Monthly Archives: December 2009
China Murders-Britain Postures
Akmal Shaik-Another Victim of Communist Chinese Brutality
Image: dailymail
Sometime after 4 am this morning the body of 53 year-old Akmal Shaikh was swiftly buried beneath the frozen soil of East Turkestan, following his cold-blooded execution by the occupying Chinese regime. His anguished and traumatised relatives standing in the snow with his few possessions. This man’s tragic plight, and China’s callous indifference to pleas for clemency from the UK Government and human rights organizations, was a chilling reminder that beyond the alluring facade of China’s economic growth (or the glossy distractions of the so-called Show of Peace and the Shanghai World Fair) injustice, totalitarian violence, oppression and state-domination remain. The lethal injection which killed Akmal Shaikh also highlights the political and diplomatic impotency of countries whose China policy is based upon appeasement, and the failed strategy of so-called constructive engagement.
Appeasing The Tyranny
Image:life
As revealed by the murderous suppression which followed the Tibetan National Uprisings of 2008 and the bloody shootings of Uyghurs during the protests of July 2009, there is no moderation achievable with a blood-soaked regime such as communist China’s. The official UK reaction to the execution, though clear in condemning the injustice of executing a man who was suffering from mental illness, singularly avoided any direct criticism of the Chinese authorities who sanctioned the execution. The UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown commented:
“I condemn the execution of Akmal Shaikh in the strongest terms, and am appalled and disappointed that our persistent requests for clemency have not been granted. I am particularly concerned that no mental health assessment was undertaken”
While that architect of, relations at any cost with China’, the UK Foreign Office, briefed its Secretary-of-State, David Miliband, to comment:
“I condemn in the strongest terms the execution of the British national Akmal Shaikh. I join the Prime Minister in expressing my deepest condolences to Mr Shaikh’s family and friends. The UK is completely opposed to the use of the death penalty in all circumstances. However I also deeply regret the fact that our specific concerns about the individual in this case were not taken into consideration despite repeated calls by the Prime Minister, Ministerial colleagues and me. These included mental health issues, and inadequate professional interpretation during the trial”.
Image:daylife
Such noble sentiments, however we can of course expect no less from nations who long ago removed any meaningful human rights objectives from their relations with Communist China and relegate such concerns beneath commercial and political interests. In reading their cynical platitudes, and noting the appeasing silence on the role of the Chinese authority in the killing of Akmal Shaikh, we witness once again the odious demands of realpolitic operating. In which one rule operates for China, and a completely different set applied to other states with a questionable human rights record. Just for one moment imagine if a United Kingdom subject had been treated in a similar fashion by the Iranian Government, denied fair legal representation, refused proper medical treatment and examination, and then brutally executed, Would we expect the UK Government (and its allies in the media) to decline openly criticising the Iranian authority for ignoring appeals for mercy and authorising such an execution?
For the past year or so a campaign, of what looks worryingly similar propaganda and psyop techniques, that preceded the invasion and destruction of Iraq, has been targetted at Iran by both the USA and the UK. Whatever the shortcomings of the Iranian regime, and there are serious concerns in terms of human rights, the political interests and covert agenda of both Britain and the United States should not be discounted easily in examining what is happening currently. Thus we have government figures from both countries posturing about human rights and democratic freedom and condeming the Iranian Government for its treatment of dissenting voices. All very well, yet similar expectations and standards are spectacularly absent in those countries relations with communist China.
This gut-churning hypocrisy is exposed most graphically by a comparison of government reactions to recent unrest in Iran, with the protests which rocked Tibet in 2008.
On December 28 2009 the UK Secretary of State, David Miliband stated:
“The tragic deaths of protesters in Iran are yet another reminder of how the Iranian regime deals with protest. Ashura is a time of religious commemoration and reflection and it is therefore particularly disturbing to hear accounts of the lack of restraint by the security forces. Ordinary Iranian citizens are determined to exercise their right to have their voices heard. They are showing great courage. I call on the Iranian Government to respect the human rights of its own citizens, rights which Iran has promised to respect”. (emphasis added)
Note his willingness to charge the Iranian government with responsibility for the deaths and violence, his open praise of the courage shown by Irianian demonstrators. Now let’s take a look at how the UK Government reacted to Tibetans being shot, tortured and imprisoned during the Uprisings in Tibet 2008.
The UK Prime Minister stated March 14 2008
“We are very concerned about what is happening in Tibet. We have asked for more information about what is going on and we will keep this matter under review.” (emphasis added)
Observe the merciless scepticism, (utterly missing from the UK Government uncritical acceptance of reports of the incident in Tehran December 27 2009) and unwillingness to accept as fact the shootings of Tibetans. The shameless pretence at ignorance of events, all designed to avoid criticising the communist Chinese regime. No responsibility is ascribed to the Chinese authorities for the violence and killings, and the issue is conveniently kicked into the long grass of uncertainty, and marked for review!
Miliband Condemns Iranian Government And Keeps Silence on Chinese Government's Atrocities in Tibet
Image:britishblogs
David Miliband responded to events in Tibet March 15, 2008 with the following:
“I think there are probably two important messages to go out. One is the need for restraint on all sides, but secondly that substantive dialogue is the only way forward. We obviously see that there are real strains there but they need to be addressed in a way that balances restraint and dialogue.” (emphasis added)
No mention of tragic deaths here, silence on the shootings and torture by Chinese security forces on Tibetan protesters. Nor does the UK Government apportion responsibility for the violence upon the Chinese regime, instead (unlike its recent reactions to the situation in Iran) it chooses to misrepresent events as a conflict, not the result of state violence against legitimate protest. Such selective duplicity reveals that the plight of Tibet does not serve the interests of the United Kingdom government, as much as the political circumstances prevailing inside Iran. Whose regime is condemned without the extenuating terminology and sly circumspection reserved for the communist Chinese regime. Such contemptable posturing exposes the fallacy that the UK Government places human rights, justice and democratic freedoms at the heart of its foreign policy, and explains its shamelessly timorous and tentative criticism of China’s brutal actions.
A New Year For Rangzen
Image:123
As 2010 awaits, looking back at the closing year there is not much fuel to maintain the fires of optimism. Afghanistan suffers still, Iraq struggles to rise from the destruction visited upon it, courtesy of the USA and Britain. Palestine continues to be sorely oppressed, with the people of Gaza abused by an Israeli authority contemptuous of international law. Much debate and analysis continues to greet these issues, yet in essence such cases do not require philosophical examination, nor intellectual reasoning, they are simply an abhorrence.
Likewise, the invasion and subsequent destruction of Tibet’s Buddhist culture, in which a nation, that had enjoyed all the features of an independent state, was forcibly annexed and its people brutalized, massacred, starved, marginalized and assaulted with a range of social, and political controls. All of which shared one objective, the eradication of Tibet’s distinct culture and identity. Such cultural genocide invites a response from anyone possessed of normal intelligence and integrity. An ethical demand is surely placed upon the conscience of any who uphold the values of justice, freedom and human rights.
Do we stand with those who endure and resist such oppression? Should we wring-our-hands and peddle defeatism and despair, or be inspired by the incredible bravery and sacrifices made by those who risk all to champion the cause of independence and identity? If we subscribe to the path of so-called ‘realism’, what future awaits the spirited and freedom loving people of Tibet? After more than five decades of Chinese rule Tibetans know too well that under Beijing’s ever draconian grip, no form of so-called autonomy will respect their cultural, political or national identity. China seeks to extinguish any sense of Tibetan separateness, and is thus entirely intolerant of increased ‘autonomy’. The assimilation and colonization will continue, whatever insane agreement may be reached between the TGIE and Beijing. The ruthless exploitation of Tibet’s environment, the mass-programs of forced sterilizations, which traumatizes countless Tibetan women, the censorship and oppression, the political control and murderous suppression of any form of dissent, will continue.
Such is the reward of submitting to Chinese control. The alternative to such capitulation has already been committed to action by those inside Tibet, resist the occupation, protest against the injustice and violations, and remind both the world and communist China that the hopes, determination and desire for Tibetan freedom burns as strong now as ever.
Never Forget The Rangzen Warriors
Ode To A Freedom Fighter
One nine four nine was the dark year,
China invaded my country dear.
Tibet went down to greater might,
Because ’tis true our men did fight.
And these few lines in black and-white,
With grateful respect I now do write,
That the brave deeds of those who fought,
Will not with time be soon forgot.
Your aged folks, herds and fields
Your new-wed bride and unborn child,
For Tibet dear and freedom’s sake
Though torn apart you did foresake.
While at the peak of youthful day,
Your life in battle,
for Tibet did you lay,
That Tibet will be free one day
And your unborn child in freedom play.
O Warrior dead, now rest your soul,
Tibet today heeds not your call.
The purpose new· is not to fight.
Freedom now is out of sight!
There’s one way now – the Peaceful Way.
And compromise the Order ofthe Day!
Freedom fighters have now no role.
Association with China is our new goal.
Your deeds forgot, your name unsung
A new history we have begun
Seek not rebirth, O Warrior dead.
Freedom is a dirty word, you’ll find to your regret!
Poem-Copyright of Lhasang Tsering 26 February 2001
Images (apart from first): Courtesy of Chushi Gangdruk
Charter For Tibetan Exiles Goes Missing!
Image:bbs
Does anyone know of what has happened to the Charter of the Tibetans in Exile? Has its commitments to justice, freedom and human rights for Tibetans been abandoned by the exiled Tibetan Administration? Was there a democratic agreement to consider it no longer a formal and binding Charter? Were Tibetans given an opportunity to decide if the Charter be surrendered?
The Charter has a very fundamental objective:
“The future Tibetan polity shall uphold the principle of non-violence and shall endeavour to be a Free Social Welfare State with its politics guided by the Dharma, a Federal Democratic Republic…”. (Article 3)
In light of that objective Tibetans should ask themselves how exactly the current policy of seeking so-called ‘genuine autonomy’ (within the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China) conforms to the above Article of the Tibetan Charter. Unless sharing the mad-hatter view of the exiled Tibetan Government in Exile, it is difficult to conceive that communist China’s constitution on Regional Ethnic Autonomy can accommodate principles of federalism, or democracy! Indeed communist China’s statutes on regional autonomy oppose any notion of separation of ‘nationalities’ through what is described as ‘local nationalism’, whilst Beijing forcefully rejected any suggestion of a federalist solution along the lines of Hong Kong.
In rushing to accept the draconian conditions of communist China’s law on regional and ethnic autonomy (which would in practice and law prevent any genuine enjoyment of democracy and federalism for Tibetans), the Tibetan Government in Exile is now in conflict with a central objective of its own Charter! Moreover, having surrendered Tibetan nationhood has the exiled Tibetan Administration now discarded its democratically agreed principles of seeking a democratic and federal Tibet?
Image:tibetnet
If so then Tibetans should be demanding their exiled administration to provide details of when this was decided, and by what process. According to the Charter an amendment to Article 3 requires two thirds majority support from the Tibetan Assembly, and the assent of the Dalai Lama. If no such amendment has been formalised through due democratic process, in accordance with the procedures detailed in the Charter, then the TGIE has not only violated its own state document, but grossly failed its people by undermining democratic process.
If you find this post of interest it will be most helpful if you would kindly share on any social network/s which you may subscribe to. Use the buttons below to add the post so others may become aware of this issue. Many thanks
China’s Global Solution @ Copenhagen-Forced Sterilizations!
Population Reduction By Order Of The State
Communist China has an answer to the challenge of saving the planet’s environment, and Chinese officials have been reportedly active within the Copenhagen Climate Summit pressing their solution on environmentalists. Their proposal is based on a simplistic equation: high population levels equals increased ecological and atmospheric damage.With decades of experience in forcibly reducing its population levels China is well placed to instruct the world in how to organize, fund, promote, and implement mass programs of forced sterilizations, IUDs and forced abortions. Ask the traumatized women of China, Tibet or East Turkestan about the Nazi-like efficiency with which Beijing has dispatched countless numbers of birth-control teams across China, occupied Tibet and East Turkestan, to coerce women into receiving so-called birth-control surgery.
Do such abuses stir the conscience of those radicalized enivironmentalists, driven by one goal, planetary salvation? After all who cares about women’s human rights, or the harrowing reality of medical atrocities resulting from such coercion, when we have a planet to save? Incredibly, though not disclosed publicly, there are some within the environmental movement, who privately welcome China’s population program, and callously turn-a-blind- eye to the horrors of its implementation, since the resultant population reduction is considered beneficial in terms of the global environment. Can you hear them whisper? If only we could force women to undergo sterilization in Europe or the United States, what an impact that would in terms of reducing pressure upon the planet and its finite resources.
Meanwhile, China seeks to deceive (those stupid enough to believe) that is implementing its draconian population program as part of its global strategy to address climate problems. Sadly, there are naive environmentalists at Copenhagen, so blinded by the seeming correctness of their over-arching desire to save the world, that they are willing to contemplate state-sponsored violence against women.
Tibetan Cause Hi-Jacked @ Copenhagen
When are Tibetans going to get a grip of their cause, and prevent so-called Tibet experts from attending international events (and briefing the media) to peddle arrogant misrepresentations of what Tibetans are struggling for? While Tibetan women on December 10 took to the ice-gripped sidewalks of Minneapolis, to support an independent Tibet, the Media Officer of the Tibetan Women’s Association was in the warmth of a meeting in Copenhagen (along with two so-called activists for Tibet) reportedly claiming no one was calling for Tibet’s independence!
This Blog has previously mentioned Ms. Kate Saunders, who seems to specialise in emphasising that the Tibetan people are not seeking independence. This time the media spokesperson for International Campaign For Autonomy (ooops Tibet) appeared (December 10) was a panelist at an event presented by ‘Tibet Third Pole’. This was held at the alternative climate summit ‘Klimaforum09′ in DGI-Byen, Copenhagen. Sitting alongside her was Mr. Matthew Whitticase, of the English support group Free Tibet Campaign (an organization which has a long record of not supporting Tibetan independence). The panel was completed by Tenzin Dhardon Sharling, of the Tibetan Women’s Association.
Much talk was offered on the ecological fragility of Tibet, the denudation of its grasslands, deforestation, glacial retreat, China’s insensitive exploitation and the forcible stettlement of Tibetan nomads. All crucial and valid concerns. However who are these people to present themselves as public commentators for the Tibetan cause, and then grossly misrepresent the objectives of the Tibetan people’s aspirations, by insisting that they were not calling for Tibet’s independence, but simply required the communist Chinese government to ‘face the problems and act accordingly’.
It really is important that Tibetans regain control of how their cause is being presented, clearly the likes of Ms Saunders and Mr Whitticase are promoting an agenda which excludes Tibet’s independence, and thus cannot be relied upon to report accurately upon the political objectives of Tibetans, or the nature of the resistance inside Tibet. Yet what was perhaps more disappointing was the compliance and silence offered by Ms Dhardon Sharling, who as executive member of an organization which has Tibetan independence as one of its core values. could surely have made clear, that while her co-panelists may not be promoting Tibet’s independence, Tibetans inside Tibet continue a courageous struggle for Tibet’s national freedom.
