Articles

Himalayan Joint Security Concerns

We assume that borders are clearly drawn. Aerially, or by satellite, cartographic lines precisely present a logical basis for organizing foreign affairs bureaucracies and policy prescriptions. However, for people living on the ground drawn together by ethnic, social and religious identities, borders are often incongruous irrational delineations. National boundaries across traditional homelands can artificially split ethnic nationalities, psychologically not limited by borders.

This echoes loudly in the greater Himalayan region (running from Afghanistan, Pakistan, China’s Xinjiang and Tibet, Nepal, Bhutan, and India). Reeking with poverty, the region possesses forty percent of the world’s poor. Percent of population living under the poverty line are: Nepal 42%, Pakistan 33%, India 29%, and Bhutan 23%. Ethnic minorities in China’s western regions represent only 10% of the population, while accounting for 40-50% of China’s absolute poor.

The Obama administration will escalate conflict in Afghanistan committing additional 17,000 troops. China’s police-military lockdown on Tibet and Xinjiang continues into a second year. Kashmir lacks mutually acceptable solution between India and Pakistan. Nepal’s new Maoist government recently elected to power after a decade civil war offers aspirations of stability. The Himalayan region is a dry tinderbox. It should be foremost on the radar screens of American foreign policy. The US State Department separates regional administrative spheres drawing the line between South and Central Asia, and East Asia and the Pacific. Traditional maps may limit our own ability to coordinate relevant policy.

Both sides of the Himalayan range should be viewed as a string of interconnected political electrons that could be sparked at any time. Regions of Tibet and Xinjiang are ethnically, culturally and spiritually closely connected with the other side of the mountains. The Himalayas traditionally served more as bridge than barrier. So maybe we should begin to think this way in our own policy approach. Particularly as we learn by experience that terrorism needs to be addressed at its root cause rather than end effect.

Increased American troops in Afghanistan could likely exacerbate Islamic resilience against western influence in the region, pushing some moderate groups toward fundamentalism in Pakistan. As China carries George Bush’s old flag of anti-terror to facilitate its own ethnic cleansing agendas, infuriated Uyghers in Xinjiang may become radicalized. The potential East Turkistan separatist movement is connected to China’s own support of America’s positions on Israel. The Islamic world is disappointed at China’s refusal to speak out for them. It is an open secret that Israel sources China its main covert purchases of American-blocked technology. So an increased American presence in Afghanistan and Pakistan with no objection from China can translate into increased Xinjiang activism. It is just waiting to happen.

On the sensitive question of Kashmir, continuing differences remain between India and Pakistan. Here US diplomacy can play a robust role using smart power to actively encourage both parties to engage on this issue with efforts to progress toward an earlier solution. With potential increased tensions in Pakistan and Xinjiang, it may also be time for settlement of this problem. If anything the massive terrorist attack in Mumbai earlier this year made obvious the issue of regional security and the need to begin active diplomacy to seek progress on the issues outlined above.

Nepal can be a keystone. For this reason, it is time America – which labeled Nepal’s Maoist party “terrorist” – reach-out to actively engage it. Nepal’s Maoists placed down their guns to become a democratic coalition party. Their guerilla leader Prachanda now elected prime minister. By working openly and positively with Nepal’s new government on sustainable economic development programs for immediate alleviation of poverty -- which gave the original Maoist movement their support base -- can assure Nepal as link in regional stability.

Lastly, and most significantly, China’s dialogue with Dalai Lama’s envoys has stalemated. Long festered tensions compounding over decades erupted across China’s Tibetan regions last March. China’s draconian suppression has left ethnic differences intractable. A path forward is desperately needed more than ever. Tibetan communities spread from Tibet Autonomous region and four other provinces of China, to India and Nepal all aspire to preserve contiguous culture, identity and religion. The problem transcends borders. Instability in one region can affect another. His Holiness the Dalai Lama does not seek either separation, independence, or even “greater autonomy” but rather guarantees preserving Tibetan culture and religion within the context of China’s own constitution. Moreover, he has dropped aspirations of returning to Tibet. Closure of this chapter is easier for China’s authorities than ever before if they want it. Time however, is running out. Danger of fossilizing intractable stances -- “Hamas-ifing” -- radicalizing the issue by not solving it – worry every bordering government. Dalai Lama can be the key to solving this problem in his lifetime. China should work with, not against him. With this attitude progress can be made.

China can and should actively negotiate with India to finally solve border issues hanging over from the 1962 war. Recognition of areas already under de facto physical control may be a practical step away from nationalism toward economic mutuality. Given the potentially massive trade and financial synergy between these two powerful mega-economies, this is long overdue. If China’s rail lines through Tibet can link into India and Nepal, then Lhasa will become a prosperous trade center between South and East Asia, and if the Dalai issue is settled, Tibet (recognized as a holy land by Buddhists, Hindus, and Jains) will receive pilgrims from both East and South Asia, not to mention the West, developing a healthier brand of sustainable tourism than now.

Sensitive cultural tourism in this region can be an engine for economic growth, prosperity and sustainability of ethnic identities. All of this lays a platform for long-term stability that cannot be achieved through either suppression of religious or identity aspirations or galvanizing nationalist tensions along borders irrelevant to those living within them. These issues are as important to policymakers in Washington as they are in Delhi, Islamabad, Beijing and Kathmandu. All should work together toward a common interest goal.

Lastly, but most importantly, coordinated environmental policies are essential to this region for the sustainability of mankind’s own existence. Most great rivers of Asia: the Yangtze, Yellow, Mekong, Brahmaputra, Ganges, and Irrawaddy, all find their origin from Himalayan glaciers. Severe glacial attrition from global warming spells no water for two thirds of humanity. Then how will neighboring governments cope with this increasingly imminent disaster? Isn’t it time for coordinated policy on greenhouse gas emissions between the three main polluters – China, America and India. The Obama administration would be wise to make this a foreign policy pillar alongside global financial crisis concerns. Intricate policy coordination on protection of environmental biodiversity in the Himalayan region can be keystone to such policy success.

A presidential appointment of US Envoy for Himalayan Affairs to coordinate between regional governments on a tripartite of issues concerning each country -- security, sustainable economic development of ethnic identity, and the environment -- would be a first step in the right direction. Recognition that these three issues are interconnected, interactive and inseparable in their cause and effect syndrome, is a second step toward achieving some pragmatic progress on each. Bringing together the interests of governments with connecting borders in the Himalayan region as stakeholders in a joint dilemma and their recognition of the importance of being a stakeholder is the third step toward making progress a reality.