Image:courtesy of @tibettruth
Category Archives: Appeasing China
Al Jazeera & Its Media Buddies Spreading China’s Propaganda
Graphic courtesy of @anonymoustibet
With reports Sunday May 27 of two more self-immolations in occupied Tibet, reported to have happened in the Tibetan capital of Lhasa, once again the mainstream media has been serving as a willing servant of China’s propaganda. The reportage has been saturated with China’s distortions on Tibet and describing what are Tibetan locations, regions and territory as Chinese.See Here For Example Please help our efforts to expose and challenge such gross disinformation and if you see such reports kindly think before sharing on Twitter or Facebook, as that action spreads the lies and misleads others.
The Ecologist: Endorsing China’s Imperialist Arguments?
China’s Colonists Destroying Tibet’s Grasslands Through Fencing/Over-Grazing
Image:archivenet
We received recently a copy of an article ‘The Global Cost Of China’s Destruction Of The ‘Roof Of The World’ from the respected English journal, The Ecologist on the subject of environmental issues arising from China’s presence in occupied Tibet, a catalog of ecological degradation, fueled by an un-sleeping exploitation of Tibet’s natural resources, principly mineral extraction (including Uranium), state approved logging on a massive scale in Eastern Tibet that has transformed once verdant mountain forest into a lunar like landscape, and ill-considered hydro-schemes which are seriously reducing lake and river levels, along with access to clean water for Tibetans. The environmental impact of China’s occupation of Tibet is severe indeed, ask Tibetan nomads who have seen their formerly free and open grasslands, eroded and denuded of minerals following China forcible annexation of such regions, imposing insane agricultural policies that have poisoned the land, generating desertification along with over-grazing caused by China imposing fences across the region.
Barbed-Wire Fencing Denying Tibetan Nomads Their Lands
Image: archivenet
Any investigation and critique of China’s ecological record in Tibet is very welcome and adds much-needed exposure to a subject that, for whatever reason appears to draw relatively little concern from the wider environmental movement. Within that important context we applaud The Ecologist for running the article, however those who are aware, and knowledgeable regarding the nature of China’s occupation of Tibet, will in all likely hood share our sense of disappointment at some of the assertions featured in the article, with respect to what is described as ‘The Benefits Of Chinese Occupation’. The following extracts illustrate the concerns we have, to which are added our critical response.
“Chinese government has tried to win over the people by improving the material wealth of the country. They have increased the average national income, developed industry and in certain areas improved living conditions. Many Chinese believe that they liberated the Tibetan peasants from exploitation by a medieval feudal state and a religious establishment…….No one disputes the fact that Beijing has poured both money and resources into the Tibetan Autonomous Region.” Source:The global cost of China’s destruction of the ‘roof of the world’, Sylvia Downes, The Ecologist May 11, 2012
Whatever the claims of China’s propaganda, which has distorted the understanding of its people on Tibet since 1950, resulting in the warped perception that China was a force for liberation and improvement, the reality is that we are in truth looking at military annexation, followed by colonization, exploitation with the aim of assimilating and eradicating Tibetan national identity. It is curious why The Ecologist seems so willing to consume as fact claims, which owe their origin to China’s Ministry Of Disinformation, that the supposed investment into Tibet, has had as a target the improvement of Tibetan lives. While considerable funds have been directed to develop and maintain transport infrastructure, tourism development and industrial projects, these are to consolidate China’s control over Tibet. Such funding sustains and encourages Chinese colonization of Tibet, which is on a scale that seriously threatens the stability of a future Tibetan population, aided by the forcible sterilization of Tibetan women. In accepting Chinese disinformation that it’s occupation of Tibet is seeing a material improvement for Tibetans the article is endorsing what is in essence an argument used by all imperialist aggressors, that justifies the suppression and virulent exploitation of a people by insisting its presence is improving the lot of the ‘natives’!
Tibet’s Nomads Forced Into Concentration Settlements While China Destroys The Environment
Image:archivenet
However, the only people who are truly gaining advantage in occupied Tibet are China’s colonists and its regime, leaving Tibetans a grossly deprived and viciously oppressed people in their own land, the misery of which can never be compensated for by the questionable benefits of China’s crass consumerism. What operates in occupied Tibet is economic, educational and health provision apartheid in which Tibetans are a subject people, living under the tyranny of a violent and illegal occupation. Is that the material improvement The Ecologist is so happy to assert as a fact? We wonder if the Editors of that journal would have been so ready to repeat the propaganda claims of South Africa’s former racist regime, that the lives of black people in Soweto, were improved by the commercial successes emerging under a system of Apartheid?
Spanish Mining Company Screws Tibet For China’s Blood Money
Image:ferroatlantica/graphic courtesy of @AnonymousTibet
Maybe we are a touch under-informed, idealistic but is there not legislation operating within the European Union which restricts or prevents European corporations from activities and or partnerships which raise issues of ethics and/or can impose suffering or environmental damage to people’s beyond the EU? Furthermore, does that fragile institution not have policies, and a moral integrity, which impose a number of regulatory requirements upon European companies that seek to collaborate with China’s regime. Particularly in which an oppressed people, such as Tibetans are marginalized and whose lands and culture are negatively impacted as a consequence of such a venture?
That being so would someone at the European Union or Parliament care to explain the presence of Ferro-Atlantica, a Spanish Corporation operating near the Tibetan town of Dartsedo, in Tibet’s Eastern Region of Kham. See Here Has this company been subject to any environmental, ethical regulations, or assessed in terms of the ecological effects of its operation upon Tibetans and their environment? Have procedures been diligently followed? If so by whom and when?
We consider these to be important questions for the EU to address, which is always ready to issue platitudes in praise of the Dalai Lama, yet seems less outspoken on China’s environmental record in its colonialist exploitation of occupied Tibet. Surely i has something to say on the role of a Spanish corporation operating inside Tibet and the serious environmental consequences of locating a Silicon processing plant in such a pristine environment,apart from troubling questions on the ethics of collaboration with a regime that is viciously suppressing local Tibetans.
Online Action
If you are based with the European Union you can be a real force for good by raising this issue with your MEP. Ask them to submit questions on Ferro- Atlantica and its presence in occupied Tibet, along with the environmental and ethical concerns mentioned above. Request your MEP to obtain documentation as to what regulatory, environmental or ethical policies were exercised by the EU in endorsing this venture, to identify if an independent, EU approved, ecological risk assessment was carried out, and what system of monitoring it has put in place to properly evaluate any environmental impacts.
The MEP of your region may be identified here, along with email contact details
BBC Radio Show Offers Platform For China’s Propaganda
BBC Director-General Mark Thompson in Beijing, With China’s Propaganda Maestro, Li Congjun
Image:profimedia
Once again the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has revealed an unhealthy willingness, to parade as fact, China’s propaganda, more on that shortly, it has served as a conduit for Beijing’s disinformation for a number of years now, influenced and encouraged by the foreign policy objectives of its colleagues in the Foreign Office (equivalent of the State Department) whose task is to maintain positive relations with China at any cost. The BBC’s senior executives enjoy trips to Beijing to attend media summits hosted by China’s disinformation agency, Xinhua, relations at a senior level are cordial to say the least. As this special cooperation has developed we have witnessed, in BBC reportage, a corrosion of the truth on issues relating to China, a withdrawal of independent and forceful analysis, replaced by a syntax that bears a worrying similarity to the official disinformation of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Information. This is most noticeable on subjects of political sensitivity to the Chinese Regime such as Tibet, East Turkestan and related issues on human rights, such matters as reported by the BBC often repeat China’s official position and are virtually absent of critique, balance or an alternate perspective and context.
Such a development must be a source of satisfaction to China’s propaganda ministry and its front organization, Xinhua, whose chief and World Media Summit President, Li Congjun wrote in the Party’s official Seeking Truth journal in February 2009:
“We must actively seek out new horizons, new mechanisms, new channels and new methods in the area of outside dialogue and cooperation, particularly, as by the demands of central party leaders, successfully organizing the first meeting of the World Media Summit, building a platform for dialogue among first-rate international media (, further raising the capacity of Xinhua News Agency to make its voice heard in the international news and information sector.” (Source CMP)
Dotun Adebayo Offered An Uncritical Platform For Robert Kuhn
Image:bbc
This accommodation reached a new level of appeasement during a late night radio show from BBC Radio Five Live, a station which has previously been exposed as displaying a bias towards China’s official orthodoxy. We are extremely grateful to one of our friends in England for providing details of this latest incident, which was broadcast on May 5 during a program called ‘Up All Night’ hosted by one Dotun Adebayo. Towards the end of his show the presenter featured the story of Chen Guangcheng, the Chinese activist, noted for his campaigns to expose the forcible sterilization and forced abortions of women in China, who recently sought sanctuary in the US Embassy. Following the usual template of such segments, the show featured a guest, who was presumably invited on the basis of providing an authoritative and impartial analysis, unfortunately in this case the researchers had either clearly not done their homework, were incapable of recognizing a propagandist, or worse simply conformed to an Editorial attitude sympathetic to a pro-China position.
Well listeners surely got that (and how!) as they listened to the comments of a Doctor Robert Lawrence Khun. Before we look at the nauseating disinformation that saturated his commentary it maybe helpful to examine briefly significant and revealing aspects of this individual’s résumé. He is described as “an international corporate strategist, investment banker and expert on China” and there’s no doubting his credentials regarding his relationship to the Chinese Regime, having cooperated since 1989 with senior Chinese leaders and served as an adviser on economics and other subjects to the Regime. Robert Kuhn is also a senior consultant to China Central Television (CCTV) and Xinhua News Agency, both of which are main channels of official propaganda in China.
Robert Kuhn
Image:chinadaily
In researching a suitably balanced and objective guest to feature in that item were BBC researchers not troubled by such a curriculum vitae? Did they not pause to question if this individual may in fact have developed a certain bias towards China’s Regime, or that his position as adviser to Xinhua was an indication of views somewhat tainted with officially sanctioned disinformation? Yet, with a minimum of scrutiny they would have found expressions of concern regarding the ideology and words of Robert Kuhn. Most recently documented in his florid hagiography of China’s Regime titled, ‘How China’s Leaders Think: the Inside Story of China’s Reform and What This Means for the Future’.
An insightful review of this book appeared in Forbes by noted author on China, Gordon C Chang. In a highly critical dismissal of Kuhn’s work, which the reviewer notes: “I gave up reading with 401 pages to go. I wanted to stop earlier, after Kuhn stated–on the fifth page of the introduction–that Chinese leaders are not authoritarians. That’s demonstrably untrue, but I struggled on for another hundred pages before finally realizing there was no point in reading a work of propaganda…..it’s evident that Kuhn is not going to say a critical word about the theoretical underpinnings of present-day Chinese authoritarianism.”
There were then serious questions being asked about the impartiality of Robert Kuhn, yet such concerns did not trouble the producers, editors, researchers and presenter of the BBC show ‘Up All Night’, which allowed this individual a generous platform to air China’s toxic propaganda and effectively act as an apologist for a Regime and downplay the case of Chen Guangcheng. The following are extracts taken from the show in question, responding to the assertion by the presenter that Chen was a dissident, Kuhn was at pains to dismiss that and relegate the activist as an ‘irritant’, a far more pejorative an inaccurate term. He then described Chen Guangcheng’s actions in the following manner:
“He started out trying to help poor people who were being forced to have abortions or be sterilized or something” (Emphasis Added)
Note the vagueness, along with the the sly implication of an uncertainty to Chen’s activities, suggesting such may either have been misplaced, inaccurate or targeting issues which may not have been operating. Yet the entire world knows very precisely what Chen was campaigning against, the human rights violations generated by China’s coercive population control program, a widely reported fact in western media. How curiously singular then for this uniquely experienced and knowledgeable scholar of China’s political scene to demonstrate such vagueness and hesitancy, clearly it is difficult not to consider that Robert Kuhn would be very aware, something however prevented any clear assertion on the issue, could that be explained by his seeming fondness and tolerance of China’s Regime?
This was followed by comments, the nature of which suggested an experienced and willing propagandist for China, referring to the tortuous abuse inflicted upon Chen Guangcheng, which Mr Kuhn presented in the following manner:
“He was treated, as the reports go, very poorly and oppressively by local officials, often times what happens at local levels is not what Beijing and senior leaders would like to see happen. My experience of the Chinese leaders is they are very compassionate..when policies get translated into local areas then it gets more repressive..” (Emphasis Added)
This is a classic application by apologists for China, drenching descriptions in euphemism and extenuation to minimize or deflect from the odious realities of the tyranny of China’s regime and then seeking to distance the central government by claiming abuses are the responsibility of over zealous local officials. The truth is that as the harrowing atrocities of the Gestapo could not have operated to the extent they did without the sanction,funding, administration and encouragement of the National Socialist Party, the vicious oppression, human rights violations and censorship cannot operate in China without the authorization, and political and economic support and knowledge of the communist leadership of China’s Regime. Not that Robert Kuhn would agree, indeed as loyal friend of the Chinese leadership he calmly assured the program’s audience that there is a
“..great deal of public oversight of the Government, the Government just cant do what it used to do in the past” adding that “To some Chinese leaders people like that (Chen) are very helpful today because they are able to put pressure on local officials to change policies which are repressive to people, that the central leaders don’t even know about”. (Emphasis Added)
Chen Guangcheng, Not A Dissident According To Kuhn, But An ‘Irritant
Image:archivenet
How telling that Mr Kuhn holds the opinion that a totalitarian state, which has invasive and limitless control over every aspect of people’s lives, is seemingly so ignorant of its draconian policies, that are imposing widespread oppression and suffering across China. Take the very issue which Chen Guangcheng has been active on, China’s notorious population control program, in particular the medical atrocities and human rights violations it forces upon countless numbers of women. Such abuses are well documented and their existence and implementation cannot be ascribed to simply local excess or misreading of state regulation, they are a vital element, without which China’s Regime would not be able to have secured, behind the vague euphemism of its national and regional family planning laws and policies, such colossal reductions in the number of of births. It is state imposed violent coercion, financial penalties, loss of homes, confiscation of property and fear which characterizes the very program that Chen Guangcheng has so courageously campaigned against. There is no question that this policy is centrally engineered and approved by the Chinese Regime, the mobilization, administration and funding of the nationwide program of forced sterilizations and forced abortions is not a random or occasional local aberration from some benign government policy, rather the application of a highly coercive program that is imposed and authored by the Chinese government.
It is a matter of great disappointment that once again a mainstream media organization has permitted such obvious propaganda to be presented as fact, without any serious counter-view or challenge. The team responsible for the offending Radio Five Live show have at best been found wanting in terms of being able to identify such a biased and partisan source, at worst they are guilty of assembling a flawed and distorted program that has seriously mislead its audience and denied them a balanced, impartial and factual coverage of a story of great concern and interest to many. This would be in violation of the BBC’s stated editorial policies and relevant broadcasting commitments to its license fee payers, anyone who wishes to lodge a formal complaint about this subject may do so online here: https://ssl.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/?reset=
Pandas Demand An Answer From World Wildlife Fund
Image: courtesy of @tibettruth
Would like to join us is asking them? If so, contact the WWF
Twitter @WWF
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/WWF
Ottawa Declaration Fails To Support Tibet’s People Or Their Just Cause
Image:archivenet
Can anyone be surprised by the Declaration of The Sixth World Parliamentarians Convention on Tibet (WPCT), which was adopted on April 29, 2012, its wording advocated a cause and strategy that has been acknowledged as a failure by the Dalai Lama. That singular and sobering truth however did not prevent the assembled Parliamentarians from endorsing proposals which abandon Tibet’s nationhood, and the rightful aspirations of Tibet’s people, for a solution that would see Tibetans become another ethnic minority group under the tender mercies contained in China’s national and regional laws on so-called ‘autonomy’
For ease of reference here are the key extracts from the Declaration which should be of concern to any who support Tibet’s true cause and stand in solidarity with the struggle waged by Tibetans for their nation’s independence.
“Reject the argument made by the government of the PRC that the engagement of governments with His Holiness the Dalai Lama and members of the elected Tibetan leadership and the expression of support by governments for the peaceful resolution of the issue of Tibet through dialogue and negotiations constitute breaches of the ‘one China policy’ “
So the World Parliamentarian Convention on Tibet sees the issue of Tibet as being resolvable through the domestic law and policies of communist China, with the clear implication that it considers Tibet and its people as not separate from China, but as an internal issue, defined by the cynical fabrications of the so-called One China Policy.
“Remain convinced that a sustainable solution to the issue of Tibet can be achieved through genuine autonomy for the Tibetan people within the PRC, as evidenced by the positive experience of the many autonomous regions around the world, and note in particular the example set by the creation of the Territory of Nunavut as a self governing community within the sovereign nation of Canada.”
Does the WPCT not realize that autonomy, as understood or experienced in more liberal states, such as Canada, Spain or Scotland cannot in any intelligent or realistic manner be projected upon or realized under what remains a totalitarian system? Moreover, while particular indigenous groups may be tolerant or welcoming of limited freedoms offered by autonomous conditions, in say Canada, those people may not be actively struggling for national liberation or seeking an independent status. Furthermore, while there is an historic record of exploitation, occupation and cultural genocide experienced by such groups in North America, the tragic process of assimilation and economic and political domination has left such peoples with little choice but to accept whatever social or cultural freedoms such autonomy provides. The situation in occupied Tibet is of course entirely different, in the sense not only of the nature and extent of brutal expansionism, colonization and human rights atrocities and cultural erosion, but in that Tibetans are resisting China’s tyranny to demand, not ‘genuine autonomy’ but their national independence. This reality, ignored by the WPCT, illustrates another important distinction, unlike indigenous groups within Canada, Tibetans were in possession of, not just lands but an independent political nation, one which enjoyed its own Government, currency, international treaties and was marked by a national boundary.
“Express solidarity with the Tibetan people in their non-violent struggle for their rights and freedoms including the right to determine their own destiny”
If the WPCT truly stands in solidarity why during the entire proceedings of it meeting, and the contents of its Declaration is there no reference to Tibetan independence, or any assertion that such is the demand of political protests by Tibetans inside occupied Tibet. The Tibetan people already have the right to determine their own destiny, they exercise that by courageously resisting China’s occupation and demanding national independence. Sadly the WPCT refuses to express such solidarity with that rightful cause.
“Dispel the false accusation that His Holiness the Dalai Lama and the Central Tibetan Administration is seeking separation from the PRC since the Tibetan proposals expressly formulate a solution within the constitutional framework of the PRC and therefore call upon the government of the PRC to cease to propagate such misinformation”
Let get this right shall we? The Dalai Lama has formally relinquished political authority so it is reasonable to ask why the WPCT continues to deliberately equate his name with the issue of Tibet, and more significantly conflating Tibet’s cause with the proposals made by Tibetan spiritual leader, which have been formalized as the Memorandum on Genuine Autonomy for Tibetans. The cause of Tibet belongs not to any one Tibetan but to the six million Tibetan people, inside occupied Tibet, where virtually all Tibetans survive under China’s oppressive and illegal occupation, a movement for national independence has been waged for decades, a fact the WPC make no mention of. Yet the truth is that protests, be they by individuals or mass uprisings consistently demand Tibetan independence. It is therefore misleading and disingenuous of the WPCT to claim that the Dalai Lama is not seeking the separation of Tibet from China, firstly because he is now divested of political authority and more importantly because it is the voice and political aspirations of Tibetans in Tibet that should be respected and supported. In that context we remind Parliamentarians of the plain fact that Tibetans are not seeking ‘separation’ as their nation already existed, Tibetans seek independence from an illegal occupation. An objective which the WPCT, in its effusive support for the Dalai Lama, chooses to ignore.
“Offer to work with members of the National People’s Congress to jointly ascertain the causes of protest and unrest in Tibet, including the self-immolations”
Having expressed grave concern for human rights violations and oppression in Tibet the World Parliamentary Convention on Tibet now volunteers to collaborate with China’s political establishment, to examine possible reasons which explain Tibetan dissent. What planet are these Parliamentarians living on, are they not already aware of the catalog of atrocities and cultural genocide that Tibetans suffer? Do they not yet understand that Tibetans are not taking to the streets to demand moderation or improvements in any policies applied by their oppressors. That would be a gross misrepresentation of the facts and a betrayal of the struggle waged by Tibetans, that the WPCT can make such a statement reveals either a damning degree of ignorance or a cynical effort to distort and conceal the political nature and objectives of Tibetan protests. Imagine a global body of Parliamentarians offering to collaborate with the Apartheid Regime of South Africa, to better determine why the Black township of Soweto was the scene of repeated protests. Of course at that moment the world knew precisely the reasons for such dissent and thankfully no offer of collaboration was extended to the racist government of South Africa. Why then this absurd proposal to cooperate with they very tyrants whose illegal occupation and genocidal assimilation of Tibet are the obvious causes of Tibetan unrest?
Tibettruth had produced a briefing paper for the 6th World Parliamentary Convention on Tibet which raised some very important questions and exposed the nonsense of the failed proposals to seek ‘autonomy’ for Tibetans. It appealed to participants to recognize that Tibetans in occupied Tibet are not seeking such a solution, but are actively protesting for Tibet’s independence. Furthermore it called upon Parliamentarians to note the acknowledgement made by the Dalai Lama, that the proposals for a ‘Middle Way’ solution (autonomy) had failed, and that any support for Tibet should honor and respect the political aspirations and struggle of Tibet’s people. Unfortunately those Parliamentarians supportive of Tibet, have in this latest Declaration, again abandoned the very people whose cause they continue to evade and dismiss.
Pandas, Poison and Propaganda Clouds British Foreign Office
Neil Heywood
Image:archivenet
Last November, Neil Heywood, a British businessman and corporate intelligence consultant was found dead in a hotel room in a western Chinese city, he had been closely associated with the political elite of Sichuan Province, spoke fluent Mandarin, and if reports are correct had seemingly threatened to expose a web of corruption and financial irregularities, which would grossly endanger the high-level careers and profile of some politically powerful figures, including Mr. Bo Xilai’s and his wife, Gu Kailai. The latter is now under arrest on suspicion of murder, while Bo has been suspend from political office, the case has generated acute embarrassment for China’s Regime and also for the British Foreign Office (the equivalent of the State Department). So it is that today the British Prime Minister is meeting with a Senior Chinese leader to discuss the case, which has attracted the unwelcome attention of the media who are asking difficult questions, of which there are many.
Visitors to this site may have noticed mention before of the Foreign Office, a British government department that casts a shadow over the issue of Tibet in England, and according to sources there has managed to manipulate the Tibetan scene to such an extent that protests consistently fail to generate significant public interest, while those isolated events which do happen avoid any mention of Tibetan independence. It is of course entirely in the political interests of the Foreign Office to have an emasculated movement for Tibet, one that would not generate too much inconvenience or distraction for the larger work of mollifying China’s Regime, which is always hyper-sensitive to the subject of Tibet. The object of such appeasement is of course to maintain current and secure future economic benefits from China, including financial investments into a broken British economy. Any issue therefore which would undermine that process is regarded as an irritant, so it is that a vigorous and singular campaign for Tibetan independence within Britain would be anathema to the political aspirations and policies of the Foreign Office.
The name of the game is trade, and appeasement is a currency that goes a long way to furthering British interests in China, so it is that issues such as China’s horrendous program of forced sterilizations is deliberately omitted from the Foreign Office Human Rights Report on China and that no mention is ever made of Tibet’s independence, or that Tibetans inside occupied Tibet are struggling to regain their national freedom. These are explosive issues that could seriously destabilize relations with Beijing, so in a cynical move the Foreign Office has removed entirely the political truth from the subject of Tibet and transformed it into one of human and religious rights. These are seemingly discussed during an annual meeting with China, although the public are not graced with any details of what’s actually on the table, some say there would be no room for such topics, it being already occupied by French wines and the finest of cuisine.
Why Did British Foreign Minister Jeremy Browne Not Raise The Case?
Image:latimes
What trust or confidence however can be invested into such exchanges, in light of the subservient position of the British Government towards China, and its craven appeasement of that bloody regime? Should anyone doubt the extent of such uncritical accommodation the death of Neil Heywood may provide an enlightening insight. From what we know, via the reported facts, the British Government, through the Foreign Office and its Embassy in Beijing, was informed of the death on November 16 2011 . At that time China assured Britain that Mr Heywood had died from “excessive alcohol consumption”, a claim some have noted that Foreign Office officials seem to have accepted without question. Why no immediate post-mortem was demanded by British Officials, to conclusively establish the cause of death, is not known, but its apparent willingness, to accept as fact, assurances from a regime, notorious for lies and propaganda, is a remarkable indication of how far the Foreign Office is prepared to go to maintain positive relations with China. More so when considering that just twenty four hours after the news of that death was reported to the British Government a Foreign Office Minister, Mr Jeremy Browne was in Chongqing to meet the Chinese politician at the heart of this story, yet seemingly chose not to mention a word on the matter, why the silence?
Would it not have been the duty and natural concern of a Foreign Office Minister to raise the case during his visit, instead of participating in a propaganda photo with a panda? Could Mr Browne claim that he was not informed by his own Department of this hugely important matter? Can we really believe that he would have not been aware that a British national had died under very troubling circumstances? It would appear that no such thoughts troubled the visit made by Jeremy Browne and that the version of events provided by China were for a time taken as truth, despite the very worrying fact that Neil Heywood’s body was cremated with considerable haste, removing the opportunity to conclusively determining how he had died. Indeed according to a written statement released April 17 by the British Foreign Secretary, William Hague, no pressures were applied to China until February 15 2012 who wrote that “urgent representations” were first made then by the deputy head of mission at the British embassy to officials from the Chinese foreign ministry, and informed them of suspicions that Heywood had been murdered and requested a full investigation.
William Hague Conceded China Was Pressured For Inquiry Months After Heywood's Death
Image:jeremyrowe
There are many questions surrounding this sad affair and no doubt the British Government has much to explain as to why its officials appeared to take so long to raise the case with their Chinese counterparts. While it is unlikely that the entire facts will emerge what does seem more certain is that the policy of the Foreign Office towards China, characterized by appeasement and compromise, resulted in an unhealthy willingness to believe China’s claims regarding the death, without any independent or verifiable evidence and a hesitancy to offer a forceful response.
Will David Cameron, Britain’s Prime Minister, accept with equal credulity the response on the subject from his meeting with China’s propaganda secretary Mr.Li Changchun, or will for once justice, human rights, and truth take precedence over commerce and politics? What do you think?
More Media Distortions On Tibet
Graphic courtesy of @AnonymousTibet
Double Click Image For Larger View
Oh India! What Became Of Democracy?
Image:npdt
Mr. Chime Youngdung (Second from left, above) the President of National Democratic Party of Tibet (NDPT) with his team was arrested and imprisoned for 4 days in Tihar Jail and released on 30th March 2012. The arrest took place on 27th March afternoon while on their way to MP flats in South Avenue of New Delhi for lobbying Indian Parliamentarian. Mr Youngdung was arrested along with Ven Gendun Gyatso, Rigzin Dorjee, and Ms. Tenzin Nordhey.
The lobbying program were initiated aftermath of Mr. Inder Singh Namdari, Member of Parliament, raised a question on ongoing self-immolations in Tibet during Stared Question hour at Indian Lok Sabha. Another member of parliament, Mr. Shivanand Tiwari had also stated in Parliament that Tibet with whom Indians shares strong cultural and spiritual relationship is now facing critical time with many monks and nuns self immolating themselves which is not a suicide case at all. We have not taken any reaction regarding this critical issue in Tibet.
Prior to the arrest, the team headed by President of NDPT and Mr. Lukar Jam, the Vice-president of Gu-Chu-Sum, had lobbied many eminent Indian Parliamentarian who are in the Committee of External Affairs of Parliament to raise the Tibet issue and the urgent crisis in Tibet during the ongoing Parliament session, such as, Shri. Anand Kumar, Shri. Pardeep Kumar Singh and Shri. Rajendrasinh Rana of Bhartiya Janata Party, Shri.K.S. Alagiri of Congress Party and Shri.T.K.S.Elangovan of DMK Party. All the Indian Members of Parliament assured their full support to the Tibetan cause and pledge to raise the Tibet issue in parliament session.
Report Courtesy of NDPT
