team.”

He will need every bit of brawl heading into contests in Louisiana, Washington, Nebraska, Maine, Virginia, Maryland, the District of Columbia, Wisconsin and Hawaii later this month.

Whatever his successes, his audacity of hope image may take a battering in coming months as the blood-letting with Clinton continues awaiting the final decision of their peers at the Democratic Convention.

Obama has a lot going for him. Even his website looks younger and more hopeful than that of his rival. But the vital question is whether he can face down Clinton and the Democratic establishment’s onslaught as she poaches on his terrain of youth and woos women voters more skillfully.

It will take much more than uplifting speeches to save him from being the candidate of black America, who is viewed with skepticism by Hispanic voters and is the butt of unspoken racism by middle and upper middle class whites.

When it comes to the crunch would a white couple earning between $50,000 and $120,000, who are happy to have a black man to dinner, be willing to marry a daughter to him? It takes that kind of trust, commitment and tolerance for whites to be ruled for the first time by a black man in the White House.

Obama’s broad strengths so far were his fund-raising and appeal to the youthful. These will slip quickly if Read the rest of this entry »

Will Super Tuesday be transformational and “get America going again” (in the words of John F. Kennedy)?

The conventional wisdom of the moment among political pundits is that Americans are crying for change. Voters are fed up and disappointed and want to be able to look at themselves in the mirror and feel that the President they choose to rule the world is honest, ethical and moral.

Most of this hope is reposed in Barack Obama. His uprightness, appeal to the high road of ideals, flights of poetry and personal charisma are being compared with JFK. Especially so, after endorsements from Caroline Kennedy and Edward Kennedy, the elder statesman.

In this moment, Barack seems also to appeal to young people, in whose nature often plays the desire to better the world. Then they reach middle age and their early high mindedness often crumbles under the pressures of bills and taxes, and having to safely raise their children and save for retirement.

Robert Kennedy’s children provided the counterpoint by saying that a President should be able to win fistfights. The Kennedy family has diametrically-opposite points of view and as such mirrors the conflicted feelings of voters. Most dislike George Bush but are unable to decide whether they would like to see a little bit of him in the new President.

Those who want a hint of Bush might go for Hilary Clinton and those who want even more of him might settle for John McCain. Mitt Romney may get those who worry more about the economy than Iraq or foreign policy.

This is a cliff hanger but not yet transformational. It will be transformational when Obama gets elected President in November but almost nobody outside America expects that to happen.

So low is trust in America’s generosity of spirit because of the Bush years most believe that between a white woman and a black man, American voters will choose
Read the rest of this entry »

Heading towards Super Tuesday, Pakistan has dropped off the radar of the primaries although it is the most likely place for the next civil war between Islamic terrorists and civilians. It might even become a cause of war with India and near total loss of American influence in the entire region.

Terrorism by Islamic fundamentalists supported by the Taliban and Al Qaeda has spread almost all across Pakistan. Terrorists killed former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and have attacked Air Force and Army personnel near military bases. Nearly half of Pakistani territory from Baluchistan to the North West Frontier is unstable and extremists seem to fear the army less.

Yet, none of the Presidential candidates seem to be aware of the dangers inherent in this situation for America, which is deeply engaged in the Pakistan and Afghanistan conflicts while trying to win over India as a strategic counterweight to China.

As Pakistan stumbles from horror to horror, Washington watches with the morbid fascination that comes from helplessness combined with incomprehension. Despite its many spies, Washington understands little about the violent tribal feudalism of Pakistan’s warlords.

It is hoping the so-called Pakistani secularists and judicial community that want elections, currently due on February 18, will wave a magic wand to defeat the terrorist. This is not a policy. It is escapist optimism because the powerful army is failing to do so. It also brings the US a step closer to losing substantive influence to China in the region.

Sunni Islamic fundamentalists may never rule in Islamabad but a significant increase in their political influence will certainly affect Afghanistan, Iran and India as well as the Central Asian “Stans”. That is China’s neighborhood.

Beijing will undoubtedly move quickly to profit from American discomfiture in the region. Then Washington’s political establishment and media will cry “Surprise” although all the signposts are there right now. The US is already losing Africa to China; it will then lose Central and South Asia as well. Read the rest of this entry »

The Republican Party’s disarray heading into the Florida primary and the recent return to favor of John McCain in the polls is causing fear in some European quarters and relief in others.

Most Europeans are against the Iraq war and they fear that McCain will prefer to score some kind of victory in Iraq rather than withdraw to cut losses, regardless of what happens on the ground. Others think he might bring some sanity into US policy by drawing down the war and turning more energetically to regional diplomacy to fashion a safe exit for American troops.

The contradictory expectations from the same person are testimony to the mixed signals being sent around the world by the ever-changing messages of candidates as they jockey for favor in the primaries.

In particular, they reflect poorly on McCain who was generally seen in Europe as a person with firm and honest convictions who did not hesitate to follow his conscience in going against the administration or the Republican Party. He is now perceived as having too many worrisome fuzzy edges to be the entire West’s leader.

At this time, many in Europe see Rudy Giuliani as a one trick pony still trying to profit from his performance in the aftermath of 9/11, although he does not seem to have core Republican convictions because of his positions on homosexuality, abortions and the sanctity of one marriage for life.

Mitt Romney is perceived as a lightweight because he is known less as a politician and more as a businessman in Europe, where business persons do not get the respect they receive in the US. His economic skills carry some weight but Europeans think he will be stymied by the distrust of American Christians if he ends up being the Presidential candidate.

Many worry he may have to spend too much time proving that he has the right kind of religious convictions for American voters. Focus on religion makes Europeans uncomfortable because most are Christian only in name and do not want religion to become a factor in world politics.

Perhaps the greatest fear of Europeans is a clash of civilizations with Islam encouraged by the domestic imperatives of Christian politics in the US. While Americans decide whether or not someone is a Christian of the right kind, extremists of non-Christian religions start to fear that the US, which leads the West, may be drawing a circle around Christianity to put it on a pedestal above other religions.

The intricacies of America’s Christian cults and sects receive little understanding among non Christians who see only that religion increasingly influences how people vote in the US. Such fear helps to generate suicide bombers and insurgents as the only responses available to weak non-Christians against a power, which is overwhelmingly strong and now seemingly on a path to being a citadel of Christian beliefs with the democratic support of its people.

We can only hope that Super Tuesday hatches something useful for Americans and Europeans. A further nine months of mud-slinging and confusion at a time when all of us need cooperation and clarity may turn many non-Americans against the US-style democratic process. That would be a real loss for the entire world’s democracies.

Europeans are watching the run up to Super Tuesday with a mixture of trepidation and bemusement after Barack Obama’s overwhelming win in South Carolina, where he captured 80% of the black vote.

There is trepidation because the person and party that rule America have an extraordinary influence on the fate of Europeans, who are close military and economic allies of the US. Bemusement because the primaries are turning into a circus at which the audience sits in nail-biting tension waiting to see who falls to the ground from the trapeze.

The Democratic primaries are perplexing in light of how non-Americans have traditionally perceived the Democrats. Suddenly, a white woman and a black man are sniping lethally at each other over race and religion. For most Europeans, it is scary that Obama is being called a Muslim simply to use the fear factor against him and must repeatedly prove his Christian faith to avoid losing votes. A black Christian who is forced to use the name of Martin Luther King to bolster his credentials both as an African American and the right kind of Christian is a sight Europeans would prefer not to have to see in a democratic process.

It is even scarier that American voters are being forced to divide on racial lines because of the Clinton-Obama chasm. Obama says race does not matter but it does because he won South Carolina because of it. Clinton claims she is race neutral but she is corralling Obama in the black corner to turn white voters away from him.

Many Europeans saw the rise of Hillary Clinton as a beacon of decency in US politics and a sign that Americans are finally catching up with Sri Lanka, India, Ukraine, Israel, Argentina, Britain, Germany and Pakistan. But the sleaze and racial and religious undertones of how she hits at Obama is souring European perceptions.

Her campaign managers probably think they are creating a perception of her as a bold, decisive and humane woman with the extraordinary intelligence required to cope with America’s and the world’s problems. To non-Americans she appears to be a mean street fighter who might be a vindictive and war-mongering President if her pride is crossed. She looks like the caricature ugly American who will stoop to anything to win. If she does this now, she might do so in foreign policy as well.

Worse, it is still unclear whether she has legs of her own. Bill Clinton is well-liked around the world, but the sight is not edifying of him dominating the campaign of a woman on whom he cheated and a potential President with whom he has an unclear relationship about who wears the pants.

It is hard to find a European observer who knows what Hilary stands for. Is she for the Iraq war or against it? Would she bomb Iran or talk even if it takes a long time? Is she for tax and interest rate cuts, or other inflationary measures, to save the US from recession? What will she do if foreign sovereign funds continue to buy into major US icons because American money cannot be found to save those companies?

Mostly important, is she capable of standing on her own feet in times of crisis or must she sit on Bill’s shoulders to make a difference to America and the world?

John Edwards has mostly been written off already. He is perceived as a Southern populist whose populism is irrelevant to modern America and the modern world. For most Europeans, like it or not, the US is currently the sole credible world leader. The problems its President must solve for America and the world are far too complex for populism and rhetoric.

Let us hope, things look a little better morally and ethically by Super Tuesday.

Climate change has slipped off the radar of both Democrats and Republicans as they enter the Primaries and election year 2008. Al Gore’s tirade against Bush may have delighted delegates at last December’s Climate Conference in Bali, Indonesia, but had little concrete impact on the politics of the US elections.

How we treat Mother Earth, on whose health all of us depend for survival and progress, seems to mean little to Presidential hopefuls. They continue to fight for votes mainly on other platforms such as jobs, the economy, immigration and health care.

This is like burying the head in sand. The issues are not moral but strictly business. The costs of health and absenteeism, which are already very high, will explode uncontrollably through ill-health caused by the unclean use of hydrocarbon fuels and reckless environmental pollution by industrial manufacturing, energy, transport and mining companies.

These cost-raising impacts for American business come against a backdrop of competition from low cost giants like China and India, not to mention the emerging economies of Russia, Central and Eastern Europe and Latin America.
Read the rest of this entry »

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has shed his army uniform and says he will allow free and fair democratic elections in January 2008 after ending the current martial law in mid-December 2007. Whatever happens will bring little change b ecause the current upheavals in Pakistan are not a bloody choice between democracy and political stability under a military dictator. They are the suffering of people caught between the hammer of a violent force rising in world Islam and the anvil of various secular forces that separate the words of God, whatever that God’s doctrine, from governance through laws enacted by man.

Pakistan is the land that is burning but the power struggle between fundamentalism and secularism is scattered and global. Because of a concourse of circumstances and history, Pakistan has become the focal point of these flames similar to the spot upon which a magnifying glass concentrates the sun’s roaming rays.

Musharraf’s political troubles may have been worsened by his military cooperation with Washington in the war against terrorism and hunt for Osama bin Laden since 9 September 2001. But they stem less from being an American puppet than from the role of Islam in the violence and contradictions that characterise Pakistan’s domestic politics.
These contradictions cannot be effaced without a life-changing decision. Do the Urdu-speaking South Asian people of Pakistan want to belong to the melting pot of today’s subcontinent or live in a purist theocracy admired by a few Arabs and others?

Its people have two choices. Either they review their country’s birth theology to break the link between the State and specific religious doctrine. Or they become true children of Islam by submitting their country to the particular texts they believe contain the ultimate words of God.

This second alternative sends fear around the world since these children of Islam would control nuclear weapons. The fear is multiplied because those who blindly believe in purist religious doctrine often distrust “godless” reasoning in the modern terminology of tolerance, logic and science. Negotiating with them becomes perilous and unpredictable.

The current hope around the world is that martial law in Pakistan is the final death throes of military dictatorships, which has dominated the country for more than half its life. Numerous analysts, including many people in Pakistan, hope that an orange revolution might happen there because of popular uprising.

This view neglects the significant differences between Pakistan and the conditions that allowed peaceful uprisings to bring down the Berlin Wall, defeat the Soviet Kremlin and snatch freedom for Hungarians, Czechs, Georgians, Ukranians and others. In those countries, people were fighting for freedom from the Soviet system which was using local regimes to control and oppress citizens in favor of Soviet interests. In the final stretch, there was no dissension among the people about the need to throw out the foreign puppet masters and their local puppets.

Pakistan is a completely different story. No foreign power has enslaved it directly or indirectly. It chose the path of Islam in a neighbourhood that its founding father, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, thought would be hostile to that religion because it had ruled Indian Hindus for centuries. From the day of its birth on 14 August 1947, Pakistanis have vascillated over whether their country should be a defender of the faith or a modern nation working to bring the best to its citizens. Jinnah died in September 1948 before he could set a course for them.

Field Marshall Ayub Khan started the long tradition of military dictatorships by seizing power in 1958 to “save the country” after 10 years of instability under civilians, including a war with India over Kashmir. Several military dictatorships later, Musharraf is using the same argument.

Ayub Khan modelled himself on Turkey’s Ataturk but did not succeed in breaking Islam’s links with the state, as did the Turkish army. Musharraf has a better record as an economic reformer but his dependence on Islamic politicians is much greater and control over territory is equally precarious.

Baluchistan and the North West Frontier Province (NWFP), which make up half of Pakistan, are still wild tribal lands. Both are in the hands of local governments heavily influenced by Islam. Retrograde Taliban theology is popular in the northern areas bordering Afghanistan and is kept in place by local warlords who also have formidable military skills.
Musharraf was forced to retreat in defeat from the northern border areas in 2006 despite sending over 80,000 regular soldiers armed by the world’s most lethal military, the Americans. Over $10 billion in US military and development aid since 2002 has failed to stop traditional Islamists from gaining the upper hand. For Washington, this is a nightmare.

Despite these failures, many in the West see Musharraf as a stabilzing force especially if he enters democracy alongside civilian politicians. They are forgetting that any Pakistani government, whether dictatorship or democratic, may have to work in coalition with the Islamic parties if it is weak and will have to pander to them if it is strong.

Hopes of stabilization are like skating on thin ice. Bhutto’s Pakistan Peoples Party is secular in name but Islamic piety runs through all its levels. Bhutto wears the Islamic scarf. Nawaz Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz group) was and still is overtly based on religious identity and his earlier electoral victories owed greatly to support from more radical Islamists.

Both Bhutto and Sharif also have serious corruption charges against them. Their record offers little hope of clean government if either returns to power, whether separately or together in a political alliance. That means Pakistan’s lawyers and Supreme Court, which were brave enough to confront Musharraf, will have to shelve those corruption charges in order not to weaken a civilian government.

Both civilians and dictators have awful records of governance in Pakistan. Musharraf deposed Sharif in 1999 because of the army did not trust Sharif after humiliation in the Kargil War with India earlier that year. Sharif had ordered the war for the foolish reason of building upon the popular euphoria that followed Pakistan’s acquisition under his watch of nuclear weapons capability in 1998.

General Muhammed Zia ul Haq, the dictator before Musharraf and earlier short spells of civilian rule, was openly Islamist and filled both the army and the feared intelligence service with Islamists and their sympathizers. Ayub Khan was moderate but he led Pakistan into the disastrous 1965 war with India to “liberate” the Muslims of Indian Kashmir. His successer Yahya Khan caused the break up of Pakistan by losing a major war with India in 1971 when East Pakistan became the independent country of Bangladesh.

The war followed democratic elections in 1970 when Zulfikar Ali Bhutto led the Pakistan People’s Party to victory in the West but refused to reach a power sharing arrangement with Mujibur Rahman, whose Awami League had won twice as many votes in the East. The humiliated West Pakistan army blamed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s arrogance for Bangladesh’s creation and General Zia ul Haq later hanged him on charges of corruption. Bhutto’s daughter Benazir and her political rival Sharif each became Prime Minister two times during the 1980s and 1990s but both were deposed and exiled by the army for corruption and incompetence.

This is how Pakistan has reached the brink of implosion today. Whether democracy or dictatorship, Pakistan will continue to be a creation of Islam until its people decide to use religion as a personal path to God separate from their existence as a nation. Till then, modern liberal democracy will have little meaning for them.

There are no true democrats among Pakistan’s top politicians. There are only dictators in camouflage or venal civilians masking their craze for power with democratic jargon learned during their exile and education in the West. All are loyal to political Islam in one way or another.

Chinese President Hu Jintao has left the world guessing as to his foreign policy beliefs by playing his cards very close to the chest at the 17th National Congress of the Chinese Communist party.

The Congress is the forum where the rulers of China gather to establish their pecking order and set policy guidelines for the next few years. His only visible move was to consolidate his power for the next five years and name new protegés to the nine-person Politburo Standing Committee, which stands at the apex of the Party’s apparatus and thus controls the country.

The fog continues and may even have become a little thicker on the crucial questions of human rights in China and whether it will behave more responsibly in international trade and world security. This is significant during a forthcoming period when many outside experts think his regime will face challenges of serious social unrest because of the glaring gaps between rural poverty and urban wealth.

A time-tested technique of hanging on to power despite failed domestic policies is to raise fears among the people of the hostile intentions of foreign “enemies”. Mao Tse Tung used this bogeyman frequently and Hu gave no reassurance at the Congress that he will not use his local “cold war” over Taiwan or a “trade war” with Europe and the US for similar purposes. Hu must at all costs prevent erosion in the Communist Party’s dictatorship over China if rising trends in social unrest become uncontrollable.

Within the complex jargon of China’s ruling ideology, Hu has successfully injected his concept of “scientific development”. He wants this to be his legacy. It stands broadly for implementing a more socially equitable and environmentally sustainable approach to China’s economic growth while intensifying a drive against corruption.

Of course, these are fine ideals but the devil is, as always, in the details. Hu wields power at the apex while local bosses are the faces of power actually seen by the people. Their ideals are much less lofty than those of the President. From most accounts, they focus on lining their pockets through business cronies without regard to pollution or social justice. The President’s orders mean little if the local bosses avoid implementing them because their self-interest is not served.

With the 2008 Olympics round the corner, Hu faces greater pressure to present an image of serene power to the world. He has over a trillion dollars in foreign exchange reserves gathered from trade surpluses and his people are estimated to have a personal savings treasure of over 2.5 trillion dollars.

Many around the world profit from the lower costs of consumer goods made in China, but feel trepidation at the financial power accumulating in Chinese hand. Beijing is already using it to buy Western companies and to wield political influence in the poor nations of Africa, Asia and Latin America.

In particular, the European Union fears trade deficits with China and does not want to fall into the kind of abject public debt that the US has towards Beijing. Officials are currently preparing an offensive to punish China for “dumping” steel and other materials on Europe’s markets allegedly below cost.

If that happens in the next few months, a trade war scenario will develop between Europe and China especially since the US Congress seems determined to punish China for its allegedly undervalued currency. Some Europeans claim the Chinese are selling steel, shoes, textiles, computer parts and other materials as much as 40% below cost. Some influential Americans think the Chinese yuan is under-valued by as much as one third.

If this Western anger turns into punitive trade measures, Hu will fight back because he faces nearly 700 million have-nots in China, which is about half the population. He may even provoke the fight as a means of making his people accept more sacrifices for a little longer. This is an easier alternative to ending mismanagement, corruption and ignorance in his Communist Party bureaucracy.

Figures are unreliable but media reports suggest that Hu has faced thousands of demonstrations during the last four years by rural dwellers fed up of economic inequity, severe pollution and legal justice denied because of interference by local Party bosses on behalf of business cronies. Whatever the precise facts, Hu clearly fears social unrest or he would not have made “scientific development” his catchphrase and desired legacy.

Hu’s other catchphrase is “Go global”, which implies an openness to the world. In practice, it means selling to the world and gathering political influence abroad without making the kind of foreign policy changes that would make China a more reassuring world citizen.

For instance, Hu has done nothing to improve China’s human rights record or tone down his rhetoric on Taiwan, which the Communist Party sees as a renegade province rather than a country. There are no softer words for the Dalai Lama on Tibet’s autonomy, no additional pressure on North Korea to dismantle its nuclear weapons and no pressure on Iran to give up nuclear ambitions.

At the same time, China continues to exploit America’s distraction with Iraq to spread tentacles in Africa and Latin America. It is also doing very little to trade more fairly, reduce theft of intellectual property or change its obstructive behavior on security issues brought to the United Nations Security Council by the US and Europe.

The 17th Congress was quiet on almost all of these important matters. Perhaps, Hu wants harmony within China but he gave little indication of how he plans to work towards his third catchphrase: a “harmonious world”. Confucius coined this catchphrase and for long, it meant that China remained isolated and distant from world affairs. That is no longer an option in our global village but the Chinese riddle remains as opaque as ever.

Iraq is not the only oil war at this time. New political battles for oil and gas are emerging as tensions rise between Western oil and gas conglomerates and the governments of non-Western countries, which are major future suppliers of these vital resources.

The latest shock to the Western oil majors came from new measures begun this week in Kazakhstan to unilaterally violate international energy contracts, if its government decides that foreign companies are not obeying the rules. In Russia, a new law later this year will disallow companies owned 50% or more by foreigners from bidding in auctions for strategic deposits.

Russia has already forcefully renegotiated almost all foreign oil and gas contracts since 2003. Gazprom, its gas conglomerate, causes fear in Europe because of its bold plans to buy oil and gas distribution and other companies.

The European Union’s executive Commission views this as aggression and is opening investigation of Gazprom for misuse of market power to control segments of Europe’s oil and gas markets. But these are early days and the charges are a long shot.

The trend to contract revisions is spreading among the former Soviet republics, which are likely to be the world’s leading new sources of supply. However, no emerging supplier is likely to nationalize resources or make dramatic demands like Russia has dared with foreign energy investors.

Restrictions on the participation of Western majors in extraction are increasing with news laws in Bolivia and Venezuela, which are also trying to better redistribute oil revenues. Other key producers like Kuwait, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia do not allow foreign participation in oil and gas extraction. Some that do permit foreign investment are under embargo e.g. American companies are not allowed to invest in Iran or Sudan.

The Kazakh move was prompted in part by cost overruns and a five-year delay to late 2010 of a huge contract at Kashagan, run by the Italian major Eni, Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell. The government is threatening to impose $10 billion in fines if negotiations due to close on October 22 end in failure.

Some Europeans and American Congressmen are citing security reasons for objecting to Gazprom’s inroads since it is State-owned. In turn, Kazakhstan is citing security reasons to prevent European companies from obtaining lucrative contracts which are then not fully honoured, placing financial strains on the government. Since suppliers like Kazakhstan depend heavily on oil revenues to finance economic development and their hold over power, they do not appreciate delays in obtaining those revenues.

Chevron chief executive David O’Reilly rushed to the Kazakh capital last week to ensure that his company’s huge investments in another Kazakh project at Tengiz would not be touched for “ecological reasons”. This was the argument used by Russia in a dispute with BP in December 2006 to force a cut in its stake in the $20bn Sakhalin-2 scheme in favour of Gazprom.

Russia supplies over one-third of Europe’s natural gas and is expected to become more prominent in coming years. It is already a major supplier to Germany, Central and East Europe, and Britain. Gazprom caused special heartburn earlier this year when it showed interest in buying Centrica, which owns British Gas, a family jewel.

The Russian company has been accused of playing politics by using its market power to intimidate the Ukraine and Belarusse governments and remind European politicians of their electors’ economic dependence on Moscow’s goodwill. Security of energy supply is now a key political issue between the European Union and Moscow.

Despite their political power, Western governments are unable to stall or stop their energy vulnerability. Britain could only stand by as Moscow squeezed BP. Energy economy stresses are reviving plans in Europe and the US to expand nuclear power regardless of anti-nuclear lobbies. That presages some domestic political turmoil.

Whatever happens, none can prevent a loss of bargaining power in oil and gas compared with the new producers over the next 15 years because data comparisons suggest that oil and gas resources in industrialized countries are being depleted ten times faster than in other countries. This growing dependence on imports is bad news with oil prices already well above $70 a barrel.

Industrialized countries consume more than half of global oil and gas output but possess only a quarter of production. They have less than 8% of the world’s remaining proved reserves of oil and gas. In contrast, developing or transition economies were 21 of the top 25 countries ranked in 2005 by total remaining proved reserves.

With a mess in Iraq, quarrel with Iran and the declining political clout of their governments, Western companies are finding it more difficult to access those remaining reserves in countries that have been Russia’s sphere of influence for decades if not centuries.

With naïve carelessness, the United States is moving towards a new generational Cold War that may be the turning point in unraveling American leadership of the modern world. Pax Americana may be the shortest ever in the history of empires.

The administration, media, politicians and a large swathe of electors are working themselves into an anti-Iranian frenzy and speedily moving towards a long era of hostility to that country. The US may never bomb Iran or conduct any other military act against it, but enough fear is being created to make Teheran nervously gather all means of deterrence.

The latest episode is the insulting treatment of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during the last few days. He came to New York as the President of an ancient civilization for meetings at the United Nations. Columbia University voluntarily invited him to speak but its President Lee Bollinger repeatedly insulted him in the introductory remarks before hearing what he had to say.

Many people, including this writer, believe those insults were richly deserved and congratulate the University for upholding free speech by offering a podium. However, it is uncouth to invite a person and insult him before he has said a word. If this was Bollinger’s intention, he should not have invited Ahmadinejad in the first place. Whatever the opposition to Ahmadinejad within Iran, its people will not forget the humiliation dumped on their representative in a country with which many would like to build bridges.

Despite the trauma of 9/11 and the quagmire of Iraq, American leaders seem to think that their military and economic power confers some kind of invincibility upon them. Perhaps because of that, many feel it is okay to insult a foreign leader who sees the national interests of his people in a light they dislike.

Clearly, Ahmadinejad is despicable as regards his views on the Holocaust, but some of his worldview is not without backers in his own country and elsewhere. Today, it would be hard to find people outside America who do not agree that the way the US government tries to manage the world “leads to war, discrimination and bloodshed.”

If the contempt of Americans for Iran is not reined in, a Cold War growing from a clash of civilisations with Islam may become inevitable. The fact is that the US is making enemies of both Sunni and Shiites. It has broken the back of Sunni power in Iraq and is backing a Shiite revival there, which is creating fear throughout the Sunni world.

At the same time, it is threatening to bomb the Shia heartland, which is Iran, thus forcing Teheran to collect all possible means of asymmetrical warfare. Iran is increasing its capabilities of fostering terrorism and insurgency in Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Its goal is to ensure that any military attack against it will spread uncontrollable political instability and violence throughout the Middle East. It is also secretly developing nuclear weapons to bring vulnerability to Israel, the chief US ally in the region.

With almost naïve insouciance, the US is making enemies among the fundamentalist Sunnis of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan and Indonesia who are far more fierce religious fanatics than the more mystical Shiites. This is happening because the US has dismantled the frontline Sunni bulwark against Shiites in Iraq. The fundamentalist Sunnis have already demonstrated on 9/11 and later that they are more willing terrorists that Shiites.

Simultaneously, the growing hostility of the American people (not just the government) towards Iran is edging towards a clash with the Shiites. Americans are pretending that Ahmadinejad is the culprit and all will be fine if he is dislodged from power. That is far from the truth. The US is creating fear in the people of Iran, not in Ahmadinejad.

Any future Iranian President will be a nationalist and will not allow his ancient people to be humiliated by Washington through threats and insults. Inevitably, any Iranian regime will amass the means of deterrence including nuclear weapons.

At the same time, both Sunni and Shia Muslims in the street will be wary of America, if not hostile. Their dictatorial rulers, including the Arab sheikhs allied to Washington, may not be able to contain the growing anti-American anger of their people. All of those are the ingredients of a prolonged Cold War.

President George Bush’s desire, stated in his televised address, to retain a long term military presence in Iraq to create and stabilize a permanent ally of the United States is likely to make Americans less secure over time.

That insecurity will come not just from Al Qaeda, which has repeatedly vowed to push the US out of the region and will not hesitate to orchestrate massive attacks on the US homeland. It may also come from various State powers in the area.

Obviously, Iran and Syria will respond negatively, while Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt eye the situation with varying degrees of undercertainty and trepidation. Other countries may also get involved, albeit with greater caution and circumspection, including Russia, China, Pakistan, the Central Asian republics and to some extent India.

A temporary adventure in Iraq, for whatever reasons, is one thing. A permanent military presence is quite another because it upsets the long-term balance of power. It may also waken sleeping demons buried in the historical memories of many of the area’s nations.

An American presence in the region does not come alone. Behind the US is the entire NATO alliance, bound to it by binding collective security treaties. This alliance is composed of Western powers, several of whom dominated and exploited many non-Western civilizations for centuries. Its only non-Western member, Turkey, is a former imperial power whose empire lasted over 600 years.

Almost the entire region from the Mediteranean to the Pacific, was once ruled extensively by various Western powers, then led by Britain as the West’s top power. A permanent US presence in Iraq may be read by some in those areas as presaging another long shadow of Western influence now lead by US, currently the West’s top power.

In the past Britain and other Western powers acted alone in most cases. Now the US may act alone but it is always underpinned by the entire West against outright military defeat or military attack on its homeland.

Of course, there is no question that new colonies may be built once again by the West spreading outwards from the heart of the Middle East. But historical memories are burned into the genes of human beings. No country West of Suez will take lightly a permanent heavily armed US military presence in Iraq, supported by a local regime dependent on the US. Nobody will say anything out loud, but all will work gradually to secure themselves against further expansion of US military power East of Iraq.

Undoubtedly, the US is currently the world’s uncontested supreme military and economic power. But a Gulliver should not disregard Lilliputeans. Every major empire through history fell on hard times because of small enemies snapping relentlessly at its fringes.

South Korea is sometimes named as the model for a possible long-term US military presence in Iraq. The situation is not comparable. The Korean war was fought at a different time just after the catastrophies of the Second World War when two powerful new non Western powers – the Soviet Union and China—were rising up.
In any event, that presence was part of the defence of a defeated and disarmed Japan standing eyeball to eyeball with the Soviets and the Chinese, both of whom had ambitions of becoming military Super Powers.

The situation regarding South Korea and Taiwan may be stable and has remained safe for over 50 years, but in no year since that time has China ceased expanding its military might. Currently, each turn and twist of the security relationship in that region among the US, China, Japan, Russia, North Korea, South Korea and Taiwan is closely watched. It cannot be termed peace in the sense that peace reigns in Europe. All participants still walk a tightrope despite the many safety nets to avoid a conflagration.

Long-term US military intrusion in the Middle East, founded on a mainly Shiite-ruled Iraq used as a satellite, is hardly likely to end up being as stable as the South Korea situation. Without doubt, Iran will acquire a nuclear weapon. Even if America bombs Iran in coming months and delays that process for another decade, its presence on Iran’s frontiers is hardly likely to be swallowed passively by the fiercely nationalist and pitiless Mullahs.

To install itself as a citizen of the region, the US would have to depose the Mullahs and destroy them sufficiently to make their return to power impossible. That is by no means an easy task in a fervently religious state populated by people fearful of their historical Sunni enemies now protected by the US. Especially so, in the light of Washington’s incompetent performance in Afghanistan and Iraq over the past five years.

If Mr. Bush’s televised intentions are bluster, his advisors are being reckless. If he is serious, the implications are sinister and could destablize all of the Near East, Middle East, West Asia and South Asia for decades to come.

Russia’s Vladimir Putin has laid a very skilful trap for President George Bush’s plans to place the beginnings of an anti-missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic to protect Western Europe against a possible attack by Iran or North Korea.

By suggesting that the shield should be located on a Russian military base in Azerbaijan, Putin has challenged Bush to protect all countries west of Iran and not just its Western allies. Further, he is trying to trick Bush into putting the shield under joint US, Russian and, to a lesser extent, Azerbaijan control by placing it outside NATO’s territory.

Thus, Moscow would have a say in all decisions, including those to launch anti-missile missiles, and would tie the hands of both the White House and Congress in a future conflict with Iran if it is executed against Russia’s will.

In effect, Russia or anyone else could destroy the shield installations without automatically triggering NATO’s collective defence clauses. Those are activated under treaty obligation if a non-NATO member State attacks anything on the territory of a NATO member State. Collective defence means that an attack on one member State is considered to be an attack on all.

Any enemy State could justify destroying or neutralizing the shield installations on a base in Azerbaijan without triggering the collective defence clauses unless the territory is formally ceded under contract to the US or NATO. The legal situation would still be unprecedented and murky.

Russia could intervene to shut down the base if the US attacks Iran bypassing the UN Security Council, as it did Iraq, or in defiance of a Russian veto in the Security Council. Russia might do so if it opposes military intervention in Iran, as it does currently, and wishes to win brownie points with Teheran for economic or other reasons.

It might even turn a blind eye if Teheran retaliates to a Western coalition attack with a missile launch on a NATO member within range of its weapons, as Iran would most likely do in an all out conflict. Much would depend on the military balances and strategic partnerships affecting West and Central Asia in coming years.

Such scenarious sound like fiction right now but it is worth remembering that security strategies are built to handle long term future uncertainties, not simply to riposte to present tensions. Russia has objected to bases in Poland and the Czech Republic because it sees any new US military installations using missiles, whether in defence or offence, as an alternation of the carefully negotiated strategic balance of forces between Moscow and Washington.

Once those bases are built, it cannot neutralize them in the event that they are used to coerce Moscow not to cosy up to Iran or other West and Central Asian countries because they will be on NATO territory. No one can foretell at this time how future strategic partnerships or alliances will shape in coming years if the US continues its determination, as stated several times, to be the world’s supreme military power.

Since US military power seems invincible, it is normal that other countries study how to prevent its use to coerce them to compromise on whatever they might consider to be in their national interest. Security negotiations involving conventional and nuclear weapons, which are often misleadingly called disarmament negotiations for public image purposes, are conducted to safeguard the security interests of governments for decades to come.

Putin is trying to put Bush in a corner. At the recent G-8 Summit, Bush invited Putin to share in developing the missile shield. By suggesting Azerbaijan as the location, which borders on Iran, Putin is ensuring that the invitation is not just rhetoric or insincere bluff.

If Washington decides to go so far forward in cooperating with Moscow, the world will move towards a new strategic balance in which the US and Russia would work together outside the UN Security Council to strengthen global security and neutralize Iran’s ambitions.

A compromise might include shields in Azerbaijan, Poland and the Czech Republic, thus making clear that they are not a defensive measure to protect only NATO members. In this way, the strategic balance inside Europe would not be disturbed since Moscow would a partner and Iran would be thoroughly isolated.

However, we can expect a revival of tensions between Washington and Moscow if Bush insists on sticking just to Poland and the Czech Republic. China would also have to consulted if Bush decides to cooperate with Putin, since Azerbaijan is in China’s backyard just as Latin America is in the US backyard.

A strategic shift in the balances that are currently keeping the peace between Russia and the West may be triggered at the G8 Summit in Germany from June 6-8, 2007.

At first glance, the Summit looks innocent enough with German Chancellor Angela Merkel seeking attention for climate change and more equity in global economic relations between rich and poor countries. She is trying to steer clear of the emerging sets of strategic uncertainties menacing the horizon. But tensions are palpable and her skilful footwork may fail.

Chief among those uncertainties are the Western bloc’s relationships with Russia and Iran. A recent mini-Summit between the conservative Merkel and Russian President Vladimir Putin ended coolly because of Merkel’s desire not to irritate President George Bush and a large swathe of US Congress that mistrusts Russia.

However, Putin is not backing down. Just days before the Summit, he has issued clear threats that American plans to place the kernel of an anti-missile shield in Europe may force him to reassess Russia’s entire strategic relationship with the NATO alliance and withdraw from an important arms limitation agreement.

The West is watching Putin’s increasing assertiveness with concern as Russia fattens on high oil and gas prices and tries to regain some of the geopolitical clout it lost completely after the Soviet Union’s collapse.

Putin is creating apprehension because of his apparent determination to use oil and gas as political pressure points on Western, Eastern and Central Europe, which depend heavily on Russian supplies. The dependence varies from 25% to 60% depending on the country.

After a period of apparent acquiescence, Russia is now snarling about NATO’s encroachment on the former Soviet Union’s neighbourhood. Putin appears to have lost trust in the long-term benign intentions of the US and Europe towards the reemergence of Russia as a major economic power. He suspects the West of trying to encircle and smother it by giving, among other things, NATO and European Union membership to all countries on its Western borders. That membership brings security and the promise of economic help to those countries, making them less susceptible to pressure from the Russian bear.

Putin also thinks that the US is trying to take advantage of Russia’s strategic weakness by starting installation of the anti-missile shield, which will make Europe less vulnerable to attacks from any sources, including Russia. Of course, the shield as currently conceived is powerless against Russia but it will open the door to future reinforcement.

The crucial point is that Western Europe is losing Putin’s trust and from that situation a new low key Cold War is a short step. If Russian apprehensions are confirmed in coming months, the entire global strategic balance will start to change. Of course, Putin’s Russia remains a quasi police state with a notorious penchant for stomping on human rights and press freedoms. But the wisdom of criticizing it too stridently is questionable.

There are many differences between European leaders and the Bush White House on Russia but suspicion of Putin’s intentions is growing. All the new EU members from Central and East Europe do not trust Russia. Embittered by life under the Soviet heel, they think the Russian leopard cannot change its spots whatever the regime in Moscow.

Therefore, they are huddling with the European Union, under NATO’s military protection, and are ferociously opposed to letting Russia increase its economic and military weight in European affairs. To this end, they are using their influence with the EU, where important decisions on foreign and external trade policy must have the support of all members.

If tensions between the EU and Russia do not decrease in coming months, the West will face humiliation in its relations with Iran and Serbia. Concerning Iran, Russian cooperation is essential to coerce Tehran into giving up its insistence on acquiring nuclear technology that might later be used to make weapons. If Russia vetoes Western attempts in the UN Security Council in June to punish Tehran for intransigence, Tehran will claim victory in facing down the combined political power of the US and Europe.

Russian involvement in Serbia over Kosovo is even more potentially troublesome for the West. The US and EU have accepted a plan to give Kosovo full independence within a few years if approved by the Security Council in coming weeks.

Serbia fervently opposes independence and insists that the West is violating earlier promises not to let Kosovo break away formally from Serbia. Kosovo is already independent in the sense that Belgrade has no voice in its daily affairs although on paper it remains a province of Serbia. If Russia uses its veto when the issue comes before the Security Council, it will hurt the Western bloc’s prestige since the European members of NATO are currently policing Kosovo.

The Summit is probably the last chance to deal with Russia ahead of the forthcoming Security Council votes on Iran and Kosovo.

The likelihood is growing of a stalemate in Afghanistan between the Hamid Karzai administration backed by NATO military power and the Taliban, other Jihadi and al Qaeda forces operating mainly out of safe havens in Pakistan.