Nepal is on course to give their formerly revolutionary Maoist Party a considerable majority in their first elections after the end of their absolute monarchy. This causes some problems for everyone in the west since America still has them officially listed as terrorists and the Gurkas might be dissolved as a military force in service of Britain. Nepalese conservatives were doubtless dismayed as well, given that the top of the policy agenda is now the destruction of the monarchy.

Their leader has stated quite clearly that he intends to evade autocracy and use multi-party politics, which calls into question exactly how Maoist they really are but is certainly welcome. It is expected that they shall want a powerful presidential executive, however, so I remain wary.

Still, as outcomes go it is certainly amongst the best that could have been hoped for. The abandonment of military means has clearly benefitted the former army and they could have caused major problems had they refused to participate. As it is Nepal stands a strong chance of progress, just so long as their governance is as competant as it is radical.

Watching the Olympic Flame make its way through London today, I couldn’t help but wonder what on earth the point was.  If China hoped to win favour by parading a candle through a foreign city, they would have been bitterly disappointed by the scenes from the UK.  You could barely see the torch at all as a swarm of police officers surrounded the inner circle of Chinese officials, with some B-list celebrity or athlete buried somewhere in the mix.  The event was so hideously over-policed, it is little wonder that the images displayed on Chinese state TV were of Steve Redgrave inside the secure confines of Wembley Stadium.

The torch relay is an unnecessary part of the Olympic process.  The nation identifies with the “Olympic spirit” (such as it is) at the games themselves, and the opening ceremony is something of a spectacle of internationalism.  The torch relay is nothing but a propaganda event, and the London leg failed to help either China or its games.

With the world’s media focused on the relay, though, London was given the opportunity to show a fantastic part of its culture to the rest of the globe.  Key flash points were thousand-strong with protesters campaigning against China’s occupation of Tibet and their rock-bottom human rights tradition.  Watching the protests (not the frankly uninspiring jogging police officers) made me rather proud to live in London, showing the world that we are less interested in some feeble flame and more concerned with human rights, democracy, and occupation.  I think the slant of media reports has been absolutely spot-on today: this was a day of protest against China’s record - note, not against the games - rather than a cheery love-in with the Chinese propaganda machine.

A brief glance at the news - which I’ve more or less missed for the past week - tells me that China has again sought India’s support for its stance on Tibet.

More interestingly, it tells me that India continue to do so. The official in question reiterated that India feels Tibet is part of China, and that it did not allow anti-Chinese demonstrations on Indian soil. This has been the Indian government’s policy throughout this particular flare-up.

Historically, the opposite has been the case. India and China had a stormy, occasionally violent relationship until very recently. Relations were often cold to the point of frozen. Moreover, there is a large (at least 150,000), very vocal community of Tibetan exiles in India. In the past, they have been allowed to make as much noise as they like - occasionally with the government’s sympathy.

This thus interests me on (at least) two grounds: (please note that, despite being in a quote-box, the following is me rather than a quotation; I’m having trouble getting indentation to work properly today)

It marks continued attempts to thaw relations between the two burgeoning superpowers. Recently, both governments have made attempts to normalise and improve the two countries’ relationship. Joint military exercises have been held, a stark contrast with the occasional border wars of the past. That India is willing to reverse - or at least soften - yet another long-held position for the sake of this thaw highlights how increasingly possible it is that the two countries might become close.Such a movement has very important implications for the world, and certainly complex. I’d thought to say something like, “Good relations between the countries would create an even more solid trade base in what is steadily becoming the world’s workshop, while the human cost of bad relations and a mini-cold war would be disastrous,” but I realise that that’s incredibly simplistic. I’ll write a longer post on it at a later date.

India here resists the international trend. There hasn’t been huge pressure on the Indian government specifically over this, but to support China would be to run against the international wind of condemnation. An indication perhaps that, as India’s industrial might grows, it’s increasingly willing to stand on its own? Actually, increasingly here is the wrong word by a long way. Given, if nothing else, India’ prominent role in the non-aligned momement during the Cold War, “continually,” would probably have been more appropriate.Perhaps it would have been better instead to talk of Western powers’ increasing unwillingness to pressure India too overtly. With increasing segments of primary (and often tertiary) industry located there, it could get distinctly problematic for European and American business should India turn upset (stupid as such implied moves would be on India’s part). Europe and the US may thus treat India more and more carefully in the future…

But I’m already verging into speculation - and there is, of course, far more actually happening now here to be looked at, I suspect. However, I have an interview tomorrow and want some sleep before it, so will stop there. Good night…

It seems little less than self-obsessed.  Steven Speilberg has withdrawn from his (obscure) role as “artistic advisor” to Beijing 2008.  Apparently, he has suddenly realised that China is evil.

The move seems cheap simply because of its timing.  I would probably make it clear to any oppressive state offering me a job that I would make public my opposition to its oppression, and then would make my position clear to the world’s media.  Speilberg seems not to have done so, but bottled up his opposition to the Chinese machine until, it seems, he felt unable to continue in his role.  I wonder which straw broke his back.  Was it China’s involvement in Sudan (very present before he took the job in 2006), their appalling human rights record (again, not new), the apparent ban on athletes speaking out (irrelevant to a man who has effectively boycotted the event by resigning) or was his move part of a wider plan for media attention towards China’s record?

If the Chinese authorities had hoped that could hold the biggest single global event the world has ever seen without any of the worldwide envoys mentioning the fact they are evil, they were very sadly mistaken.  Such naivety is not really fitting for such an oppressive regime.  Moreover, if filmmaker Speilberg thinks he can rattle the Chinese state by leaving town, he is more naive still.

I cannot help but think that this story is a storm in a tea-cup.  I sincerely hope that is is a taste of what is to come - a public showdown in favour of democracy with the world’s eye focused squarely on Beijing in the Summer.  In the meantime, Speilberg’s sudden U-turn seems just a little bit cynical.

It seems that the Junta are better than Brown.

Seriously though, I have some obvious doubts about whether this will come to pass in a free and fair fashion. I suspect that, at best, we can expect them to get a similar treatment to that of opposition parties in Iran.

In fact, total exclusion may well not take place and some good old intimidation, state assassination and vote rigging will just happen instead. There are a multitude of ways that they can fake it. The likelihood is that this was simply a measure to take off pressure, perhaps demanded by China to ensure that the Beijing Olympics proceed without any fuss. Or else to stop an armed revolution following the peaceful one that they killed most of the participants of.

But my optimistic idea imagines a world where the second decade of the 21st century sees both Zimbabwe and Burma as functioning democracies. Where Lalkar have two less thugocracies to promote the interests of.

It’s unlikely. Supremely unlikely. And yes, I hope…