KVB Tharoor's blog

All politics are local, according to the cliché. If the saying needed much more in its ballast of truth, one need only look at a recent spat in the Indian parliament. The main opposition parties in the Lok Sabha – the lower house – walked out today in furious protest over the government's refusal to take a firmer line on unrest in Tibet. Violent demonstrations in the capital Lhasa over the weekend had brought the Himalayan region once again beneath the global spotlight. Opposition politicians wanted the government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to clearly condemn China's actions in Tibet and push for United Nations intervention in resolving the demands of Tibetan dissidents. The ruling coalition only managed to "express its concern", prompting the exodus of MPs. It would be a bit too hopeful, however, to read in today's parliamentary histrionics much more than domestic point-scoring.

After all, as one foreign ministry representative pointed out, India's Tibet policy has changed little since the failed uprising of 1959 which brought the Dalai Lama and tens of thousands of Tibetan refugees into ongoing exile in India. While supporting the Dalai Lama and backing "non-violent" and "peaceful" political transformation in Tibet, New Delhi has done little to internationalise the Tibetan cause (with one eye, of course, on the lingering crisis in Kashmir) or to bring the force of international institutions to bear on China.

Ever since its humiliating losses to China in the 1962 war (the countries' only major clash), India has treated its looming neighbour gingerly, even as Beijing equipped Pakistan with military and scientific hardware and continuously undermined India's position within south Asia. This is even more unlikely to change now that China and India both harbour global ambitions and are wary of "balancing" each other to the west's advantage.

Why, then, did opposition MPs beat their chests about Tibet when their parties, if in power, would have done little different? Why did members of the Bharatiya Janata Party – a party linked to pogroms targeting India's minority Muslims – rail against the "cultural genocide" of minority peoples in China? The answer is local. Conspicuous in its relative silence in today's discussions was the Left Front, a bloc of communist and other leftist parties that give external support to India's ruling coalition, the United Progressive Alliance. All is not well with the Left-UPA fraternity, with a serious feud threatening to scupper the Indo-US nuclear deal. The Left accused the UPA of selling India short and pandering to the United States, still disparaged as "imperialist" in many quarters of Indian public opinion. Yet, the Left is seen by many as happy to lean towards China. Many of its parties maintain strong links with Beijing and, upon occasion, attempt to ape China's heavy-handed development strategies (as occurred recently with such controversial effect in the prospective establishment of a Chinese-style "special economic zone" in Nandigram in communist-ruled West Bengal). Some members of the Left dismiss their UPA counterparts as "pro-American", while the latter brand the former "pro-China". Such rhetorical tags matter less in their substance than in their power to firm the impression of ideological fissures between the Left and the UPA.

Thus the issue of Indian policy on Tibet has fallen into the opposition's lap as a crowbar to pry the Left and the UPA apart. If the opposition succeeds in making Tibet a serious issue in parliament, further strain will be placed on the Left-UPA alliance, as the stubborn silence of the communists will wrestle with the reluctant, moralising concessions of UPA MPs. Instead of directing outwards, debate about Tibet in India is pointed inward.

Speakers rightly fear misleading introductions, and so too should films. As an audience of scruffy aesthetes sucked on their complimentary ActionAid rock candy, a staffer of the Birds Eye View Film Festival rose to introduce Sabiha Sumar's "Dinner with the President". This was, she promised, a timely and relevant film, delving into Pakistan's abiding political crisis as the country remains in the glow of the global spotlight. But for any observer of Pakistan, the subsequent film was less timely than it was out of touch. Such is the speed of events in Pakistan that a documentary released in late 2007 can already feel sepia-toned and out-dated by early 2008.

by Jesse Brown

In the wake of the violence in Mumbai and Beirut, is the world really becoming more peaceful? And where do we find an outlet for the resulting fear?

Last October, in face of seemingly increased threats to global security, Paul Rogers claimed the ‘world is becoming more peaceful’. He referenced empirical data from the Human Security Report as support for his optimistic view. To explain the divergence of image and reality, he noted an unseen factor; the inability of the West to recognize that violence has significantly decreased in other parts of the world. Since the Cold War, despite the horrific and more recent attacks in the West, this would appear to be true, according to the HSR. However, the Crisis Group reported this month that ’13 actual or potential conflicts deteriorated around the world in June’ of this year.

The Crises Group reports that over 60 conflicts have deteriorated or remain unchanged. The majority of which are in the Caucasus, the Middle East, and Africa. Since the report was published on 1 July, we can assume that the status of 'unchanged' in Lebanon can be upgraded to 'deteriorated,' and Israel is now more than a 'risk.' This seems to imply a reversal of Rogers' insight. In the wake of terrorism that spread across some Western states from 2001-2004, real conflicts continued or potential ones were actualized on the periphery. So which is it; is the world more peaceful or should we be more fearful?

Antara Dev Sen, daughter of Nobel Prize winner Amartya Sen and Editor of the Little Magazine from Delhi, spoke with M11's Anthony Barnett about the Mumbai blasts last week. In addition to the death and mass suffering the attacks caused, India's accusation of Pakistan of harbouring the suspected terrorists, has stalled the peace talks as Pakistan considers the claim 'unsubstantiated.' The terrorist attacks were a double edged sword with fruitless effect; destruction and stalemate. This week also saw the terrible increase of violence in the Middle East as Hezbollah and Israel engage in a full-scale war. Is this all cause for fear or a call to action?

What does this kind of news mean for those who are not physically involved or affected by the violence? Even far from the turbulence, uncertainty and fear still permeate, and the need for security and action are visceral. Several organizations are answering the call to action, and have on-going or new initiatives aimed at generating a revitalized sense of democratic community and unity. In doing so, they also provide a necessary outlet.

Open Democracy, along with M11, has sponsored the 'Unite Against Terror' campaign. UAT is a symbolic act of solidarity with communities all over the world. Based in the beliefs of democracy and human rights, it opposes terrorism as acceptable resistance and rejects its perversion of Islam, for those who attempt to associate it. Many virtual communities have linked to the campaign in support of its goals, such as 'Will' at his blog site, general theory of rubbish, and Ahmed from Iraqi Expat. The blog sites, which have become increasingly popular over the past decade, offer a personal means of expression, as well as an alternative for information and community organizing.

In an immediate attempt to address the Lebanese/Israeli crises, M11 has posted an open forum on 'Making Peace in the Middle East?' The aim is to raise provocative and constructive ideas about the current violence as well as with the larger interconnected issues behind it. Also, AID continues its Global Leadership Summit over the next month, including a conference on 'Global Security' in Washington D.C. and the continued debate over the 'Future of US-Islamic World Relations' in Texas. Finally, Next Wednesday, Mark Barrett (People in Common) sponsors an Open Action Forum geared towards 'achieving civil and social rights.' One specific aim is a grassroots campaign for 'an inclusive written constitution.' The forum will take place in London at the Diorama Arts Centre at 18:30. When we discuss, argue, and share, knowledge gives us both a 'real' and 'potential' sense of control.

Whatever the current situation is, be it more or less peaceful in your world, the ratio is irrelevant. If the HSR is correct and violence is decreasing across the globe, there is certainly good news to be had. However, it is not the relation of current conflicts to past ones that is important, but rather their actual existence. These frightfully significant affairs shouldn't be measured in relative numbers but in actual events. Fear is not an acceptable state for anyone to live, and expression can sometimes provide a sacred outlet.

by Jesse Brown

The media is a constant concern and topic of debate, and the advent of the television followed by the internet add to its provocative power.

The New Media

The internet has gained great importance in modern media. Nearly every major news magazine, paper, and television station has a website covering their printed or aired content. It is also an equalizer between the powerless and the powerful, insofar as any person with access is able to publish his/her opinion. There are now multiple alternatives for information and a myriad of perspectives. Blogging has become a medium of expression, and therapy, as well as a source for information. A blog is on online journal, a relatively new feature quickly gaining in popularity. Its bias is purposeful and compels a distinct curiosity and intimacy with its readers. Some of the more fascinating blogs offer insights not easily attainable. BBC Newsnight began a series by Salam Pax, the Baghdad Blogger who posts from inside the war torn state. He shares his opinion on the future of the country, the constitution, and elections. The most frightening and compelling is the segment titled ‘Baghdad Blogger on Staying Alive in Iraq.’ Clips are available at BBC Newsnight.

IsraeliBunker.blogspot.com and Lebanonheartblogs.blogspot.com, similar to Baghdad Blogger, are controversially poignant as they represent two very subjective sides of the current crisis in Lebanon and Israel. They offer links and copy selcted news reports, either because they represent their views or are unforgivably contradictory to them. Lebanese Blogger warns that the American and Israeli media ‘are misleading you.’ In the virtual diary, he/she recounts the day’s events, including a description of being awoken at dawn to the sound of a bombs dropping over head. There is original poetry, and an eerily calm copy of an online exchange with his/her father. A man who had jumped out of his flat window onto a moving car, caused no more than slight curiosity in Beirut where the people were too distraught to care,

‘Me: I think he chose a wrong time to commit suicide.

Dad: Yes I think so too.

Silence

Dad: So how is everything? Are you eating well?’

‘Live from an Israeli Bunker’ has been highlighted on CNN, BBC, NPR (National Public Radio – U.S.) and other news outlets. He writes about his life, his vacations, his worries, the routine for life in the bunker and responding to sirens and calls to ‘Get down!’ He adds his own perspective to the media, and holds that Hezbollah does not care about the Lebanese people, but use children as shields to wage a ‘public relations campaign.’ Hence the photos of children killed by Israeli air strikes that fill the media are not so much evidence of casualities, but proof that Hezbollah does not intend to protect its people.

The sites give an informative angle to veuyorism, but so many blogs exist en masse without the provision of insight or information. As the internet gains in accessibility it loses some credibility. People are not as inclined to accept or conform to the information they read on the internet because it lacks exclusivity. So while the internet provides affordable alternatives to the costs and elitism of the mass media industry, it has some more catching up to do before we rely on it as a credible source.

The Alliance of Civilisations: a noble and grand name, with more gravitas than even the United Nations (a civilisation, of course, by its own nebulous definition is bigger than any nation). One imagines robed monks coming down from the mountains to shake hands with poncho-clad farmers, high-fiving kilt-wearing Hebridean fishermen, group-hugging a throng of Bushmen. All the colours of Benetton would wilt in the glare of this rosy vision.

Or would they? Though numerous right-wing bloggers have attacked (see, for instance, this cuddly character) this new UN initiative, the AoC's recently released report is not quite as insipid as it may seem. Its syrupy idealism is, in truth, tempered by good deal of sincere political critique.  

 

Chinese and African leaders met in Beijing this week to strengthen economic ties, as the middle kingdom mines the continent for natural resources and markets. Western observers cry foul, pointing to China's apathy in funding notorious human rights abusers (read: Sudan/Zimbabwe). Yet for some Chinese (and Africans, supposedly), this new financial lovefest is a reunion long in the making...

Six hundred years in the making, suggests an op-ed in China Daily. After exchanging "passionate hugs" and eulogies of Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlai and Jomo Kenyatta ("Mao and Zhou were great persons!""Kenyatta was also a great man!") with every Kenyan in sight, the article's author arrives at the ancient port city of Mombasa.

There, he is not only greeted with warmth and hospitality, but a history lesson. "Zheng He! Zheng He! Ok! Ok!" the locals chant, referring to the 15th century Chinese admiral who allegedly sailed as far as the east coast of Africa (some, including a contemporary Portuguese cartographer, suggest he went 2,000 miles deep into the Atlantic).

The author then goes on to describe how, in the 16th century, the Portuguese built a fort near Mombasa that eventually became a centre for the east African slave-trade. The implication is clear: a future of Zheng Hes was far better than a past of da Gamas.

One doubts that the mythical Chinese mariner was in fact embedded in the collective memory of the locals. Innocently fabricated, the Zheng He episode speaks to China's new vision of itself: an empire that could have been, now redeemed as the empire of tomorrow.

Predictably, the article's not-so-subtle posturing remained couched in the solidarity of anti-imperialist rhetoric. China Daily: new home of satire and irony.

History, writes the regressive historian Niall Ferguson, is the history of successive empires.
The Chinese, it seems, hope to write another chapter.  

 

Though the recently released Stern report has barely registered a blip in the pages of India's main newspapers (only one blip, it seems, with the Indian Express running a piece by Sir Nick himself), climate change remains in the news.

The rising Bay of Bengal recently "devoured" 100 tiny islands in the swampy Sundarbans delta region of West Bengal, displacing 10,000 people. The Sundarbans - a ghostly realm of folktales, endangered tigers, and sudden unforgiving tides - also contains some of the region's poorest people.

Will the bullish Indian public connect the dots? The urgency of climate change is surely not lost on many Indians, as a plethora of NGOs lobby the government routinely on environmental issues. Yet Indians - and others from the global "South" - resent the limitations that universal green standards will invariably place on their booming economies. Not only does the "North" bear the greater share of responsibility for global warming, critics say, but our industries were deliberately repressed in the colonial era to the benefit of the insiduous metropole.

In working towards a greener world, can such historical grudges be accommodated?  

Today openDemocracy published a further response by Bruce Ackerman to the criticisms Tony Judt aired last month in the London Review of Books. Judt savaged the American liberal (dis)establishment, describing its intellectuals as a "serving class" and as "useful idiots of the War on Terror". Their sham principles reek of bad faith, and worse, self-delusion:

It is particularly ironic that the ‘Clinton generation’ of American liberal intellectuals take special pride in their ‘tough-mindedness’, in their success in casting aside the illusions and myths of the old left, for these same ‘tough’ new liberals reproduce some of that old left’s worst characteristics. They may see themselves as having migrated to the opposite shore; but they display precisely the same mixture of dogmatic faith and cultural provincialism, not to mention the exuberant enthusiasm for violent political transformation at other people’s expense, that marked their fellow-travelling predecessors across the Cold War ideological divide.

In Judt's view, contemporary politics rose from the ashes of World War II. Intellectuals, even those  forward-thinking American liberals so fond of the term "progressive", still struggle to free themselves of the dust of the Cold War.

His biting words, of course, didn't go over so well in the States. Led by the respected writer-academics Bruce Ackerman and Todd Gitlin, the Amercan liberal wrote back, issuing a "manifesto" in the Washington DC-based "leftist" rag The American Prospect.

The "manifesto" is notable for two reasons:

1) far from a robust declaration of conviction and purpose, it's little more than a cobbled-together list of predictable talking points, something you would expect more from a chapter of college Democrats than America's esteemed intelligentsia

2) that it was published in The American Prospect 

Well, absolutely something.

Joel Waldfogel's recent piece in Slate suggests that Christopher Columbus is indeed not the villain he's made it out to be, pointing to the results of a Dartmouth College study on the economic benefits of European rule in a handful of Pacific islands. Waldfogel concludes with the cute observation that

There is no disputing that thousands died in the wake of European explorers' discovery of the New World. That's bad. But we can still give a small cheer for Columbus, because European colonization brought riches in its wake."

One of the major historical debates of our times remains the struggle over the legacy of European imperialism. It retains important implications for most surviving schools of political thought, from neoconservative and neoliberal to unreconstructed socialist.

In recent years, empire has been salvaged from the maws of its foes, dusted off and strutted about in a nice shiny suit. Witness the success and approval afforded to the work of Harvard historian / imperial apologist Niall Ferguson, or to the writings of Newsweek superman (and secretary of state aspirant) Fareed Zakaria.

With their foreign policy in shreds in the middle east, Bush administration officials are directing attention to another frontier: the final frontier. A new, robust galactic policy intends to propel American cosmonauts (and strategic interests) into the void.

Critics, however, have already rung alarm bells, with The New York Times pouring icy water on Bush's 'macho' interstellar vision. Where in the past the language of international cooperation governed any discussion of space, nationalist grand strategy looms large in US statements:  "In this new century, those who effectively utilize space will enjoy added prosperity and security and will hold a substantial advantage over those who do not. Freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air power and sea power."

Speaking a few years ago, Bush compared the expeditions of American astronauts to the continental trek of the 19th century explorers Lewis and Clark. Their enterprising spirit of discovery, Bush insisted, remains a guiding light for American space adventurers today.

Of course, the exploration of Lewis and Clark paved the way for the boots and wheels of American Manifest Destiny, turning a fledgling coastal nation into a continental empire. Increasingly jingoistic in its tone, the American space strategy does little to dissuade images of galactic imperium.

 

(Image courtesy Pilvikaupunki )

The Kazakh government's handling of the Borat affair has been as farcical as the comic film itself. Yesterday, the Kazakh foreign ministry softened its tone on Sacha Baron Cohen's upcoming movie, extending an invitation to their erstwhile foe. This amounts to a sizeable departure from the furious PR campaign mounted against Cohen -- which included protesting foreign ministry officials, four-page supplements in The New York Times and International Herald Tribune, and a multi-million dollar epic film.

Realising perhaps that their approach smacked of the unimaginative, heavy-handed intolerance of Nursultan Nazarbayev's despotic regime, Kazakh officials are now making conciliatory noises. Rakhat Aliyev, son-in-law of premier Nazarbayev, told the media:

"We must have a sense of humour and respect other people's freedom of creativity. It's useless to offend an artist and threaten to sue him. It will only further damage the country's reputation and make Borat even more popular."

Better late than never, one supposes.

Fred Halliday's piece on the strengthening ties between the "left" and political Islam has generated quite a bit of discussion within the shadowy confines of oD's offices. Critics of Halliday's thesis point out that the secular left (in Iraq, Algeria and elsewhere) has historically held political Islam at arm's length, and many Arab gauchistes to this day remain at odds with their fervent counterparts.

Yet as the German-Iraqi writer Khalid al-Maaly insists in Berliner Zeitung, secular, left-wing Arab intellectuals are throwing in their lot with militant Islam. Of course, such opinions will find ready believers in Europe (where many have grown eager to denounce traitors to the liberal tradition), so the phenomenon must not be overstated.         

What does absolute uncertainty look like? Does it have a shadowy shape, a doubtful smell, a quizzical voice... or perhaps a perplexing number?

Anybody following this week's release of the second Lancet report on Iraqi deaths will know that uncertainty, in fact, has two shadowy and perplexing numbers.

The first is 48,693, the second 943,000. And both represent the same thing!

                                            

"The aim of our patrol," it seems, is no longer "a question rather droll." Researchers and conservationists have grown increasingly alarmed by the violent behaviour of elephants in recent years. Across Africa and India, incidents of Human-Elephant conflict have increased manifold. This week, for instance, a herd of elephants - grieving the loss of one of their compatriots - mounted nightly raids on villages in the Indian state of Jharkhand. Elephants have killed on average over 50 people a year for the past 12 years in the eastern state of Assam, many through meticulous execution-style gorings. Not only humans but other animals are feeling the pain of elephantine aggro and angst, with rhinoceroses particularly singled out for abuse. The phenomenon of pachyderm violence received mammoth treatment in The New York Times magazine this weekend. As a result of increased poaching, encroachment on their habitat, and environmental change, the article suggests that Colonel Hathi and his ilk face "nothing less than a precipitous collapse of elephant culture."

More than paved roads, more than functioning healthcare, more than governmental transparency, every country must have a foundational epic film. As if robust economic growth was not enough, China boasts more than one recent example of this sort of cinema (the acrobatics and endlessly flowing fabric of Zhang Yimou's Hero come to mind). Thailand, too, joined the game with The Legend of Suriyothai, remarkable only for its ensemble of gold-laden, jewel-encrusted elephants. Bollywood's Lagaan, in which Rajhasthani peasants topple the British Raj by playing cricket, fulfilled the Indian desire for national celluloid "grandeur". England and New Zealand now share The Lord of the Rings, which evokes a mythical, primordial past for the former and draws in tourists for the latter. And Mali has an epic worthy of the brand: Souleymane Cisse's austere and beautiful Yeelen. Even places like Scotland (hardly a proper country) have their filmic myths of creation (though it fell to an Australian, Hollywood-based religious fanatic to make Braveheart for the Scots).

 Enter Kazakhstan.