The most notable of NED's "conquests" in recent months took place in Kyrgyzstan.
I am not convinced the U.S. attempts at taking over Kyrgyzstan went that well. Kyrgyz ambassador: U.S. base must go, Russia's should stay #msg-6943844
Nury Turkel also pointed out that Bush knows about the plight of Uighur Muslims in East Turkistan (Xinjiang province, that is) and Tibetan Buddhists in Tibet.
Bush means to control China by denying them oil.
In a world that runs on oil, the nation that controls the flow of oil has great strategic power. U.S. policy-makers want leverage over the economies of competitors -- Western Europe, Japan and China -- that are more dependent on Middle Eastern oil. #msg-4798276
A significant amount of oil bound for China will flow into the Xinjiang province thus Bush is attempting to takeover Kyrgyzstan and has a Uighur Government-in-waiting for Xinjiang.
China has already protested the establishment of a Uighur Government-in-Exile in Washington and Beijing has repeatedly made it clear that it will not tolerate any political interference from abroad, where pro-independence Uighur organizations exist. This means us. It would seem we are orchestrating a riot in the Xinjiang province of China. Kyrgyzstan is one of the countries that borders the Xinjiang region. #msg-4098311 #msg-5871359
-Am
US on Nepal's case
By Ramtanu Maitra
Jul 23, 2005
Fresh from its perceived success in Kyrgyzstan, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), an American non-governmental organization, has a new mission in Nepal, where King Gyanendra has assumed autocratic powers.
According to reports from South Asia, this was disclosed to Nepalese politicians by US Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia Christina Rocca during her recent visit to Nepal. Although the entry of the Washington-based NED is officially to help stabilize and promote democracy in Nepal, its past record makes some in India wonder what the consequences will be for India's turbulent northeast and for India's relations with China.
Beijing has even more reason to concern itself with the NED's presence in Nepal, next door to sensitive Tibet. The NED makes no bones of its concerns about Uighur Chinese, and is known to have earlier funded anti-China forces in Tibet.
India is by no means wholly ill-disposed toward the NED. In fact, the American outfit has some strong promoters there. During the 2000 visit to India by president Bill Clinton, a proposal was made to jointly set up an Asian center for democracy. The Asian Center for Democratic Governance is to be based in New Delhi, and jointly set up by the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) and the NED.
The pointman for the new center is one Gautam Adhikari, a former Washington correspondent of the Times of India and a member of the NED. Work on setting up the center has already started. When completed, according to CII in New Delhi, the center will aim at benefiting new and developing democracies of the region through the shared experiences of the two largest democracies in the world.
Still, India's security and military officers are worried by the NED's entry on the scene. It is no secret that despite openly receiving special appropriations from the US Congress, the NED has been accused of being a Central Intelligence Agency front at various times in the two decades it has been in existence. And there is no question of the organization's clout, because King Gyanendra had to accept its operations and agree to restore democracy in order to restore development aid flows.
The significant aspect of the NED, however, is its recent role in the "color-coded" revolutions in Central Asia - in the backwaters of Russia. Those "democratic revolutions" were designed to help Washington and antagonize Moscow and Beijing. It is too early to tell whether these "revolutions" will have the necessary staying power - but what is certain is that the NED was an active player. The arrival of such a potent force in volatile areas like Nepal and around unstable areas like India's northeast, is enough to worry the Indians, and the Chinese as well.
The recent record The most notable of NED's "conquests" in recent months took place in Kyrgyzstan. In his March 30 article, "US Helped to Prepare the Way for Kyrgyzstan's Uprising", New York Times correspondent Craig S Smith pointed out that the US maintained the largest bilateral pro-democracy program in Kyrgyzstan because of the Freedom Support Act, passed by Congress in 1992, to help the former Soviet republics in their economic and democratic transitions.
Money earmarked for democracy programs in Kyrgyzstan totaled about $12 million last year. Hundreds of thousands more filtered into pro-democracy programs in the country from other US government-financed institutions like the National Endowment for Democracy, Smith added. "That does not include the money for the Freedom House printing press or the Kyrgyz-language service of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, a pro-democracy broadcaster," he states.
Kyrgyzstan's "Tulip" revolution - though it seems far from being complete and has in fact shown signs of withering under the summer sun - was orchestrated through one of the major non-government organizations (NGOs) working with the opposition to Askar Akayev's government, the Coalition for Democracy and Civil Society (CDCS). CDCS received the bulk of its funding from the National Democratic Institute in Washington, which is financed by the US government.
Until recently, another Kyrgyz NGO, Civil Society Against Corruption (CSAC), received funding from the NED. The NED has extensive ties to the AFL-CIO trade union bureaucracy that was identified during the 1960s and 1970s for its efforts to topple governments deemed unfriendly to Washington.
The head of CSAC, Tolekan Ismailova, recently translated a pamphlet on the "revolutionary" methods used to bring down governments in Serbia, Georgia and Ukraine. This pamphlet was printed on a press in Kyrgyzstan owned by Freedom House, another American NGO. On one occasion, the day after the power went out, the American Embassy in Bishkek sent Freedom House two generators to keep the anti-Akayev materials rolling off the press, Smith reported.
Why Nepal now? Many in India point out that the NED is particularly rough with countries that are undemocratic by nature or unfriendly to the US. But, they add, no government, unless it is an occupied country, can remain friendly on all occasions and all the time.
Take for instance Akayev, the ousted president of Kyrgyzstan. No doubt, Akayev was deeply unpopular in Kyrgyzstan. But Akayev was once hailed by the West as one of the few "democrats" to emerge out of the wreckage of the Soviet Union. Subsequently, he fell out of favor with Washington, and was later targeted for removal. In this friend-to-foe episode, Akayev joins the ranks of a long list of former US assets, including such figures as Manuel Noriega of Panama, Slobodan Milosevic of Serbia and Saddam Hussein of Iraq.
It is interesting to note that the NED's attention was not drawn toward Nepal following King Gyanendra's unilateral assumption of power on February 1, when he dismissed the government and assumed control, and intensified military action against Nepalese Maoist insurgents.
Gyanendra had been targeted for almost two years before this. On November 21, 2003, Peter M Manikas, director of Asia programs at the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, a NED affiliate, testified before the US Congressional Human Rights Caucus, pointedly criticizing the Nepalese king for "anti-democratic activities".
In his testimony, Manikas noted that the political situation in Nepal had continued to worsen. He recounted that in May 2002 parliament was dissolved, but new elections (required within six months of the dissolution of parliament) did not take place because of growing Maoist violence. He also noted that when the term of local government officials expired the following July, no new elections were held.
Instead, over 200,000 elected local officials were replaced by civil servants. In October 2002, the king suspended the democratic process by appointing a "non-party" cabinet which operated the government without any elected representatives, Manikas testified.While critical in passing of Maoist brutalities, Manikas offered no balanced analysis of the Maoist insurgency that has gripped Nepal for the past five to six years and the complex dynamics underlying it. His target was King Gyanendra. Manikas accused the king of consolidating the power of the monarchy over the government and the army. He insisted that it was the failure of the government to deal effectively with Maoist violence that had led to a growing skepticism within the country that progress could be made without restoring the democratic process.
India's worries India's worries concerning the NED are broad and indirect; they are not linked to any particular capability of the organization. India's northeast has long been in turmoil. During the past five decades a number of guerrilla groups have emerged there. New Delhi has been less than successful in politically settling matters in northeast India. From time to time, the Indian army has been called in to control the violent guerrilla groups, and India has been accused of human-rights violations in the northeast on more than one occasion.
But, more importantly, India just does not want any more foreign tampering in this unstable region. A number of NGOs have sought security clearance for projects on subjects unheard of in areas where such studies neither appear relevant or feasible, according to sources in New Delhi. The flow of foreign funds to carry out such studies has made New Delhi sit up and take notice. According to one estimate, more than 200 NGOs are operating in some of the major states of northeastern India.
Over the years, several of India's northeastern states have been heavily evangelized by Baptist and other missionaries. Census figures indicate that more than 85% of the residents in Mizoram are Christians. The troubled state of Nagaland also has an overwhelming majority of Christians. In the post-Cold War period, Dutch missionaries have been found active in the northeastern state of Tripura. These missionaries came in without seeking formal permission from the government of India. It has also been reported that guerrilla leaders in conflict with New Delhi go to the Netherlands to meet Dutch NGO officials prior to or after their meetings with officials in New Delhi. At least one Dutch NGO involved in the northeastern region is being funded by the Dutch government. New Delhi is watching these developments carefully.
In addition, New Delhi is deeply concerned about northeast India's on-going demographic change as a result of large-scale illegal immigration of Muslim-Bangladeshis into Assam and other areas. There are several districts in West Bengal and Assam where Muslims have become a predominant majority because of such illegal infiltration. This is worrisome because there is little doubt that Bangladesh is fast becoming a center of orthodox, if not violent, Islamic activities. Many reports suggest that a large number of al-Qaeda and Taliban have been settled in Bangladesh, possibly with the help of Pakistan's Inter Press Service. New Delhi has no idea how to deal with this problem. The attempt at this time is to contain the Bangladeshi infiltration and prevent the growth of anti-India elements in and around the northeastern cauldron.
Bad memories evoked Moreover, any American interest in India's northeast will raise suspicions in the minds of those Indians who remember a study prepared by the Special Operation Research Office of the Washington-based George Washington University. The objective was to conduct sociological research in the northeastern states, including the kingdoms of Bhutan and Sikkim. (At the time an independent kingdom, Sikkim merged with India in 1975.) That study was seen as a precursor to "Project Brahmaputra". As reportedly envisioned by the US State Department at the time, Project Brahmaputra was to initiate a movement for a "United States of Assam", bringing together the northeastern insurgent groups under a "Seven Units Liberation Army".
These schemes never got very far on the ground. But the presence of a powerful American NGO in an area that is far from stable understandably raises red flags for Indian officials involved in the nation's security matters, who have no intention of entertaining new versions of such schemes.
The NED doles out over 300 grants per year, with the average grant amount topping $50,000. Writing for Slate online magazine, Brendan Koerner pointed on January 22, 2004, that the endowment had four principal initial recipients of funds: the International Republican Institute; the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs; an affiliate of the AFL-CIO, such as the American Center for International Labor Solidarity and an affiliate of the Chamber of Commerce, such as the Center for International Private Enterprise.
According to a recent NED tax return, these four groups each received $4,606,250 in 2001, which they in turn handed out to pro-democracy groups as they saw fit. The idea behind funneling equal amounts to these four groups is to stress the non-partisan nature of the NED. Along the same lines, the NED's board consists of bigwigs from both parties, including Democratic presidential hopeful General Wesley Clark and Republican Senator Jon Kyl.
Formed during the Ronald Reagan era in the 1980s, the NED is a favorite of the Bush administration. In fact, on the issue of spreading democracy around the globe, the Bush administration and the NED are in total sync. Not for nothing, President George W Bush, in his January 22, 2004, state of the union message, vowed to double the NED budget.
China's concerns China is a more direct target of the NED. Reports have confirmed the identification, looting and arson of Chinese and Turkish properties in Bishkek on the evening the "Tulip" revolution" took to the streets and drove out Akayev.
This should not come as a surprise. The NED has promoted the anti-Beijing Uighur rebels' cause for a long time. They hold regular meetings with the Uighur American Association in the suburbs of Washington, DC. The doyen of the Uighurs is one Rebiya Kadeer, who was released from a Chinese prison just prior to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's trip to Beijing in March.
China wants Bishkek to continue to clamp down on the Uighur diaspora inside Kyrgyzstan, so that it cannot support opposition to Beijing at home. Hitherto, China had been very successful in persuading Akayev, using Chinese investment, foreign aid and military-political support as leverage. In the NED-driven new regime, which professes to be more "democratic", Beijing fears Bishkek might be inclined to support Uighurs across the border.
Chinese concern is not abstract. Already, Nury Turkel, president of the Uighur American Association, in a statement issued recently, has said: "... There are a few glimmers of hope for Uighurs. In early 2004, the National Endowment for Democracy, the American lifeline for dissidents worldwide, gave my organization, the Uighur American Association, a grant to begin human-rights research to document human-rights abuses against Uighurs."
In November 2004, Rebiya Kadeer was awarded the Rafto prize, a prestigious human-rights award. Kadeer was arrested in 1997 while on her way to brief a US congressional delegation on Uighur human rights. She was finally released by the Chinese authorities on March 17, on "medical parole", but it was the continued pressure exerted on the Chinese government by the US and international human-rights organizations - culminating in Rice's visit to Beijing - that truly led to Kadeer's release.
Nury Turkel also pointed out that Bush knows about the plight of Uighur Muslims in East Turkistan (Xinjiang province, that is) and Tibetan Buddhists in Tibet. "Bush's own religious beliefs lead us to believe that he is particularly sensitive to religious repression everywhere," Turkel added. "It was significant that in October 2001, just a month after 9/11, he specifically warned China not to use the fight against terrorism as an excuse to persecute its minorities."
Again, Tibet According to Beijing, the presence of the NED, backed by the Bush administration, in Nepal raises the specter of an aggressive US involvement on the Tibet issue. Over the past 10 years, Nepal has rounded up nearly 6,000 Tibetans entering Nepal without proper travel documents, but none could be prosecuted because of the country's flexible immigration laws. The age-old traditions valid in Nepal as well as in Tibet do not allow Buddhists to be prosecuted for petty offences.
China has asked Nepal to cancel the residential permits of Tibetans and make Tibetan tourists register with the authorities each time they visit the country, especially when they are coming from bordering India and Bhutan. The pressure on the Tibetan issue came to the fore when Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao reportedly cancelled his Nepal visit during a recent South Asia tour because King Gyanendra could not satisfy the Chinese demands.
One of the reasons why China is particularly anxious about the Tibetans in Nepal is the British government's reaction in January when Nepal closed down the Tibetan Welfare Center and Tibetan Refugee Welfare Office that have worked for the welfare of Tibetan refugees for nearly five decades. "We regret the government action," said Mitra Pariyar, spokesman of the British Embassy in Kathmandu. The embassy made a representation to the Nepalese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Sudip Pathak, who heads the Human Rights Organization of Nepal, and NGO, said his organization supported the right of the Tibetans to practice their religion and traditional culture in a peaceful manner in Nepal. Pathak had met Nepal's home secretary, Chandi Prasad Shrestha, to advocate the reopening of the two centers.
Obviously, London saw the closure as a move by the Nepal government to placate China. Subsequently, Brad Adams, Asia director for the New York-based Human Rights Watch (HRW)group issued a statement: "The Refugee Welfare Office has been a critical safety net for tens of thousands of persecuted Tibetans. Closing the office leaves thousands of Tibetan refugees without crucial support." Although the official channels of the US remained quiet, the HRW, a prominent NGO, said what had been interpreted in Beijing was Washington's voice on the subject.
(Copyright 2005 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us for information on sales, syndication and republishing.)
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
