Bulletin Board #2,
(BEFORE SECOND EXAMINATION)
Geography 128
Penn State University
All postings are from most recent to first posted
Just a reminder. As we agreed in class, the exam is the evening
of March 26. It will be in 26 Hosler Building from 6:30-7:45 p.m.
It will be open books/notes and will include both an objectives
section AND short essays. The review session will be Tuesday,
24 March, from 6:30-8 pm in our classroom, 362 Willard.
The term paper turn in date is listed in the packet as 3 weeks
before the last day of CLASS. So that is Thursday, 9 April. Turn
in papers early if you can. I will need all the time possible
to read and remark on your work.
SRI LANKA DATA
WORLD'S REFUGEES
SOUTH ASIA INTERNAL AND INTERNATIONAL TROUBLES
India: External concern with Pakistan (now has nuclear
weapons), especially over Kashmir and China. Chinese naval activities
in the Bay of Bengal (island base leased from Burma) troublesome.
Problems with Bangladesh but that's a weak country. Continued
distrust of US as a world hegemon with a history of supporting
Pakistan.
Internal troubles seem dominated by the Hindu:Moslem division
emphasized by the largest political party, the BJP. But there
are many internal groups causing trouble involving demands for
more local control or even independence - examples include the
Sikhs, Kashmiri Moslems and several "tribal" groups
in the northeast.
Sri Lanka: External concerns still center on possibilities
of Indian intervention and support of local Tamil rebels. Internal
concerns dominated by the ongoing civil war and demands of rebellious
Tamils for independence for the north and eastern parts of the
island.
Pakistan: External concerns with India, over Kashmir.
Internally, a major source of conflict disappeared with the breakup
of the original country of Pakistan (into Pakistan and Bangladesh);
but there are political battles based on regional groups, notably
Punjabis and Sindis. But Pathans in the northwest and Baluchis
in the east as well as the Mohajirs (originally refugees forced
out of India during the partition of 1947) in Karachi also cause
problems, sometimes major - as with the latter group.
Burma: Geography protects Burma from much interference
from outside. But despite current truce there is no real peace
with several major ethnic minorities such as the Karens and Shahs
in the eastern mountain areas. The attractiveness of Burma's
resources (including actual and potential oil reserves) is likely
to increase contacts with outsiders, notably China.
Nepal: Reluctantly accepts that India controls its fate.
Worried over bad treatment of Nepalese residents in neighboring
Bhutan.
Bhutan: Still a fairly despotic monarchy facing pressures
from both India and China. Worried about fast growing Nepalese
population in the east, it is repressing their culture and trying
to repatriate some of them.
SOUTHEAST AND EAST ASIA TROUBLE SPOTS:
Bougainville -- trying to get independence from Papua New Guinea
Mindanao -- historically Moslem area of Philippines, fighting
for independence. Recent treaty not working
East Timor -- formerly Portuguese, taken by Indonesia in 1975,
repression and brutality
Spratly Islands -- May be oil and gas subsea. Claimed by China,
Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia, Taiwan, Brunei
Cambodia--Prime Minister Hun Sen, former Khmer-Rouge. Still has
old instincts!!
Burma (official-Myanmar) - run by military thugs, who ignored
80% against them in election results in 1989.
Taiwan -- US sent two carrier task groups when China tested missiles
offshore in 1996.
Diaoyu/Senkaku islands -- Japanese took in 1895; claimed by Japan,
China, Taiwan. Oil and gas prospects.
Korea -- North a desperate pariah, South facing blow to its pride
in economic troubles. Nuclear potential.
Southern Kurile Islands -- occupied by Russia since 1945, claimed
by Japan. Fishing, Oil, Strategic position.
JUST IN CASE SOME FOLK WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE ONLY THE U.S.
INTERVENES IN THE AFFAIRS OF OTHER NATIONS......
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 04:06:37 +1100
From: Guy-Francis Vella
Subject: Re: China Destabilization Policies?
Xxx wrote, I have a question to pose. Does China's posses the
capabilities to attempt to wage any kind subversive activities
outside of the Chinese borders over the past three years? Specifically,
could China have the capabilities at this time to be working behind
the scenes in other countries to destabilize or influence other
areas of world peace through silent terrorist acts blamed on other
radical and fringe groups?
China has supported insurgency groups throughout SEA (Southeast
Asia) ever since 1949. Up until 1979 it backed the Malaysian Communist
Party, Thai Communist Party, and New Peoples Army in the Philippines,
only stopping doing so when it needed to side with ASEAN and the
US against Vietnam/USSR over Cambodia. After 1979 it also took
over supporter ethnic resistance groups in Vietnam (ones mostly
founded by the CIA) and funneled some support to ex-South Vietnamese
groups, as well as supplying all the Cambodian resistance groups
operating out of Thailand (though mainly the Khmer Rouge). I believe
China claims to have stopped supporting the Khmer Rouge following
the Paris Peace Accord four years ago. As for the anti-Vietnamese
forces I would presume that with the coming together of the two
countries in the post cold war period China has also stopped supporting
groups in Vietnam and Laos as well. If it wanted to resume supporting
such groups it would not find SEA as vulnerable as it had been
thanks to economic growth and the entrenching of the present regimes,
but certainly it has the experience and resources to do so.
SNIP We know this is may be a bit far fetched, but we would
be curious of what thoughts some of you have regarding China's
reasons or abilities to wish to destabilize world peace in other
regions other than in their own global neighborhood.
China wishes to be a regional hegemon. I don't think it needs
to destabilize the region to do that, in fact such actions would
be entirely counterproductive as they were twenty odd years and
more ago leading as they did to China being a pariah nation in
SEA. China for all it's ambitions is not a 'rogue' state, but
through arms transfers and support for insurgent groups is quiet
capable of destabilising almost any area of the world where it
sees the status quo as being unfavourable, or merely not as favourable
as it might be, to it. Arms transfers to Pakistan in South Asia
is a good example of this attitude.
ciao
Guy Francis Vella
Doctoral Student
School of Government & Public Policy
University of Sydney
I am sending you this for your reference in the future. The
uicu site has lots of stuff, including this, that could be useful
to you now and down the way. Enjoy
From: "H. D. Knoble"
Subject: Re: CIA pages.....
The easiest way to get to the CIA FTP server is via WWW .
This leads you to more information and if you follow "Publications"
to the World Fact Book, etc. The url is simply: http://www.odci.gov/
If you want a text copy of the World Fact Book (for example),
you can use FTP directly (or as a WWW URL) to the great document
archival FTP site: ftp://uiarchive.cso.uiuc.edu/pub/guteberg/etext
(e.g., 1996 World Fact Book is the file pub/gutenberg/etext96/world96.zip
. Lots of good machine-readable text there (hundreds of books).
See the INDEX* files within etextyy (yy=two digit year)subdirectory
for titles-files indices.
Hope this helps. Skip
CLASS: Do start looking seriously at NYTimes articles, especially
those on ASIA. For instance, see last week's pieces on Japan and
China. Bulletin #1 has entries relevant to Sri Lanka.
THIS STUFF IS RELEVANT TO THE PROBLEM OF HOW ONE KEEPS UP
WITH INTERNATIONAL BORDER CHANGES AND CONFLICTS.
From: Martin Pratt
Subject: World Wide Web resources
With apologies to participants who also subscribe to the int-boundaries
list, I thought it would be appropriate to announce some of the
new features available on the International Boundaries Research
Unit's World Wide Web pages which should be of interest to colleagues
whose work involves international boundary and territorial issues.
In addition to providing information on conferences and publications,
the site now includes the following:
- links to other sources of boundary-related information on the
World Wide Web
- boundary news from the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe
extracted from the Daily Digest of the Open Media Research Institute
in Prague
- a summary of national maritime claims kindly provided by fellow
Bob Smith of the Office of Ocean Affairs, U.S. Department of State
- the full text of a boundaries classic, Lord Curzon's 1908 Romanes
lecture 'Frontiers'. If you've never read it, I guarantee you'll
be amazed!
There are other bits and pieces as well, and a whole lot more
in the pipeline, including access to IBRU's boundary news database.
Please visit the site, sign the visitors book and let us know
what you think. Comments and suggestions for new links and services
are always welcome. IBRU's home page can be found at:
http://www.dur.ac.uk/~dgg0www1/ibru
With best wishes,
m a r t i n
===========================================
Martin Pratt
Research Officer
International Boundaries Research Unit
Mountjoy Research Centre, Suite 3P
University of Durham
Durham DH1 3UR
United Kingdom
m.a.pratt@durham.ac.uk (email)
http://www.dur.ac.uk/~dgg0www1/ibru/ (World Wide Web)
===========================================
I couldn't resist sending you this. It fits in with the geography
of ethnicity we've been talking about vis-a-vis Africa and evidences
that China like most ALL countries has minority groups and problems.
[Question: which countries do NOT have self-conscious minority
groups within their borders?]
The note also has geopolitical implications. The thought that
the US might lose naval superiority in this part of the Pacific
is disturbing. It is reminiscent of a finding by the British Royal
Navy that the rise of Japanese naval power meant the RN could
not guarantee defence of British possessions and interests in
the area around East Asia. The British government reaction was
to sign a mutual defence/assistance treaty with Japan in 1902
that was in force into the 1930s --eve of the second World War.
The US took that seriously enough that in war-gaming a US-Japan
conflict they had to consider also having to fight the British
Royal Navy. WHO CAN WE "BUDDY" WITH, AND SHOULD WE BE
RETHINKING OUR STRATEGY?
- - The original note follows - -
From: Thomas Fogarty
Subject: Re: U.S./CHINA Conflict
In answer to a few of the questions various people have raised:
[1] At least 90% of the Chinese population is "Han."
They're divided into 6-10 ethnic groups (depending on what combination
of spoken language and history is used to make the definition).
[2] Officially 5% of the population belongs to a minority category.
The Chinese have the world's oldest official minority definitions.
They date from the thirteenth century. The present categories
date from the 1950's.
[3] There are several large scale internal problems and "regional
rivalries." They include [a] south/north differences in degree
of economic change; [b] coastal/interior differences in benefits
from economic changes; [c] Han/minority clashes in the Northwest,
Tibet, and, to a lesser extent, in Northeast China.
[4] Since the mid 1950's the PRC government has followed a very
hard-nosed policy with regard to territorial sovereignty. Most
dramatic have been the war with India, the recurrent suppression
of Tibet, the settlement with the UK and Portugal, and the continued
pressure on Taiwan. But lots of other smaller issues have arisen.
The PRC position is basically that, with regard to a wide range
of historically tributary areas as well as to the traditional
Han area, the Chinese state is sovereign. There have been some
interesting statements in this regard with respect to areas in
the South China Sea.
I hope this is what the questioners were after. My own question:
there has been a persistent rumor (e.g. at professional conferences)
that recent US Navy war-games for the South China Sea have repeatedly
shown Chinese superiority within the next five years (over US
power inthe area). Does anyone have information on this?
Tom Fogarty
And more on a current topic. Reactions will vary to the tone
I think.
- - The original note follows - -
From: Ross Hedvicek
Subject: Re: US/China conflict
At 12:16 PM 3/12/96 +0800, you wrote: If a shooting war erupts
between the US and China, it will not be over trade or human rights,
much less Chinese sales of conventional/nuke weapons to "outlaws"
so designated by the US. It will be over Taiwan. A war over Taiwan
has less to do with democracy on the island than Taiwan's strategic
location. In other words, a war may as well be the only way to
settle who rules the West Pacific.
News reports out of Hong Kong say that Warren Christopher hinted
at changing America's "one-China" policy (meaning the
US will perhaps recoganise Taiwan as a sovereign country), if
that turns out to be true, we will be more likely to see a US-China
war sooner rather than later.
Well, as far I can see, China is in the same position as Iraq
was before the Gulf War started = claiming that some damn piece
of land is theirs when it was not. If it will come to the war,
they will get their ass kicked as Iraq got - I just hope it will
finish the Chinese commies - normal Chinese deserve a better government
than stinking Stalinists.
Ross
Daojiong Zha
University of Macau
P.S.: I wonder what Zha will think about this - he was defending
commies here before :-)))
We have to start thinking of Asia at some point!!
I tend to think that this is already happening given the recent
transfers of Chinese missle technology to Pakistan and nuclear
technology to Iran. For several decades Pakistan has been in the
spheres of influence of both the U.S. and China. Until recently
India was within the Soviet sphere of influence albeit not as
full allies. If Pakistan leans more towards the Chinese, might
India become more friendly to the U.S. especially given the rise
of a (capitalist) middle class there? Granted that India is a
regional power with an interest in maintaining at least decent
relations with Beijing, but might there be a bit of a cooling
in Chinese-Indian relations and a parallel warming of American-Indian
relations?
# Erik Kosberg = erik@carney.com PGP public key available
# http://www.carney.com/erik/
# Pat Carney Studio, Inc. / Graphic design & communications
# 400 First Av N, Suite 614, Minneapolis, MN 55401
# vox 612.339.4021/fax 339.9432 Standard disclaimers apply.
Some of you may want to follow this up!
- - The original note follows - - __
____________________________________________________________
Subject: Rumours about contraceptives
I'm doing some historical work about the history of "modern"
contraception in southern Africa, and I've been struck by the
clouds of rumour, speculation, and "urban legend", often
very politically loaded, that have swirled around the pill, the
IUD and the Depo-Provera shot.
I wondered whether anyone else has run across similar intriguing
rumours about the origins or likely effects of various birth control
methods, whether in Africa or elsewhere. If so, I would love to
hear about them. You can email me or post here, if you think this
is a topic that might be of more general interest. I think there's
room for a cross-cultural anthropological study here - for all
I know, one may have been done already.
From: Amy K Kaler
______________________________________________________
| |
| Diana Crow , Programmer , Demography Program, RSSS |
| Australian National University |
| |
| Email: diana.crow@anu.edu.au ~~ |
| Tel: (06) 249 2313 ~ \~ |
| Fax: (06) 249 3031 <> |
| |
|______________________________________________________|
| |
HOME Please email comments or suggestions to Dr. A.V. Williams
| All material on these pages are copyright property of Dr. A. V. Williams, Department of Geography, The Pennsylvania State University
|
|---|
| |