China bullies the other side?

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? 

This is just an editorial, but...

People better watch their backs.

Many Voices and Concerns on Kashmir Solution

Peace conference called by two separatist leaders of J & K at the Indian International Center seem to speak about the 'real' issues here.  Ethnic group rights in the process need to be heard - many people are greatly affected by the stalemate in the northern areas.  Neither is willing to give an inch to the other and the 'dialogue' process is at a standstill because credibility of this technique has been lost through eruptions of violence in the past 15 years. 

One of the leaders, Sajjad Lone, proposes trade as a means to build trust and build the economy of the region.  Through this, the region can be unburdened by "the monotony of sovereignty."  He released a document called "Achievable Nationhood," the first of its kind since violence in 1989, at the beginning of Jan 2010.  Is this just the type of leadership that the region is needing to emerge from protracted conflict?

The paper calls for tax-free movement of goods between a united J & K. "Lone's peace formula comes a month after Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf said Islamabad would abandon its claim to Kashmir if India agreed to give the territory autonomy under joint supervision by both countries," says Reuters. 

Words to Support by - Obama's moral war

"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?    

Three Day Bandh

December 20, 21, 22 in Kathmandu, Unified Communist Party Nepal - Maoist (UCPN-M) held a strike that disrupted the valley for three days.  There were some violent clashes that took place quite near to the school house and my flat.  L and I decided to stay at one of the major hotels in town for the three days (coinciding with my birthday celebration) to stay informed and be sure that she was able to get to the airport this afternoon.  All went well, and the strike was even called off at noon today.

Many say that Maoists have broken the comprehensive peace accord signed in 2006 made with the government and that force must be taken to keep them in line.  Yesterday, L read an article in the Kathmandu Post saying that China and India have publicly given their support to the government of Nepal to contain and pacify the Maoists sending in ammunition if needed.

Al Jazeera article (among others) states that OHCHR says the police used 'excessive force' to deal with the 'peaceful' protesters. The NYT gives an informative perspective here (along with the evocative photo I linked above).  Comments from Democracy Underground about the three day strike.  An Indian paper "The Hindu" reports on the 'peaceful-turned-aggressive' strike here. Dailyindia.com here mentions that the Maoists accuse the government for aggressing first.  Here, and Here, Bloomberg.com insinuates personal tensions between Prachanda and President Nepal are the source of the conflict.  This short article talks about a law recently signed into affect that puts a condition on any aid Nepal recieves from the US - human rights violations must not happen.