Image:tsewangrangzen/tyc
The decision yesterday by the New York Police Department to forcefully remove to hospital Mr Dorje Gyalpo, a Tibetan Hunger-Striker, who has been without food for 27 days outside the United Nations in East Manhattan poses some interesting questions. Not least of all, was this intervention based entirely upon humanitarian concern for the health of this brave Tibetan, or was it a result of less observable political considerations? To address that we need to assess which parties benefit from seeing an end to this protest, most obvious is China’s Regime, ever sensitive to the issue of Tibet, quietly it must be incandescent with rage to witness, at the very doors of the UN, a demonstration reminding the world of its genocidal occupation of Tibet. Interestingly the Chinese authorities have maintained a singular silence on the event, behind the scenes though it is not unlikely that they are exerting various pressures at their disposal to undermine and end the Hunger Strike. To that end their economic and political influence is considerable, more so within the United States, a nation in financial slavery to China, it has many friends within mainstream media, does that partly explain what has been a virtual news blackout on the Tibetan protest? What can be said with certainty is that China’s Ministry of Disinformation is engaged in an ideological war relating to Tibet, the last thing it wishes to see is media exposure of a high profile protest highlighting China’s tyranny in Tibet. Meanwhile, within the United Nations China’s presence, as a permanent member of the Security Council, is formidable, its representatives would be un-sleeping in efforts to dilute and distract whatever limited support or sympathy as may (or not) exist with the UN towards the Hunger Strike.
Image:tsewangrangzen/tyc
Which brings us to contender number two, the UN itself, in what way would this troubled institution gain from an end to the protest opposite its Headquarters? Well, in terms of public relations, a subject of major importance to that organization, the presence of the Tibetan hunger-strikers, and the demands of the Tibetan Youth Congress is exposing, with greater clarity as each day passes, the shameful lack of action or support extended to Tibet by the United Nations. The fact that these Tibetans were forced, through the silence and callous indifference of the UN, to offer their lives to appeal for their attention and action is colossal indictment. As people around the world read of the sacrifices of these courageous Tibetans, in peaceful demonstration, the questions grow louder. Why has not the United Nations helped the people of Tibet? Why are Tibetans being tortured and killed, yet the UN does and says nothing?
Image:tsewangrangzen/tyc
In addition to these uncomfortable questions for Ban Ki Moon his office is also disadvantaged by the truth of Tibet’s cause, the fact it was an independent nation, invaded and illegally occupied by China, and the reasonable, yet politically demanding nature of the objectives being pressed by the Hunger Strike. These call upon the United Nations to go beyond the usual platitudes and sympathy, usually directed to Tibetans, by pressurizing China to end its violent repression of Tibet, its people and culture. Now the Secretary General and his office are entirely resistant to even considering that course of action, because in so doing they would be inviting major political repercussions from China, that would prove highly disruptive within the United Nations. Furthermore they are able, when challenged by appeals such as those being made by Tibetans, to hide behind a central pillar of UN orthodoxy, which is non-interference within a member state (unless of course it is Iran or some other target of interest of the United States). Yet the demand for action is given a very public and intensified profile by the Hunger Strike, it crystallizes the apathy of the United Nations towards Tibet and exposes for all to see, an accommodation towards China based on double-standards and political self-interest, in which its atrocities against Tibetans are largely ignored. Clearly this is tubful of dirty washing that the Secretary General would prefer was not laundered on the sidewalk opposite his administrative center! Given such sensitivities would the forcible removal of Mr Dorje Gyalpo, by the NYPD, be welcomed by Ban Ki Moon? Does the prospect of this protest being ended avoid difficult politics for the United Nations, and in terms of public profile, evade it being seen as uncaring towards Tibetans and appeasing of China?
Image:tsewangrangzen/tyc
While both China and the administration of the United Nations have motive and a political desire to end the Tibetan Hunger Strike, we must remember that any efforts to do so, or undermine its presence cannot be realized without the political and logistical support of the New York authority, its police department, Mayor Bloomberg’s office, and indeed at a higher level, and probably ultimately more significant the State Department, no doubt irritated by an action it knows is causing difficulties for its Chinese counterparts. Are such forces conspiring to stifle the protest? What of the right to peaceful demonstration? Has a decision been reached that it’s politically expedient to have these inspiring Tibetans locked away in a hospital away from the UN Headquarters? What do you think?
