It seems as if the focus of creating a better future for Nepal in terms of economic development and peace is blurred by misunderstanding of cooperation and connection between nation states. From this article in the Hindustan Times, the leader of the recently created Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) (CPN(M)), Mohan Baidya, is unable to face the reality that his country is inextricably linked to the Indian (and Chinese) economies. It may be in the nation's best interest to play the political game rather than shut the door in India's face - For example, the entire country relies every single day upon cooking gas and other resources brought directly from India and carried up into the hills.
Nepal need not forcibly assert its independence from bordering nations, but realize the reality of interconnectedness.
Why Dialogue is an essential part of listening to interest groups' positions. Coming to the table to have our own perspective heard but remaining genuinely open to the perspectives of the "other" is the most important part of dialogue - a deeper understanding from which we can make clearer decisions about moving forward in personal conflicts and international conflicts.
See what Jonas Gahr Store has to say: TED talk on the importance of Dialogue in diplomacy
Interesting photos of Kashmiri Pandits return to Kashmir. Controversy is that, because they are Hindu, Pakistan sees them as a threat.
An opinion article in the Times of India reports results from a recent survey about the Line of Control. The article states that conflict was ready to be smoothed out before 11/26. Since, the terrain for resolution, or at least compromise, has been rocky.
It's hard to watch from afar. Maybe even harder to watch at all. A colleague just returned from KTM this weekend saying how shocking the living conditions are there: garbage in the streets piled high (the waste management system workers have been on strike since last may), loadshedding up to 18 hours/day (not enough time to charge a converter to get power).
China's Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Jiang says she has not read any reports of border encroachment around the Lines of Control in Ladakh. In fact, she says, "China has always strictly honored its commitments."
Indian Defense Minister, AK Antony, also denies the recent claims that China is subversively grabbing land along the border.
Both of these articles - from Times of India and Press Trust of India - are quite short and without many details. The TOI article reports Antony saying, "There is only a difference in perception," about the border encroachment. One wonders about pressure to post some information from an Indian source denying the recent claims...
What is the difference? How should it be explained? What are the different perceptions - that China IS harassing nomads along the high mountain plateau border, but India shouldn't perceive it like that? His words certainly imply that something is going on.
China and India are in their final rounds of talks to "safeguard peace and tranquility along the border."
In this year 2010, the Year of the Tiger, the Global Tiger Initiative launched with a conference including the 13 countries that govern tiger habitat. The conference was in Kathmandu... (neutral ground? Or where the best facilitators are?) in late October. During the four days, aims and objectives were established to protect tiger habitat which has reached 10% of the historical range, and make efforts for valuing live tigers rather than dead ones.
This HT article talks about Nepal's initiative to count their tigers starting next week. Only full grown tigers will be counted. Estimates were at 121 tigers in Nepal two years ago.
(read some of the reports on the gti website to see if any are appropriate for the Chitwan reader... final report summary? other academic papers? how can we link this in with lectures the students will hear? ask anil and watch youtube pieces to see if any are appropriate for viewing with the students)
While talks seem to be moving forward between India and Pakistan regarding the Kashmir issue, is China using the distraction to agress toward nomads in high mountain areas of Ladakh to lay claim on land?
"Our actions matter and can bend history in the direction of justice." - President Obama
War came with the first man - what is a 'just war' - last result? Self defense? Civilians spared from violence? Use of 'little force'? WWII saw more civilians killed than army. What does that say? Was it a 'just' war?
Woodrow Wilson received the NPP for architecting the League of Nations which was voted down. But America did lead the world into figuring out how to prevent wars... Marshall Plan, UN.
Wars between countries have given away to wars within countries - ethnic conflicts, failed states, secessionist movements (but what is this really an indication of? - citizens jockeying for their individual rights - the right to self governance? isn't this a good thing?) - trapped civilians in unending chaos. Refugees, children scarred, civilians lives torn asunder.
'Just' War vs. 'Just' Peace - is it possible to eradicate armed conflict in our lifetimes? If not, then what are we doing?
"Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem, it only brings new and more complicated ones." - MLK Jr. in his NPP acceptance speech.
NV not as passive or naive. Cannot stand idle "evil does exist," There are limits to reason. There is a deep ambivalence to military action.
(has democracy taken hold in the Balkans?)
"No matter how justified, war promises human tragedy."
"War is an expression of human folley. War is never itself glorious, we much never trumpet it as such."
All nations much adhere to standards governing use of force.
Three ways that we can build a 'just' and 'lasting' peace:
1. Develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to actually change behavior. The words of the international community must mean something. Those that break the rules must be held accountable. Accountability only when the world stands together as one. Example - seeking a world without nuclear weapons.
2. Nature of the peace we seek: Peace is not nearly the absence of visible conflict, only a just peace based on the inherent rights and dignity of every individual that can truly be lasting. Human rights need to be protected or peace is a hollow promise. (are these foreign to local cultures? or stages of development?) Is this just a campaign to impose our values on cultures from around the world? The suppression of identity can lead to violence. We've never fought a war with another democracy. Hm. They are our closest friends. This must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. Condemnation without discussion will only move forward with the status quo. Example - Nixon and Mao. But taking the long view, look at how China is doing today. maybe it worked. Human rights and dignity advanced over time.
3. Economic security and opportunity - true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want. (can we do away with want?) Addressing climate change - more conflict will come if we can't balance this issue. It's not just environmental activists and scientists.
None of this will work without understanding basic human needs and similarities of those. Fear of loss of identity leads to conflict. No holy war can be a just war.
Okay, so powerful speech. I particularly like that, as a leader, Obama is moving away from morally justified nonviolence and toward justification of human rights for all at any cost. This is a messy situation. I think there is particular possibility in his first point - standards of alternatives to violence. Putting something like that together on an international scale, and then actually holding folks accountable for that sounds great. Practical application? We shall see. I would have also liked to hear more about his plan for economic stability and opportunity - I immediately think of competition. I think the US may suffer from a superiority complex and as competition in the global economy increases (rather than being controlled by the US) freak-outs are going to happen.
Seems to me that Obama is committed to the "long view" of diplomacy, policy, and procedure. "Long view" meaning not just 30 or 40 years, but generations. I think it is difficult for the citizens of the world to look beyond the next three years and whether they like Obama or not better than Bush. I think THAT's the paradigm shift that needs to be ushered along... 'long view' does not mean this decade. Is there any hope in shifting that perspective? Even in our own lives?
How are the different levels of conflict connected? - International, national, ethnic, state, interpersonal, intrapersonal, moral dilemmas... where's the root? How do we sort this out?
Is China being aggressive with its international neighbors? Maybe President Obama is not the only one being bullied. This blog (from an Indian perspective, it seems) offers detailed commentary on diplomacy between these two giants.
Mr. D.S. Rajan (Director, Chennai Center for China Studies) writes a thoughtful analysis of recent blogs from inside China and what themes he sees coming out of the writing. Themes include a possible Sino-Indian conflict on a large scale, China's movement toward more military presence on its southern borders as of late, Chinese claims on Ladakh (but not Kashmir), capturing of Sikkim, and Nepal as a stepping stone for either country given the current political situation.
This is an astute synthesis of information.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
International Politics Major at Peking University -
i'm looking at a student's transcripts from an IP Major in China.
I don't know what year she is, maybe halfway through her studies?
The course work is mostly Chinese history - Modern Chinese History, Chinese Historiography, History of Social Life in Ancient China, Local Government and Primary Society in Ming and Qing Dynasties, Ancient Chinese History (part 1 and 2), General History of the World (part 2), Special Subjects on Ancient Chinese History Before the Qin Dynasty, Special Subjects on the History of the Sui and Tang Dynasties, Histories of Nationality in Ancient China, Selected Readings on "Zuozhuan".
International Politics, mainly studying Chinese history - ? Sounds like just Chinese history to me.
Is it ethical to post this? One might say: if I have to ask....
What would these possible topics of study for a phd look like:
ecology and conflict
international diplomacy and systems thinking
political science and community building
an ecological approach to conflict transformation
I'm thinking that if I do, indeed want to pursue a phd somewhere I need to understand first what my motivation for doing so is. Do I want to be AD of SIT Nepal? Do I want to teach in the US? Do I want to work as a practitioner in some field of study here in the Himalayan region? and of course, where can my skill set be of most benefit and relevance to others?
Most importantly - what would a phd give me that I don't have right now? credibility? The insistance that I am 'not just a kid' trying to fumble her way through the professional world. Would some time spent studying and focusing on one topic really do that for me? or am I approaching this issue from the wrong angle?
What kind of life experience do I need between now and potentially starting a phd in, say, Fall 2011 or Fall 2012? More work with an NGO? Management? Field work?
Good article from Republica about how Nepal needs to be careful moving forward politically.
Unskillfully playing both sides with two giants, Nepal is. Internal turmoil, and grandiose ideas about trust and relations with the giants will do Nepal, and her Maoists, no good.
So, how's it going for our "young, charismatic" leader?
This article from the Economist talks well about the embarassment that insued because Mr. President bowed to the Japanese Emperor.
Here, another Economist article talks through "Amateur Hour at the White House," with quotes from folks presiding over the Council for Foreign Relations. Interesting to me that the Economist quotes CFR - I wonder if readers know who/what they are...
In general, regarding Mr. President, I'm still left with the question -
Penchant for conciliation is excellent - being viewed as passive isn't so excellent. Where's the balance?
Amidst the debate of President Obama's international diplomacy, many different voices emerge - hatred, frustration, lack of understanding, support, vehement support, and admiration. John and Susan's article falls in the 'support' category, in my opinion.
Existential Debate: How is it possible that every president/leader/boss has the same amount of aversion/attraction to them? I would say the same statement above while inserting George W. Bush's name for Obama's. Does that make anyone else think?
