Category Archives: Uncategorized

This is a response received to an interview given on Tibet, by Robert Barnett, which was featured here

Like a stage conjurer  this respected Columbia University lecturer is indulging in a sleight-of-hand, by deflecting attention away from the factual core of Tibet,  through what an unkind interpretation may see as sophistry and pseudo- intellectual jargon. Assessing the replies on offer in this interview  a reader could be forgiven for imagining,  that far from talking about a people and culture, facing the most horrendous oppression under China’s tyranny, the subject was some anthropological exhibit. Indeed there is an unnerving reptilian detachment to the observations presented which on first appearance, though invested of a certain academic allure, give way to the troubling realization, that what is presented is an essay on illusion and extenuating terminology. A willingness to accommodate China’s perspective on Tibet, and its occupation of that nation, beyond the Golden Mean of academic impartiality, or noble aspirations of critical thinking.

The interview  begins with the roll of a decidedly loaded dice on the notion of stereotypes relating to the issue of Tibet, the remarks which follow offer  a number of examples, all of which seemingly are implied as inherently false, in terms of understanding the ‘real Tibet’. Yet examine the comments more closely and it would not be misplaced to wonder if such views are more about establishing the mirage that there exists some refined clear truth, unsullied by perception. This quintessence on Tibet is, it would seem, only possible through the medium of Tibetan intellectuals, a curious proposal and hardly free from the bias that is being criticized, given that such people are often the very ones who have been thoroughly indoctrinated in terms of China’s thinking on Tibet. This is hinted at by the claim that

 “These images tend to evaporate if you read serious writing produced by Tibetans within Tibet, or if you are able to talk in depth with people from there.”. (Emphasis Added)

Well many people,  do converse with Tibetans of all social and educational backgrounds from that sorely oppressed country and a remarkably consistent picture emerges. One  reflected by a wealth of documentation, witnessed testimony and media reportage, that a common aspiration and political objective, that characterizes protests across Tibet, is a demand for Tibetan independence. A reality no doubt that would be dismissed by the interviewee as yet another stereotypical distortion, along with the cold fact of the nature and extent of suffering China’s occupation of Tibet has inflicted. Which the interview happily circumscribes as:

“..the political perception of Tibetans as victims who have suffered great abuses heroically and non-violently..”

No doubt the Tibetan political prisoners of Drapchi Prison outside Lhasa will be greatly encouraged by such words, as they endure another torture session for failing to grasp the essentials of Patriotic Education! Not content with the sly suggestion that the harrowing experiences of Tibetans under China’s tyranny may be nothing more than a biased viewpoint. the interview goes on to misrepresent, through a partial and selective analysis, the objectives and causal factors of protest in Tibet. This is achieved by a careful emphasis upon China’s highly repressive policies on religion in Tibet and its increasingly shrill denouncements of the Dalai Lama for purposes of propaganda.

Now there’s no dispute that the interference, restrictions and intimidation enforced upon Tibetan monasteries by China’s regime has generated understandable resentment for Tibetans religious and practice. However, what has been carefully avoided in that selective examination is the reality that demonstrations and uprisings in Tibet from the late 1980s onwards, including recent self-immolations and protests in Eastern Tibet during the past few weeks, have shared a very common aspiration and demand, namely Tibet’s independence. The shelves of a library could be easily filled with innumerable highly detailed reports which document that while Tibetans of course hold the most profound devotion towards the Dalai Lama, and are indeed incensed by the brutal erosion of religious freedoms, it is the independence of Tibet which lies at the heart of opposition to China’s occupation. 

On the subject of a ‘Free Tibet’ again a message of ‘realism’ is offered, although there’s something not quite convincing, despite the superficial reasoning on display

“The more desperate the situation becomes, the more many Tibetans see the key issue as policies that erode their culture and identity, and for those, the idea of freedom probably is reduced to simply any kind of relaxation by the current regime – anything that diminishes the dominating role of Chinese in their everyday lives”. (Emphasis Added)

This breathtaking and baseless assertion, that presumes to represent the inner hopes and demands of Tibetans, degrades Tibetans and their ongoing conviction to the cause for an independent Tibet, which stereotypes notwithstanding, is clearly evident by ongoing protests in the face of China’s vicious oppression. Such words, though seemingly measured and nuanced, in truth peddle a thoroughly distorted impression, infused with despair and a defeatism. They may as well scream ‘surrender now’.

For the commentator the subject of Tibetan independence is kicked slyly into the realm of dream and the safest of zones, the past, while making sure to reinforce the fallacious impression upon the reader that some Rubicon moment has fallen upon the political consciousness of Tibetan thinking.

“So for many of Tibetans the dream of independence and the memory of past independence is certainly strong, but may now take second place to more pragmatic aspirations. We can’t be sure of this, and it could change at any time, but it looks like a lot of Tibetans, perhaps most of them, would accept a compromise solution if the Dalai Lama could get one from China. Some would still like independence – it seems is that a rapidly increasing number view Tibet as having been independent in the past – but in the minds of many people almost anything is better than the policies in Tibet now.” (Emphasis Added)

Such artful misrepresentation has often characterized the views of Robert Barnett on Tibet, some would argue he is merely being the nuanced and objective academic, others may counter that he displays a bias towards China. What is clear is that there exists in his writings on the subject, a strange and worrying alchemy, in which just enough is offered to suggest the appearance of balance and impartiality. Yet never sufficient to dissolve the impression that  he is operating according to a preconceived ideology which is not only intolerant of the concept of Tibetan independence, but conforms to a mindset which would consign the people of Tibet to a merciless destiny under Communist China.

Such commentators strive to present themselves a some form of ‘honest broker’ in which they can air their views as a moderate assessment between alternative perspectives, yet that is illusory, albeit subscribed to by many within intellectual circles who have long offered libation to the shibboleth that an academic is by definition detached, neutral and devoid of emotional bias towards a particular aspect of a subject. That may well have credibility in terms of hard science, but when talking about Tibet there is in fact no middle ground, or equally valid contesting positions. Given the historical facts of Tibet’s independence, the recorded and bloody truth of its military annexation by China, and the decades of cultural genocide waged against Tibetans anyone claiming academic ‘objectivity’ are reliant upon using  a false dichotomy.  This  is what is essentially presented in the interview, which apart from investing a veneer of supposed impartiality, also enables such commentators to avoid confronting, in any profound sense, the appalling injustice of Tibet’s occupation and the resultant violations arising from this. But also means they can make a very convenient detour around the thorny issue of independence.  This is a significant identifier and reveals a lack of commitment and conviction, an unwillingness to make a stand on the side of Tibet, and its legitimate struggle for independence.  In its place we have essentially a manifesto of appeasement, which in insisting upon a ‘realistic’ accommodation of  Chinese rule, legitimises Communist China’s invasion and resultant colonization of Tibet, a previously independent nation.

We obtained a photograph of the remains of Tibetan martyr, Sopa Tulku who self immolated on Sunday January 8, 2012. It is a disturbing image, yet though emotionally painful to see is a reminder of the reality of Tibet’ situation and more importantly of the enduring spirit of Tibet’s people who resist China’s tyranny, determined to regain their nation’s independence. That was the cause that Sopa offered his life for, we respect his sacrfice,courage and self-less devotion to Tibet’s national freedom.

Anyone wishing to see this image may do so here be warned content is graphic, others may wish to read his political testimony below:

“I am self-immolating to commemorate the Tibetans who have self-immolated since 2009; for our national freedom and religious freedom, for liberty and freedom of speech. I am not self-immolating for my personal interests . but Tibetan people need to live a long life for Dalai Lama. Tibetan people need to unity, work hard for the future of Tibet. Don’t lose hope, there will be a happy day.” January 8,2012

Image:courtesy of @anonymoustibet

This image is entirely satirical and not to be confused for any movie endorsing martial arts

We would like from the outset to make clear our genuine admiration and respect for those working tirelessly at the Tibetan Center For Human Rights and Democracy, their organization is a highly valued source for information on human rights violations in occupied Tibet. It’s bulletins and annual reports have informed governments, the United Nations, media, non-governmental bodies for a number of years, ensuring that China’s violent oppression of the Tibetan people is given public exposure. During that time we have been happy to draw upon the reports issued by the TCHRD who provide up to date and accurate news from across Tibet, however there has been a recent development in their reportage which is a cause for some concern. We offer the following observations, in a spirit of positive criticism, in the hope that our colleagues within TCHRD will review matters.

It is well known that propaganda is an important element of China’s illegal occupation of Tibet, indeed China’s regime operates a a well oiled machine of disinformation, in an unceasing ideological war to assert as fact, its bogus claims that Tibet is historically and culturally  part of China. Central to such deceit has been the cynical renaming of Tibetan regions and place names into Chinese versions, such toxic fabrications convey the impression that such territory is Chinese.  These falsehoods have been assisted by a largely servile and appeasing international media, whose often indolent journalists unthinkingly repeat such propaganda, for an example of such troubling journalism see here.

Given the degree of appeasement demonstrated by a corrupted mainstream media towards China we cannot be to surprised that correspondents are happy to collaborate in peddling China’s lies, but it is more difficult to understand how any organization dedicated to ensuring factual and independent reportage on Tibet would indulge in a similar misrepresentation and in so doing be removing Tibetan territory from the world map.

For some time now the Tibetan Center For Human Rights and Democracy (TCHRD) has been following an editorial policy that consistently describes towns and regions, which are clearly Tibetan, as being Chinese, using terms such as ‘Tibet Autonomous Region’ ‘Qinghai’ or ‘Sichuan’ with no qualifying context to inform readers that such locations are in reality in occupied Tibet and have been forcefully renamed as being within China. Here’s a recent report that illustrates the point

“TCHRD has received the first-ever pictures of Khaying and Choepel, the two Tibetan teenagers who self-immolated on 7 October 2011, protesting against Chinese rule, in Ngaba County town, Sichuan Province“ (emphasis added Source: http://www.tchrd.org/press/2011/pr20111213.html

Yet the town in question is actually located within the traditional Tibetan region of Amdo, although once part of neighboring Kham, following China’s invasion of  Tibet these areas were renamed as Chinese provinces, an imposed fabrication that TCHRD now features in its reports.

Now it can of course be argued that in repeating these terms TCHRD is simply reporting a current political ‘reality’ however even if that were so surely it is not asking too much of a Tibetan organization to provide its subscribers with a more factual context, to ensure that readers are not mislead into considering such locations as being within China. For example would it not be possible to describe the quote above in the following fashion:

“TCHRD has received the first-ever pictures of Khaying and Choepel, the two Tibetan teenagers who self-immolated on 7 October 2011, protesting against Chinese rule, in Ngaba a town in the occupied Tibetan region of Amdo (annexed by China and renamed on current maps as being within Sichuan Province” )

It is unclear why TCHRD has embraced this troubling form of reportage, perhaps there is a view that such policy invests greater credibility, that in using China’s authorized descriptions it somehow appears objectively detached from the subject of its reports. Maybe it is simply following the trend of mainstream media, which regularly features China’s propaganda terminology on Tibet, does it see this issue as a fait accompli and shifted its policy accordingly? Whatever the reasons,  in employing China’s carefully constructed deceptions, readers are being short-changed on the facts and given a misleading and erroneous impression.

Does it matter that organizations such as the TCHRD and Radio Free Asia (another news source that has a habit of using China’s propaganda when describing Tibetan territory) accurately report the geography and place names of Tibet? From a journalistic perspective there is a duty to exercise and respect  balance, integrity and factual context when reporting any item, we wonder if such values are being served by simply repeating China’s poisonous disinformation, minus any redeeming factual background? The question also invites a response in terms of ethics. Nobody knows more acutely than the Tibetan Center for Human Rights and Democracy what the people of Tibet are facing China’s bullets, torture and prison for.Their archives are full of accounts of protests, individual and collective that demand national freedom for Tibet, the tireless staff of TCHRD realize, that for their compatriots in occupied Tibet, the subject of Tibetan territory lies at the very heart of the struggle.

We consider the description of Tibetan territories and locations as Chinese provinces, or within such, to be inaccurate, this is unfortunate and creates a misleading impression for many, who respect the TCHRD as a source of reliable information on Tibet. We hope you understand our concerns on this matter and may through a spirit of solidarity and cooperation, consider reviewing your policy of using Chinese sanctioned descriptions, as it plants a distortion into the thinking of those  who may have have little knowledge on  Tibet. It is our sincere hope that you will receive this appeal in the positive spirit in which it is offered. With respect and admiration for your fine work

On the subject of Kundun’s resignation the discussion has attracted the attention of Mr. Robert Barnet See Article

He offers an outline of historic episodes from Tibet in which the succession of the Dalai Lama was seemingly arranged to ensure a retention of political control and facilitate a trouble-free continuity to exclude external interference from either China’s then Mongolian and later Manchu rulers, both cultures having embraced Buddhism and eager to secure relations with the institution of the Dalai Lama.

The former part-time actor seems eager to elicit sympathy for China’s bloody regime by asking us to consider, that the recent decision by the Dalai Lama to retire, is thought by China’s regime to be a similar move, aimed to prevent Chinese interference. He asks readers to ‘understand’ the position of China, its sense of distrust based on centuries of political history and occasions when the Mongolian and Manchu dynasties that ruled China were outflanked by Tibetans, determined to prevent any foreign meddling in the succession between Dalai Lama’s.

Those who are familiar with Mr Barnett’s writing, and his troubling record of misrepresenting the nature of Tibet’s struggle, his long-standing denial and distortions regarding the forcible sterilization of Tibetan women by China’s coercive population control programme, will not be unduly surprised to note yet another article that peddles a barely disguised bias towards China. Occasionally the pseudo-intellectual guard is exposed and we can glimpse crude propaganda of the sort engineered by China’s Xinhua agency. Take the following ‘gem’ asserted by Mr Barnet:

“When Mao briefly allowed Tibet almost total autonomy in the 1950s, it was probably in part because he knew from historians that it had never been a province or an integral part of China in the past”

What disinformation is this? It has echoes of other arch-China apologists Grunfeld and Goldstein and Shakya who chorus the line that Tibetans enjoyed some ‘golden age’ of ‘moderation’ following China’s annexation of Tibet. Not that the oppressed Tibetans took to the streets with tears of gratitude, having seen Mao’s jackbooted thugs trampling over Tibet and its culture!

Surely Mr Barnet is not suggesting Tibetans enjoyed a political freedom, or equates that with the autonomy experienced by the Scots, Basques or Catalans? Far from years of contentment slyly suggested by his assertion, the decade he refers to was one of military tyranny, with cosmetic political posturing in Lhasa, while in Kham and Amdo Tibetans were being subject to ever increasing abuses, suppression and violent tyranny. Strange, how that reality was omitted in his article. Perhaps he was wary of upsetting China’s regime; which (he informs readers) considers Robert Barnett sufficiently impartial, on its occupation of Tibet, to seek his views on the subject of the Dalai Lama’s resignation.

Image:grandhotel

On December 10 1989 the Norwegian city of Oslo was covered in snow. Fur coats, strong beer and hats kept alive the good people of the frozen north. Above the prestigious Grand Hotel the Tibetan flag snapped in the bone-chilling arctic wind. Tibet’s political leader, the Dalai Lama was to receive the Nobel Prize for Peace from the famous Nobel Institute. Norwegians and Tibetans marched through the streets in a torchlight parade greeted by the Tibetan leader from his balcony. The flames sparkled under the cold skies and hope burned brightly for Tibet that night.

Image:getty

1989 had witnessed mass protests on the streets of Lhasa, as ever Tibetans were sustained in their struggle by a belief that one day Tibet would regain its independence. To world-wide condemnation the demonstrations were violently crushed, hundreds of Tibetans were gunned down and tanks and armoured-troop carriers patrolled the Tibetan capital. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/08/14/world/chinese-said-to-kill-450-tibetans-in-1989.html It was such scenes which generated international attention and sympathy for Tibet, and no doubt served to partly influence the decision of the Nobel Committee to give its most valued award to the Dalai Lama. That recognition was greeted with joy by Tibetans, who understandably interpreted the event as an indication that their cause to regain Tibet’s freedom was receiving international acclaim and support.

As Liu Xiaobo, 2010 Nobel Peace Prize winner, remains in a Chinese prison, and a number of servile and self-interested nations cynically supported China’s call for a boycott of this ceremony, Tibetans may care to briefly reflect upon how the objectives and solutions of their cause have changed since His Holiness received the award.

Image:darrengarnick

Casting-an-eye over the two decades since the Tibetan political leader was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize it is difficult not to consider that the hopes generated that night proved to be misplaced. The evidence for such a conclusion was to be found not in the understandable celebration, or the gilded rituals of the Nobel Committee, but within the pages of the controversial Strasbourg Speech, which had been made in 1988. This statement, which is wrongly understood as being a proposal (it was not a concrete or formal offer and never submitted as such) generated considerable outrage among Tibetans, since it signalled a willingness by the Tibetan Administration to concede Chinese sovereignty over Tibet, with its concept of Tibet becoming a self-governing political entity with associative status within China. Although not entirely an overwhelming declaration in support of Tibetan political and territorial independence it did contain one very critical element, which is worth quoting in full:

“I would like to emphasise, however that whatever the outcome of negotiations with the Chinese maybe , the Tibetan people themselves must be the ultimate deciding authority. Therefore any proposal will contain a comprehensive procedural plan to ascertain the wishes of the Tibetan people in a nationwide referendum”. (The Dalai Lama, Strasbourg June 15th 1988).

That important condition effectively asserted that nothing-in-fact had been conceded, since the ultimate decision, concerning the status of Tibet remained in the hands of the Tibetan people, who would not settle for anything less than complete independence. Interestingly this major implication was either overlooked or callously ignored by the international community which considered the Strasbourg Speech to be a major concession that accepted Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. It would appear that on such selective or flawed understanding the Strasbourg Speech was instrumental in the decision to confer the Nobel Pace Prize to the Tibetan leader. Which was presented for his “..constructive and forward looking proposals for the solution of international conflicts..” and solutions which would “..preserve the historical and cultural and heritage of his people” (Nobel Committee October 5th 1989)

Image:dannyfisher

On accepting the award the Dalai Lama was in some ways stepping into a straight-jacket in which the issue of Tibet was subsequently defined not in terms of nation, self-determination and independence, but within the restrictive limitations of a resolution which ultimately conceded Tibetan nationhood for cultural heritage and religious expression. In regards to relations with Beijing this suited the political and diplomatic needs of the United States, Britain, and a number of European countries, who had long acknowledged China’s false claims over Tibet. These self-proclaimed champions of freedom and democracy had no interest in supporting the Tibetans in their cause for independence. Indeed they wanted Tibet as an international and political issue transformed into one of human rights, since this would avoid encroaching upon what remained a subject of incredible sensitivity for China, namely Tibet’s right to self-determination and questions concerning the legitimacy of Chinese rule in Tibet. That objective was given and emphatic and forceful approval when President Barack Obama submitted to Beijing’s demands that he publicly acknowledge China’s bogus claim of sovereignty over Tibet.

Image:indianinfo

Although Tibet’s rightful claims to independence had received no political support since approaching the United Nations following 1959, the Tibetan people’s right to self-determination remained, and offered a possibly productive direction for the Tibetan cause. However, the Nobel Peace Prize and the resultant re-branding of Tibet as an issue would abandon that route, and the hopes of Tibetans for a free and independent state. Understandably not many Tibetans will be concerned or will refuse to acknowledge that their leader willingly drank from what was a poisoned chalice, they will be too busy coming together to celebrate with pride the international recognition which was conferred upon His Holiness on December 10, 1989.

With world leaders and the international community applauding the Tibetan leader for his peaceful determination to resolve conflict and desire to preserve what was weakly, yet deliberately, defined as Tibet’s historic and cultural heritage, the direction of the Tibetan cause would be changed significantly. What had been an issue regarding a people’s struggle for national freedom and self-determination was transformed into conflict resolution, in which the political aspirations of the Tibetan people were marginalized. The issue of Tibet’s status was clearly not upon the agenda of governments, or the Nobel Committee, while, whatever the shortcomings of the Strasbourg Speech; which was to be eventually jettisoned in 1991 by the Tibetan Administration in the face of Chinese rejection (which condemned it as a veiled bid for independence) its contents provide an illuminating contrast to the current strategy as featured in the Memorandum on Genuine Autonomy For The Tibetan People. It also reveals the alarming nature and extent of concessions made by the Tibetan Administration in its efforts to appease Beijing. Take a look at some key areas of the Strasbourg Speech:

“The whole of Tibet known as Cholka-Sum (U-Tsang, Kham and Amdo) should become a self-governing democratic political entity….”

“The Government of Tibet should be founded on a constitution or basic law. The basic law should provide for a democratic system of government…”

“As individual freedom is the real source and potential of any society’s development, the Government of Tibet would seek to ensure this freedom by full adherence to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including the rights to speech, assembly and religion.”

The emphasis on democratic governance, law and individual freedoms does not appear in the Memorandum on Genuine Autonomy For The Tibetan People. Instead the Tibetan Administration presses it willingness to accept so called genuine autonomy within the communist Chinese constitution. Also absent is an unambiguous declaration of what territory would constitute a future Tibetan polity. That has been replaced with a more dilute and confused definition in which Tibet is described as “comprising all the areas currently designated by the PRC as Tibetan autonomous areas”. This extends a worrying negotiating advantage to Beijing and leaves dangerous room for compromise and territorial surrender. Amdo, one of Tibet’s traditional regions (see map below) although containing so-called Tibetan autonomous territories is, at a national level within communist Chinese law, not a designated autonomous region but a distinct Chinese province (so-called Qinghai).

Image:tibettruth

Most crucially what stands out between the discarded Strasbourg Speech and the Memorandum on Genuine Autonomy For The Tibetan People is how the current proposals provide no engagement or guarantee for Tibetans in determining the future status of their country. This is a major and worrying retreat from the position of the Dalai Lama since he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize twenty years ago to the day. His people inside Tibet, and the overwhelming majority in exile, remain determined to strive for an independent Tibetan nation, yet have been effectively sidelined by their own Administration, and completely excluded from any possibility of shaping their political and territorial destiny.

While the Tibet movement has made some incredible progress since that night in Oslo, becoming far more sophisticated and effective in terms of campaigns, public relations and media management, it remains frustratingly conformist in regard to the policies promoted by the Tibetan Administration. Largely silent, as it watches in slow motion the exiled Tibetan Government seek a negotiated solution which would ensure the death of Tibetan national identity, and the extinction of any hopes of a free and independent Tibet.

Image:tibetsun

Recalling the forceful and widespread reaction to the apparent concessions of the Strasbourg Speech, it is ironic that Tibetans now appear more compliant, (convinced perhaps by the doom-laden message of despair and defeatism which their administration has been peddling to argue the correctness of its failed strategy of appeasement) and willing to accept the prevailing orthodoxy. Yet the concessions and objectives of the Memorandum on Genuine Autonomy For The Tibetan People present far more dangerous compromises than the contents of the Strasbourg Speech. Where is the opposition to this insane surrender, which would extinguish any hopes of a free Tibetan nation? It is time to recapture the sprit of optimism and determination that inspired Tibetan hearts during 1989, and continues to courageously resist Chinese occupation today, for the people of Tibet to assert their authority over what remains their legitimate cause for freedom and independence.

Image:ap

Image:fretbase

Jimmy Page is a decent and compassionate individual who apart from his extraordinary musical talents as a guitarist, producer and composer, has selflessly dedicated himself to bringing relief to Brazil’s street children, through his extensive charitable works. His guitar playing has inspired countless people around the world and he is without question an iconic figure within the world of music. It was perhaps his global standing that resulted in his appearance at the Olympic Stadium in Beijing 2008, in which he played a version of the Led Zeppelin classic Whole Lotta Love to a huge Chinese and international audience.

There were some discussion on the musical integrity of that performance, criticised as a pale, over-choreographed version of a genuine rock anthem. However little concern was expressed regarding Jimmy’s presence in Beijing in terms of his participation, which some considered as an endorsement of what was a propaganda event for communist China’s bloody regime. It is the nature of fans to suffer from selective sight of course, their heroes forever without fault and certainly beyond such critique. Yet appreciating Jimmy Page’s music is insufficient reason to ignore the uncomfortable observation that in playing at that Beijing Stadium he was (albeit in a capacity to promote English Olympic interests) associating with the world’s most brutal and oppressive state. Perhaps at this point readers in England may be thinking, ‘Ah yes but he was there to promote the London 2012 Olympics’. That may well be so, yet that does not detract from what was a very troubling involvement. Imagine if you will another guitar legend Django Rheinhardt (one of Jimmy Page’s favourites) a jazz master of the 1930/40/50s performing his classic Nuages for the Nazi hierarchy at the 1936 Berlin Olympics. Or his other great inspiration, black blues legend BB King, agreeing to perform at an event organised by the Apartheid Regime of South Africa! Anyone possessed of integrity would be appalled by such events, and one imagines that Page too would find it uncomfortable viewing.

Image:virginmedia

Admirers of Jimmy Page can of course overlook and forgive such errors of judgement and always find some justification to excuse his involvement in Beijing. In the world-of-the hardened fan there is it would seem no place for human rights, justice or freedom within music. Yet, how will Jimmy Page’s legion of followers respond to his active involvement at another Beijing event, which ironically is being promoted as a concert to supposedly support, peace, green and health issues. According to reports he was scheduled to appear at the so-called Show Of Peace at the Olympic Stadium Beijing on October 10, 2010, which to the relief of all those who value human rights, freedom and justice was cancelled. Partly as a result of the Nobel Peace Prize award to Chinese dissident, Liu Xiaobo, a development that generated acute political embarassment and frustration for the communist Chinese regime.

Image:beijingdiary

Within totalitarian China and the occupied territories of Tibet, East Turkestan, Inner Mongolia and Manchuria there is no genuine peace, only oppression and state violence. While environmental destruction and pollution is a widespread issue across China. Tibetans and Uyghurs are brutally denied the very rights this event is purportedly promoting. In light of China’s appalling record on human rights it is an obscenity that anyone would consider staging such an event there, it would be like organizing a concert for peace in Cambodia under the tyranny of Khymer Rouge!

Appeal

Jimmy, many of your fans will be genuinely concerned by your association with this event and would appeal that you urgently reconsider any further involvement. As will be recalled, Mr Steven Speilberg acted with a much welcomed sense of ethics, and eventually withdrew his involvement in the preparations for the 2008 Olympics. Will you and your management, in considering participating at this occasion, remember the oppressed people of Tibet, East Turkestan and China, whose political, cultural, civil freedoms are so violently denied, by the very same communist Chinese regime your involvement with would so greatly assist. Please do not permit China’s propaganda exercise to cast a questionable stain upon your wonderful career, and reputation for valuing basic human rights. Nor allow it to colour the widespread affection and respect in which countless numbers of fans regard you.

Mr Mario-Ambrosini MP

Image:parliamentsa

Tibettruth is getting increasingly outraged at the cold-hearted betrayal of the Tibetan struggle for independence, waged against China’s occupation of Tibet, by an exiled Tibetan Administration, which despite being acutely aware of the widespread resistance to Chinese rule and mass protests across Tibet for independence, tramples with arrogant indifference across the political aspirations of its own people, by pressing a policy of dangerous compromise with communist China (that seeks a negotiated agreement; the aims of which are to submit to Chinese rule with some form of so-called meaningful autonomy).

Meanwhile inside occupied Tibet the resistance to China’s tyrannical occupation is undiminished, the demand for Tibet’s national freedom expressed with an incredible courage and determination, political prisoners enduring the most horrific of abuse and misery, beyond the slave labor camps and ‘re-education canters’ a range of vicious measures suppressing freedom culture and religion. Still the heartfelt desire for Tibetan independence burns brightly, as witnessed by the Uprisings of 2008 and more recent reports that testify to a truth once acknowledged by Tibet’s political leader:

”It’s important for the Chinese authorities to recognize the true aspirations of the Tibetan people. Virtually all Tibetans long for nothing less than full independence for our country” (Dalai Lama March 10, 1990)

That ambition remains the same, what has changed is the degree of appeasement towards China by the exiled Tibetan Administration, a development influenced and encouraged by international political opinion that urges so-called realism and pragmatism on the Tibetan leadership to reach a solution with communist China’s regime.
A prominent and duplicitous voice advocating the abandonment of Tibet’s rightful nationhood is found among a number of Parliamentarians, indeed there exists an international Parliamentary alliance to promote such surrender which expends great energy calling for negotiations from China and supporting the Dalai Lama’s proposals for accepting Chinese rule in return for some form of improved autonomy. No doubt such political opinion, informed and advised by the strategic and commercial realities of their respective nation’s interests with China, is keen to see a ‘solution’ to the issue of Tibet, if only to remove what remains an inconvenient diplomatic distraction in relations with China.

The friendly advice and support offered to the exiled Tibetan Administration is forged from such national interests and as such is corrupt and cynical, it’s objective not to support the national identity of Tibet but to engineer the demise of Tibet as an international issue thereby enabling Tibet to be more effectively  ignored as an internal matter of communist China. Of course there are some Parliamentarians who no doubt operate on the basis of genuine compassion and concern for the people of Tibet, convinced by the strategy adopted by the Dalai Lama as offering a reasonable and hopeful resolution. What such individuals fail to recognize however, and it is this which generates such offense, is that the Tibetan people themselves inside Tibet are facing Chinese bullets, prison and torture to demand their nation’s independence, not for the ‘autonomy’ envisaged by the exiled Tibetan Administration. Moreover Parliamentarians, so dedicated to democratic principle ,would surely agree with the Dalai Lama’s former assertion that:

“I have always stated that the central issue is that the Tibetan people must ultimately choose their own destiny. It is not for the Dalai Lama, and certainly not for the Chinese to make that decision. It should ultimately be the wishes of the Tibetan people that should prevail”. (The Dalai Lama Yale, 1991)

Why then are members of Parliament such as Mr Mario-Ambrosini of South Africa’s Inkatha Freedom Party issuing statements such as the following:

“Tibet is asking for what all Chinese deserve limited autonomy and all fundamental rights entrenched in the UN Universal Declaration. This is what the 5th World Parliamentarians Convention on Tibet not only supported Tibetan autonomy and human rights but also stressed how its aim was that of supporting rather than antagonizing China.” (Phayul September 17, 2010-Emphasis Added)

A Note to Mr Ambrosini

1) Let’s get a few points straightened out, ‘Tibet’ (by that you infer the 6 million people of Tibet, virtually all of whom live in occupied Tibet) is not requesting ‘limited autonomy’, that appeal is being made by Tibet’s exiled Tibetan Administration, which itself conceded that the most important fact is not the wishes of His Holiness but the political aspirations of Tibetans.

2) If you possess any knowledge of Tibet then you will acknowledge that inside that brutalized nation Tibetans are not taking to the streets to demand ‘limited autonomy’ but for their national identity and Tibet’s independence. Secondly, it is not for Parliamentary organizations to issue supportive recommendations of autonomy for the Tibetan people, Tibet’s cause belongs to its people and they express that when facing China’s tyranny to demand their nation’s freedom.

3) Lastly you grossly insult Tibetans who are fighting to preserve their national and cultural identity when you imply in your comments that Tibetans are Chinese.

May we enquire if you would have urged the oppressed Black people of South Africa to submit to the rule of Apartheid on the basis it was a realistic solution? Would you have welcomed foreign politicians recommending that the ANC reach a compromise solution with the Apartheid Regime? One imagines you would never have entertained such betrayal, so why are you promoting a sly capitulation for Tibet and misrepresenting Tibetans as Chinese? Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the realities of the Tibetan cause before issuing what are damaging and fallacious comments about another peoples’ freedom struggle?

 Tibettruth has written to both Inkatha Freedom Party and Mr Ambrosini, if you wish to express your concern at the comments made by Mr Mario-Ambrosini MP he can emailed here: moriani-ambrosini@parliament.gov.za

Please Share This Post On Any Of The Sites Below

Peter Clever Opposed To Tibetan's Territorial Freedom

Image:crosswatersystems

As Dharmasala’s autonomy-clones continue to promote the surrender of Tibetan nationhood they were no doubt heartened by the comments of a European Union politician, who while posing as a friend of the Dalai Lama, was actually endorsing a death sentence on a separate Tibetan national identity. Not that his presence at the headquarters of the Exiled Tibetan Government met any opposition, instead he was extended a hero’s welcome by the Tibetan Administration, who no doubt warmed to his support of the Tibetan leader’s Middle Way Approach.

Peter Clever, a European Union delegate informed his Tibetan hosts that:

“I think the Middle Path is the right way, – not to touch upon territorial questions. And I do it on the background of my personal German history,”

Presumably Mr Clever would consider that the people of Germany were entirely unconcerned with their territorial sovereignty and integrity, presumably the scenes of euphoria that swept across Germany as the Berlin Wall came down had nothing to do with the realization of a restored German territorial nation!

In addition to his heartless indifference of the political aspirations of Tibetans inside Tibet, who struggle for the very territorial and political independence Mr Clever appears so opposed to, he took pains to praise the comunist Chinese authority for so-called development inside Tibet. Apart from some question on educational opportunities the fact such ‘improvements’ are colonialist, imposed upon the Tibetan people, marginalise and erode Tibetan culture, and offer no genuine benefit to Tibetans did not appear to concern him.

” We saw there high investment in infrastructure to connect Tibet to China and to the outside world. We appreciate the investment in finance by the central government. But our major question is about investment in Tibetan people especially in education”

Of course the European Union is callously unconcerned with hopes of the Tibetan people for a free and united nation. Unlike the stinging critique of the Iranian regime of the Iranian regime and endorsement (September 8, 2010) of Iranian freedom,  its focus on China is to maintain and promote commercial and political relations, while offering hand-wringing platitudes on autonomy and the preservation of Tibetan culture. Cynical gestures designed to appease domestic concerns on Tibet within Europe, which though having an appearance of support, is little more than a cosmetic posture, calculated not to upset Beijing.

The brutalized people of Tibet have little to thank the European Union for.

Please Share This Post On Any Of The Sites Below