Events last week illustrated that the true fault line in India-China relations remains the 60 year-old acrimony over the Tibetan frontier.

From India’s increasing presence in the disputed waters of the South China Sea to the duel over diplomatic influence in Myanmar, developments in recent months amply illustrate how India and China will bump into each other as they grow in power and aspiration. But events last week illustrate that the true fault line in bilateral relations remains the 60 year-old acrimony over the Indo-Tibetan frontier. The border area was the site for the month-long war between the countries in 1962, as well as serious military crises in 1967 and 1987. It is the only place where the outbreak of armed conflict is a realistic possibility, as well as the focus for much of India’s expansive plans for military modernization. And the chances are good that the frictions here will only intensify in the years ahead.

The border was to be the stage for an act of India-China cooperation last week, when high-level talks were to convene in New Delhi aimed at managing the increasing quarrels along the Himalayan boundary. The meeting was also intended to prepare the way for a visit to India early next year by Xi Jinping, China’s vice president who is heir apparent to Hu Jintao. But the Chinese side abruptly pulled out of the talks after failing to persuade New Delhi to prevent the Dalai Lama, the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader who is much reviled in Beijing as a separatist, from giving the valedictory address at an international Buddhist conclave that was meeting in the Indian capital at the same time.

The border talks will likely be rescheduled in the coming weeks. Both governments were circumspect in their official comments about the postponement. Notably, the Global Times, a Beijing-based tabloid that is an unfailing tribune of bemusing jingoism including recent fulminations aimed at New Delhi, reacted cautiously. In an editorial titled “China and India mustn’t go for the throat,” it counseled that:

“Both sides must keep the border issue from worsening by focusing on keeping good will talks alive and being mindful of the consequences of a sudden breakdown.”

A high-level defense dialogue between the two countries will also go ahead as scheduled in New Delhi this week. With the United States becoming more strategically assertive in East Asia – punctuated by President Barack Obama’s tour in the region last month – Beijing has high incentive to stabilize relations with India while it turns its attention to the challenges raised by Washington. The Global Times underscored this priority when it noted that even though India “appears to be highly interested in facing off with China,” the rivalry with New Delhi “is not the primary focus of Chinese society.”

With its own plate piled high with economic and governance challenges, not to mention the multiple insurgencies underway in its northeastern region, India also is keen to tamp down border ructions. Indeed, in deference to Chinese sensitivities, Pratibha Patil, India’s president who was supposed to inaugurate the Buddhist assembly, cancelled her participation, while Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, also scheduled to make an appearance, likewise stayed away.

But events are conspiring to upend each side’s preferences. As last week’s contretemps demonstrate, the border dispute is not simply a matter of contested claims over real estate. It also is bound up with the increasingly volatile issue of Tibetan nationalism. It is no coincidence that Beijing in recent years has turned up the volume about its territorial claims on the northeastern Indian states of Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh (the latter of which China has taken to calling “South Tibet”) at the same moment that the ethnic Tibetan population inside China has become more restive. Beijing views the agitations as the handiwork of the Dalai Lama, who has been especially effective in making Tibet an international cause célèbre, as well as the Tibetan government-in-exile. Both the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan exile core are based in Dharamsala in northern India.

Adding to the combustible mix is the location of Tawang Monastery, a revered site in Tibetan Buddhism that is just inside the Indian side of the contested border. The monastery is close to the birthplace of a 17th-century Dalai Lama who remains an immensely popular historical figure among Tibetans. Its significance has greatly increased after the current Dalai Lama stated that he might be reincarnated outside of Chinese-controlled territory and that the selection process for his successor might break with precedent, such as being hand-picked by him or chosen by popular acclaim. With Tawang likely to play an important role in the selection, Beijing is keen to assert control over it.

Beijing’s apoplexy over the Dalai Lama, once again on display last week in New Delhi, is a measure of its insecurity on the Tibet issue. This hypersensitivity has impelled the People’s Republic, officially an atheistic party-state, to entangle itself in deeply into the affairs of Tibetan religious institutions, including absurdly banning the current Dalai Lama from being reborn anywhere but inside China and insisting that it alone has the definitive word on the selection of his successor. It drove Beijing in 1995 to kidnap a six year-old Tibetan boy who the Dalai Lama proclaimed as the Panchen Lama, the second-ranking figure in Tibetan Buddhism. The boy’s fate remains unknown; Beijing has promoted its own candidate as the true Panchen Lama. While many Tibetans see this person as a pretender, he provides Beijing a key opening to manipulate the selection for the next Dalai Lama, since the Panchen Lama traditionally has a central part in the process.

China has also embarked on a charm offensive (here and here) to win the hearts and minds of the international Buddhist community, including plans to build a multi-billion dollar pilgrimage and tourism complex at the Buddha’s birthplace in Lumbini, Nepal, which is right on the border with India. New Delhi is counter-punching by sponsoring Buddhist gatherings, including the one last week that raised Beijing’s ire and which in one of its final acts decided to create an International Buddhist Confederation that will be headquartered in the Indian capital.

Given the volatility of the Tibetan issue, one could envision without much imagination scenarios that result in a military confrontation along the frontier. One might involve the outbreak of serious unrest within Tibet, leading to a Chinese crackdown that spills into India. Beijing could bring military pressure on New Delhi to clamp down on the Dalai Lama and his compatriots in Dharamsala, setting off a dangerous spiral of misperception and miscalculation. Alternatively, the passing of the Dalai Lama, who is now 76, could spark a tumultuous search for his successor, leading China to seize Tawang so it can control the outcome.

Unfortunately, there is ample historical precedent for such scenarios. Indian support of the abortive Tibetan uprising in 1959, for example, colored Beijing’s perceptions in the lead-up to the 1962 border war. And in the mid-1980s, an isolated incident in the Sumdurong Chu Valley in Arunachal Pradesh led to a serious military stand-off in early 1987. As one of the WikiLeaks dispatches from the U.S. embassy in Beijing reported, some Chinese observers believe that policy on Tibet is even more inflexible than toward Taiwan, where Beijing at least tolerates some U.S. interference. And concern among Chinese leaders over internal discontent is rising.

A New York Times article has called Tawang “the biggest tinderbox” in relations between India and China. Expect to hear more about it in the coming years.

(An earlier version of this post appeared at http://www.usinpac.com)

Republican candidate for President, Mitt Romney, said this week that if he becomes President, he will visit Israel during his first foreign trip. So he is only two elections away from those famous Israeli breakfasts and some photo ops at the Kotel with those awkward cardboard kippahs.

So he has obviously earned the votes of all those eligible American voters working hard in the Israeli tourism industry. But what about the rest of the demographic clearly being sought with such promises? Mitt was speaking to a group of Jewish Republicans when he announced his travel plans. And let’s be clear, there are some very powerful Jewish voices in the Republican party. But election in and election out, those on the right are constantly saying that this will be the cycle that finally brings Jews from the party of FDR, JFK and James Carville over to their corner. But it never happens. Jews regularly vote Democrat at a margin of about 3:1.

Of course this promise was not just Mitt looking to add El Al to his frequent flyer miles plan, he was taking a jab at every Republican’s favorite punching bag: President Obama.

President Obama has been in office just shy of three years and since being sworn in, he has yet to visit Israel. And no one in the room listening to Mitt speak needed to be reminded of that slight.

President Obama has sent many from his inner circle to Israel. Secretary of State Clinton has been, Vice President Biden has been (one might recall that he was intentionally embarrassed for the sake of inter-party Israeli politics during his visit). Within two days of his inauguration, President Obama appointed George Mitchell as a “Special Convoy for Middle East Peace.” While this latter appointment did not succeed as hoped, it is more than can be said for his two predecessors on the job, at least in terms of getting involved in the matter quickly. Both Clinton and Bush did get intimately involved in the subject, but not until MUCH further into their tenures.

Mitt Romney famously claimed that President Obama had thrown Israel under the bus for commenting that a future agreement between Israel and the Palestinians would be based on the 1967 borders. Of course what President Obama was saying was no different than what President Bush was saying before him or what a host of Israeli Prime Minister’s have been saying for years. This list includes Ariel Sharon, the original architect of the settlements.

Can attacking Obama on Israel help Mitt become President? Well, it looks like he might need to start focusing on Newt Gingrich first if he wants a chance at the real prize in November.

I wrote a little while back that Israelis have warmed considerably to Obama in recent months. His poll numbers were way up with Jewish Israelis from last year at this time. In fact a new poll even found that Israelis rank Obama in their top-five most admired world leaders. This list isn’t even limited to acting leaders. Churchill made the list. Mitt Romney, he will be sad to hear, did not.

Of course Mitt had hardly caught his breath from promising to nab an Israeli stamp for his Presidential passport than he all but guaranteed that as Commander-in-Chief, he would attack Iran. He said that “the ayatollahs will not be permitted to obtain nuclear weapons on my watch. A nuclear-armed Iran is not only an Israel problem, it is problem for the United States and all the decent countries of the world.”

As a side note, Mitt even called on Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who has about as much power in Iran as Donald Trump has in US politics, to be indicted for the crime of inciting Genocide under Article III of the Geneva Convention. Now do not get me wrong, Ahmadinejad is a world-class jerk who adds nothing constructive to international politics. But Mitt is asking for quite a lot when he himself is clearly at odds with aspects of the Geneva Convention regarding torture. The Convention states that “torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person.” Mitt has come out in support of water boarding, which clearly would be outlawed by the preceding provision.

Whether or not the US should attack Iran will not be decided by talking points and sound bites. I am sure that President Obama has held many meetings with many experts on the subject. I am sure that should we see a President Romney in one year’s time, he too will hold many meetings with many experts on the subject. Perhaps his conclusions will be different that President Obama’s; perhaps war really is imminent. Some wars are necessary and if the facts are there, the world, or at least the American people, might stand behind President Romney as he leads us down that path. But in the meantime, it is important to remember that while promising war, especially one that is sure to be extremely painful for both the US (and Israel), in order to win votes might be good politics, it is terrible leadership.

Mitt need give this last point a lot of thought if he wants to make next year’s list of world leaders most admired by Israelis. Because isn’t that really what it’s all about?

Follow me on twitter @jlemonsk

The Israeli government recently sponsored a public relations campaign to woo Israeli ex-pats in the US to return home, and discourage those thinking about leaving the Jewish state from doing so.  Lots of countries do this, so the fact that Israel has begun to is not overly controversial.  What is surprising is the campaign’s indirect disparaging of American Jewry.  Several of the televised commercials take shots at US Jews, portraying them as assimilators and ignorant of Israeli culture. 

This clip shows a steretypical looking American Jewish man being insensitive to his Israeli girlfriend’s feelings about it being Israeli Rememberence Day, Yom Hazikaron.

The translation of the Hebrew narration at the end of this clip is “Before Abba (Hebrew for “Father”) Turns into daddy, it’s time to come back to Israel.”

The translation of the Hebrew narration at the end of this clip is “before Hanukkah turns into Christmas, it’s time to come back to Israel.”

There are certain truths to what the commercials suggest.  A significant portion of American Jews are somewhat assimilated and are largely unaware of Israeli culture.  However, what about those who do not fall in to this category?  These are the American Jews who are responsible for securing over $2 billion in annual aid for Israel and providing most of the funding for global Jewish philanthropy, which reaches into the billions.  American Jews are and should be disgusted with the Israeli government over this matter.  This is another ignorant, arrogant, and poorly thought out policy by the Netanyahu administration.  It is also a direct shot at a community who, by and large, have stood by him despite his questionable and isolationist policies.

The direct blame lies with the Immigrant Absorption Ministry. Bibi is playing dumb about the whole incident, claiming he didn’t know what they were up to (just like he didn’t know about the settlement announcement when US Vice President Biden was in Israel two years ago, and just like he didn’t know when the Foreign Minister placed the Turkish envoy on a smaller chair).  Which begs the questions: how could these ads air without him knowing and how will American Jewry respond to such carelessness and insult in the long-term?  Organizations like the Jewish Federations of North America (JFNA), the American Zionist Movement, the office of the Conference of Presidents, Hillel International, United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, Union for Reform Judaism, and Chabad should confront the Israeli government on this issue.  How they should confront it is another story, and it will need some serious thought and careful handling. 

The Anti-Defamation League has already expressed their displeasure with the government and Bibi has since had the ads removed from television.  JFNA lauded the Israeli Prime Minister’s move.  Instead of applauding his efforts they should be scolding his thoughtlessness.  Israeli Ambassador to the US Michael Oren offered a half-hearted apology stating, “the Ministry of Immigrant Absorption’s campaign clearly did not take into account American Jewish sensibilities, and we regret any offense it caused…The prime minister deeply values the American Jewish community and is committed to deepening ties between it and the State of Israel.” If Israel wants continued and unwavering American support, it needs to respect the Americans that are providing it. 

The growing divide between American Jews and Israelis was a hot topic of conversation at the most recent Jewish General Assembly in Denver.  It is now clearer than ever that it needs to be seriously and publicly addressed.  This will require a concerted and organized effort by both sides.  Given the immediate circumstances, however, Bibi needs to issue some sort of formal viral Internet video and written apology, either in the Jerusalem Post or Haaretz, apologizing to the American Jewish population.  As said before, it is quite understandable that Israelis would support him in trying to get ex-pats to come home.  But, they should also hold him accountable for his actions.  He has isolated them from the international community and now he is isolating them from their important American Jewish brethren.   It is episodes like this that have international Jewry wondering whether Israel really is still the home of the Jews, or just Israelis.