China rounds up the troops - will Tibetans keep up the fight?

By Rachel Oppenheimer

Chinese embassies worldwide gear up for Tibetan protests. Tuesday, March 10 will mark the 50th anniversary of the failed Tibetan uprising against Chinese rule that forced the Dalai Lama into exile. Qiangba Puncog, the Chinese-appointed governor of Tibet, assured that past dissenters now trust the Chinese government. He expects only minor unrest come Tuesday.

If last year's events indicate lasting Tibetan sentiment, protesters may well prove Puncog wrong. A year ago this month, angry nomads stormed through the Tibetan plateau of Maqu, China, raiding a police compound and setting fire to squad cars. Further north, Tibetans on horseback galloped into a schoolyard, replaced a Chinese flag with a Tibetan one, and shouted “Free Tibet!” Violent riots in Lhasa last March resulted in 18 civilian deaths. In monasteries, nomad tents, villages, and grasslands, Tibetans' fury against Chinese rule has raged since last year's riots and the violent repression that followed. Signs of this year's mounting resistance abound, including the Tibetan advocacy group report that security officers shot at a monk from Sichuan who lit himself on fire in a market last Friday.

Beijing will make a strong show of force in Tibetan areas to prevent a repeat of violent acts. A kind of martial law already exists in anticipation of the anniversary, with constant tension spreading across a third of Beijing's territory. In preparation for the big day, Nepal authorities said they have increased security near the Chinese Embassy. Between 20,000 and 25,000 Tibetan exiles live in Nepal. “Rallies, sit-ins and sloganeering will not be allowed within the prohibited area,” said Nabaraj Silwal, the chief of the Kathmandu city police. The Nepal government, which recognizes Tibet as a part of China, has little patience for anti-Chinese activities within its borders. As tensions run high in Tibet, New Zealanders too plan protests, including a demonstration outside the Chinese consulate office, a march on Queen Street and a memorial service outside the Auckland Museum. Only Tuesday will tell how much protest the Tibetans have left in them.

Violence or Silence: Will 50th Anniversary of Tibetan Rebellion Bring Another Uprising?

By Alyssa Landers

This Tuesday, March 10, 2009, will mark the 50^th anniversary of the Tibetans’ rebellion against China, and although there have been reports of preparations for violence, Chinese government officials, along with Qiangba Puncog, the Governor of the Tibet Autonomous Region, claim that all is well in the region. 

 Last year on the anniversary of the 1959 rebellion violent protests erupted in the region as Tibetans clashed with Chinese police forces in the area.  It was also said to be the most violent protest since the actual uprising itself in 1959, with ambiguous death tolls ranging anywhere from 10 to 40 people killed and thousands imprisoned.    

 Judging by last year’s displays, it would seem that violence would be anticipated for this year as well, but both the Chinese and the Governor maintain that there is nothing out of the ordinary, despite the fact that journalists and tourists are banned from the region. 

 However, Chinese testimony that there are no ethnic or national hostilities in the area leading up to this year’s 50^th anniversary milestone remain unconvincing, as travelers reported the deployment of Chinese police to secure the area against another violent uprising similar to that of last year, as well as a tense environment in the region.  According to The New York Times, it is “the largest troop deployment since the Sichuan earthquake last spring.”   

Tibet, a region whose sovereignty bas been debated for centuries, was invaded by the People’s Republic of Chine (PRC) in 1950, and has been under its rule since then.  In 1959 in Lhasa, the region’s capital, Tibetans staged an uprising against the Chinese government, but it proved futile in gaining independence for the region. 

Although the Chinese note progress in the area, the vast highland region to the west of China remains resistant to Chinese rule.

 In the meantime, the Dalai Lama, who fled to exile in India following the 1959 uprising, is urging his people to be peaceful and patient.

 Despite this warning, some Tibetans have forgone any consecration of Losar, the Tibetan new year, and many monks have held rallies, with one monk actually lighting himself on fire in protest. 

 As of now, it remains unclear as to whether another rebellion like that of March 2008 will emerge.  Yet with this year marking the 50^th anniversary of the 1959 Tibetan stand against China, it seems like everyone is preparing for the worst.  

Pakistan's Chance for Something New

By Jaya Spier 

Pakistan is not a country known for its stability and since the assassination of Benazir Bhutto and the state of Emergency announced by Pervez Musharraf, President of Pakistan (at the time) and Chief of Army Staff, in 2007 the government has been especially unsteady. This month lawyers in Pakistan are marching to the Parliament building to protest the dismissal of 60 judges, as well as the liberal former chief justice Ifikhar Muhammad Chaudry.

On March 12 lawyers from different cities all over the country will begin their march to Islamabad. They plan to arrive on March 16 where they will demonstrate in the form of a sit-in on Constitution Avenue. Those involved have said the sit-in will last as long as it needs to until the judges are reinstated (xinhuanet.com).

Ifikhar Muhammad Chaudry was a rival of Pervez Musharrafs and there is fear that if Chaudry is reinstated he will call for charges against Bhuttos widower husband, now President Asif Ali Zardari and son Bilwali of corruption. Musharraf is part of the ruling (Bhutto’s) party, the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) he was removed from his unconstitutional position as President in September 2008 when Zardari won by a majority in Pakistan’s elections.

Along with President Musharraf’s decision to rid Pakistani courts of so many of its judges a new party formed in opposition, the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N). Former Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, heads this new party. He has stated that PML-N will fully participate in the march to Islamabad in support of the rehiring of the deposed judges.

“Today is the historic day that the lawyers and judges have come out to protect the country and the constitution," said Sabihuddin Ahmed, the deposed head of the Sindh high court, in Karachi” (guardian.co.uk).

Another aspect that could prove to be extremely beneficial is the possibility of Pakistan gaining the support of private investors. As always we come back to the economic crisis. However, Aitzaz Ahsan, top lawyer, protest organizer and member of Zardari’s party believes that if the President kept his promise to reinstate Chaudhry he could end the protest.

Ahsan also said, "Iftikhar Chaudhry's reinstatement can open the flood gates to private investment…Private investment goes only to countries where the judiciary is independent…I know the world is under a deep recession but as and when the wheels start turning, that's the only recipe we have for attracting investment in a country that is bedeviled with so many problems” (in.reuters.com)

If the protest works, perhaps the government can come to some sort of compromise, “flooding” Pakistan with new money and some liberal ideals. 

Global Buildup for G20 Summit

By Michael Burgevin

As countries and financial institutions from around the world await the upcoming Group of 20 summit, cooperation between the member states has become a key issue. The G20, whose members control 85 percent of the world’s economy, will convene on April 2, 2009, at the ExCel Exhibition Center in London in hopes of creating a clear and defined global strategy for economic restoration. Many world leaders have already formed foreign alliances, recognizing that this summit has the potential to transform the way countries approach international finance.

China has already outlined its commitment towards international cooperation. Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi recently stressed the importance of multinational collaboration at the London summit, stating that China is “ready to work with the United States and other countries to weather the storm and make joint efforts to overcome the difficulties brought by the financial crisis.” Yang also announced the need for developing countries to hold more authority within the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, a change that would further Chinese influence in both organizations. However, it remains unlikely that United States or the EU would support such a measure.

Many European countries have also announced their commitment to intrastate collaboration. On February 22, the European leaders of the G20 gathered in Berlin, formulating a cohesive continental platform for the summit. Topics covered included the advancement of financial regulation and the bolstering of the IMF. The leaders stressed the significance of financial regulation, emphasizing their stance “that all financial markets, products and participants... must be subjected to appropriate oversight.”

However, many worry that the United States will be unwilling to support strict financial control. Mark Duckenfield, professor at the London School of Economics, recently explained how financial regulation contradicts the fundamental American dream of a free market. “Any effort,” Duckenfield concluded, “to come up with international rules applicable to the U.S. usually raises fears about American businesses finding themselves hog-tied as a result, which gets Joe the Plumber types shouting bloody murder.”

While many U.S. politicians have expressed their personal opinions toward international cooperation and financial oversight, the Obama administration has not yet released a detailed position for the G20 summit. Many view U.S. support as imperative for the summit’s success, as demonstrated during a recent visit of U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown to Washington when, in an address to congress, he stressed that "the challenges we all face are all global" and requested that the U.S. support international cooperation.

Citigroup's last stand?

By Michael Burgevin

The Federal Government reached an agreement with Citigroup to increase governmental ownership from eight percent to 36 percent in an effort to revive the deteriorating bank, the Treasury Department announced Friday evening. The plan marks the third consecutive attempt by the U.S. government to save the company in the past five months, after two lifelines of a combined $45 billion failed to shore up the weakened organization.

As outlined in the plan, the government will convert $25 billion of their preferred stock holdings into common stock, increasing Citigroup's potential to boost their profit after five successive negative quarters. Depending on how many companies follow suit and convert their holdings, Citigroup’s tangible equity could increase from $29.7 billion to $81.1 billion by the end of this year. Although Chief Executive Officer Vikram Pandit will be allowed to stay on, many of the top Citigroup administrators will be replaced in a move backed by the Fed.

News of the deal broke just two days after Federal Reserves Chairman Ben Bernanke announced that the government does not plan to nationalize major American banks. In a House Financial Service Committee hearing, Bernanke described nationalization as “when the government seizes the bank and zeros out its shareholders ... we don't plan anything like that.” He did say that the government may end up owning a “substantial minority” of some failing financial companies.

However, many experts see this move as just another step towards the ultimate nationalization of the banking sector. In a recent interview with Bloomberg Radio, former chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Arthur Levitt stated that the United States is in the process of an "economic revolution" and reiterated the inevitability of nationalizing weakened banks. The Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugan explained recently that Citigroup is essentially nationalized already and only continues to exist because the U.S. government has been implicitly guaranteeing all of its obligations.

Regardless of whether or not the government’s minority ownership of Citigroup marks a continued march towards nationalization, there is little doubt that the U.S. government has become a longtime player in the company’s existence. The government has not owned a large, long-term stake in a major bank since 1984 when it bought 80 percent of the failed Continental Illinois. Even in a bull market, it took the federal government seven years to sell off its holdings. Brookings Institute Fellow Douglas J. Elliott compared the two cases, stating that “I think we're going to own a substantial portion of Citigroup for years.”

Obama’s New Defense Budget

By Alyssa Landers

 

NEW YORK, Mar. 1—On Wednesday, President Barack Obama spoke to Congress in his first un-official state of the union address.  In the speech, he spoke of plans to reform the education and healthcare systems, as well as America’s energy policy, but devoted little time to a discussion of foreign policy. 

 

The largest allocation of budget funds for 2009 is for defense.  With the estimated average cost of the Iraq War at about $10 billion per month, many within Pentagon officials over the past year expected cuts.  Although Mr. Obama pledged to withdraw all troops from Iraq by August of 2010, during his Wednesday speech, he was clear about advancing the defense budget to $534 billion, thereby giving almost half of the national budget to defense.  

The administration justifies the proposed defense budget increase by its commitment to a thorough review of all entraneous expenses that are costing the government millions of dollars annually, including farm subsidies and nuclear weapons programs.  The defense budget increase also places a particular emphasis on augmenting the salaries of military personnel.     

 

And considering his plans to increase the national defense budget by 4%, military contracting companies are waiting with bated breath.  After Mr. Obama’s announcement this past Friday that he plans to withdraw from Iraq by the end of next year, economic prospects for contracting opportunities overseas looked dim, especially in light of the current economic crisis.

 

President Obama’s Wednesday speech, however, gave a ray of hope to contractors looking to gain an economic foothold and keep afloat.  Much of the allocation of resources will be determined by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, as he will decide which programs are viable and which are not. 

 

And as Congress debates over the next two months which programs should stay and which should go, the debate is expected to get heated. 

 

One thing that is not under debate, however, is the president’s approval rating, which rose to approximately 68% following the February 25^th congressional address.  Although some remain skeptical, attributing Mr. Obama’s consistently high approval ratings in spite of the economic crisis simply to his “new-ness,” others view his proclamation to withdraw the troops as a possible harbinger of economic prosperity.  

 

Either way, it is clear that even if a few of the provisions under Obama’s stimulus package will be contested, American citizens are backing up the president.  

U.S., Japan and the issues they face

By: Jaya Spier

President Obama has made a very big deal about his decision to interact with other countries in a way that implies partnership rather than compliance. Over and over again on each issue that he has deemed important for the American agenda, he has stressed the need for the global community to work together. Issues like the economy and global warming need international cooperation and President Obama is determined to get that.

This past week the first foreign leader came to visit President Obama at the White House. This was the Japanese Prime Minister, Taro Aso. Japan has been very interested in making sure that they maintain their status as a top U.S. ally. PM Aso stated on Tuesday that "on behalf of not only Japan but as a nation, we are very honored to be here as the first of foreign guests." He also said that Japan and the United states “will have to work together, hand in hand” as they are the world’s biggest economies. (Washingtonpost.com)

The new democratic government had some Japanese policymakers uncertain about U.S.-Japan relations. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton tried to ease their concerns when she made Tokyo her first stop on her trip to Asia. As Obama said at the beginning of talks with Aso "The alliance that we have is the cornerstone of security in East Asia, it is one that my administration wants to strengthen.” He continued on to say that the United States’ relationship with Japan is “extraordinarily important” and "It is for that reason that the prime minister is the first foreign dignitary to visit me here in the Oval Office." (France24.com)

Some of the topics discussed were the economy, the potential threat of North Korea as it plans to release a satellite into space, which is seen as a test for advance missile technology, and Japans continued support of humanitarian and financial aid in Pakistan and Afghanistan in their fight against terrorism.

Obama and Aso have pledged to work together on these issues. The United States government wanted to assure Japan that Japanese relations would not be sacrificed in an effort to work well with China. With the economy being a main concern “both countries are to agree to resist any rising trend toward protectionism,” they also agreed to “cooperate with each other in stabilizing the global financial system and supporting developing countries. Aso also was going to suggest to Obama that Tokyo and Washington should create a framework for new Japan-U.S. dialogue on economy" (yomiyuri.co.jp).

Prime Minister Aso was only in town for a brief 24 hours but the visit reaffirmed U.S.-Japanese relations and sent a message to the global community showing that President Obama really is ready to reach out and work with other countries on global issues.