Image:courtesy of @tibettruth
Tag Archives: China
May 23rd 1951: Seventeen Reasons Why Only Tibet’s Independence Will Do
Graphic:courtesy of @tibettruth
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?
China Using Eco-Tourism As Part Of Its Propaganda Warfare
Graphic courtesy of @AnonymousTibet
Aiding Tibetans-Aiding China’s Regime?
Image:tibethealthproject
A recent exchange with one of our @tibettruth Twitter colleagues and fellow supporter of Tibet has raised an issue which we feel it important to outline our position on. It relates to the subject of Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) that run projects inside occupied Tibet, some of which extend limited medical or other support to remote Tibetan communities. We can entirely understand how anyone seeing images of such work would consider those actions as a valuable humanitarian service. We also respect the motivation of individuals who provide relief to Tibetans, yet in addition to acknowledging such positive support we have questions, based upon ethics and the political reality of China’s tyrannical occupation of Tibet. Our concerns are founded upon the following points:
1). It is well known that the virtual majority of Tibetans live under a genocidal occupation, violently denied political, cultural or religious freedoms, against this background what projects that do operate benefit a relative handful of Tibetans, who receive limited ‘support’. We consider genuine development should be for the advantage of all Tibetans, funded, organized and enjoyed by Tibetans themselves, in which Tibet’s people have the political and economic independence to determine the nature and administration of aid projects. Unfortunately the reality is that under China’s totalitarian occupation of Tibet that’s not likely to happen, while it is for political and propaganda purposes tolerant of isolated foreign NGO projects over which China exerts a stranglehold.
2) Apart from such considerations there are questions relating to how China manipulates and controls such NGO’s for the purposes of dis-information. This can be seen via the propaganda illusion such projects present upon their websites, it is sadly all too common to see organizations filling their commentary, with terminology that meets the dictatorial approval of China’s regime. So it is that we find NGOs describing what are in truth Tibetan regions, as Chinese provinces, or avoiding any political reference by using the term ‘plateau’, a loaded term much favored by China’s propagandists. These distortions are subsequently consumed across the Internet by many who have no knowledge of Tibet or its condition and so China’s cynical deceit is promulgated and many seriously misinformed.
3) There is also the subject of omission by such NGOs, who through having to collaborate with China’s regime, find themselves imprisoned by a self-inflicted censorship, they dare not touch upon any issues of sensitivity to China, which include human rights and the thorny issue of Tibetan independence and resistance to China’s rule. The result is somewhat sanitized accounts, that carefully avoid any reference to the odious realities of life for Tibetans under China’s tyranny, supported by images of Tibetans that perpetrate the illusion of a contented people whose culture appears to be thriving. What the overwhelming majority of people do not realize is that such photos are taken under tightly controlled and monitored circumstances, designed to conform to the approval of Chinese authorities. These photographs are made available to people on the Internet, who for the most part have no knowledge of the appalling situation inside Tibet, now confronted with a sterilized and flawed report on Tibet, accompanied by pictures of smiling Tibetans in colorful traditional costume. An image that serves entirely the objectives of China’s Ministry of Propaganda.
4) Lastly from an ethical perspective alone we are deeply concerned at any organization that is prepared to abandon principles which oppose injustice, tyranny and oppression, on the questionable reasoning that it can offer geographically (and resource-wise) limited support to a few individuals. That such groups can collaborate with a regime that is so violently terrorizing a people, while cynically exploiting such organizations, is also troubling and raises a number of difficult questions in terms of moral integrity. Would for example such bodies have cooperated with Pol Pot’s regime, ignoring his genocide against Buddhist Cambodians on the justification that their presence was aiding a few hundred, while beyond the village, the rest of the population were tortured, killed and subjected to a range of atrocities? Similar concerns apply in the case of occupied Tibet and while we can applaud the individual motives and selfless dedication of those feeling compassion for Tibetans it is our position to ask what are difficult questions concerning such collaborations.
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, 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
Time To Tell The Tibetan People
Image:shanghailist
China’s regime has today indicated that the door remains open regarding talks with the Dalai Lama’s representatives, who have for years been engaged in fruitless effort to secure a resolution to the issue of Tibet, due to the immovable demands imposed by the Chinese leadership. In response to such intransigence the exiled Tibetan authority has made a number of dangerous compromises in an effort to reassure Beijing of its sincerity in seeking an agreement. Most worryingly it has abandoned (without any genuine democratic agreement from its people) Tibet’s rightful claim to independent nationhood and has insisted that it wishes to secure what has been termed ‘genuine autonomy’ under China’s national and regional laws. Despite such breathtaking compromise, which has generated seismic tensions and frustration within the Tibetan Diaspora, China continues to play hard-ball, always suspicious of what it regards as as veiled ploy, on the part of the Dalai Lama, to regain Tibet’s independence.
According to its official mouthpiece the China Daily (CD) talks may resume upon condition of the Tibetan leader relinquishing what’s described as efforts to restore Tibetan independence, to what degree this latest indication is linked to the ongoing protests inside occupied Tibet, and the global attention created by a series of self-immolation is unclear. What is known however is that China’s regime is always meticulous in trying to seek any advantage in terms of pressurizing the exiled Tibetan authorities. It knows that the Dalai Lama and his exiled representatives are under considerable strain regarding the vicious crackdown currently being enforced, and desperate to end the loss of Tibetan lives. This latest announcement therefore may well be another cynical effort to exploit Tibetan anxieties, a strategic blow aimed to extract even further compromises.
The additional concessions insisted by China are revealed by the comments of Qu Xing, President of the China Institute of International Studies a state approved body, in today’s CD article, these insist upon the abandonment of major elements featured in the so-called Memorandum on Tibetan Autonomy (proposals upon which the exiled Tibetan authority is seeking a solution). These include:
Withdrawal of China’s military and security from Tibet (defined by China as ‘Tibetan areas)
Relocation of non Tibetans from Tibet
Political cultural and religious authority and autonomy over the three traditional Tibetan regions of Kham Amdo and Tsang U
The question that now looms large is will the exiled Tibetan authority, in its desperation to further negotiations with China’s regime, agree to debate the prospect of agreeing to these ultimatum? Will it evaluate the ongoing violent oppression inside occupied Tibet as being of such a magnitude as to warrant compliance with such demands? In so doing it would of course be surrendering the regions of Kham and Amdo and accepting only the truncated region of U-Tsang as comprising Tibetan territory. Moreover it would be endorsing the continued presence in occupied Tibet of China’s colonizers and paramilitary oppressors, while granting virtually all political authority to the central government of China. In effect the prison doors would remain firmly closed upon the Tibetan people with a cosmetic display of autonomy, and that limited to the so-called Tibet Autonomous Region.
Such is the freedom that would be realized by further negotiations with China on the basis of seeking autonomy under Chinese laws, is that the future being sought by Tibetans inside Tibet who continue to demand their nation’s independence? Are the sorely oppressed people of Kham and Amdo aware that in exile their Administration may well be considering a capitulation in which they are abandoned, no longer considered a part of Tibet? Do the residents of Lhasa realize that the representatives of the Dalai Lama may be evaluating an agreement which would see China’s torturers and killers remaining with the same tyrannical authority over Tibetans?
Anyone supportive of the rights and national freedom of Tibet would surely hope that the exiled Tibetan authority will not spare even a second in contemplation of China’s demands, unfortunately if recent compromise is any accurate measure, we cannot be so certain that such an accommodation may not be made. In light of that uncertainty, and given the colossal consequences of capitulating to these ultimata, it is imperative that the Tibetan people are given an assurance by the Central Tibetan Administration that such concessions are not reached and in particular affirm that the political, cultural and territorial integrity of Tibet, its three traditional regions will not be surrendered as part of any negotiation. Are you reading this Lobsang Sangay?
Ireland On Its Knees To China’s Tyranny
Image:xinhua
Ireland, a nation still not fully unified as an independent state, with its Northern lands remaining under occupation by the Crown forces of Britain, has a centuries long tradition of seeking national freedom. Its people suffered for centuries foreign domination, Irish culture, language and national identity were subject to violent repression, the Irish denied their native soil, colonized and exploited Such a history has nurtured in Irish hearts a profound support towards human rights, justice and freedom and created a genuine solidarity towards those who are oppressed and denied their national freedom. Apart that is from its present Government, lead by Enda Kenny, who during last week’s visit to Beijing happily dropped to his knees before China’s tyrants, to declare that Ireland has always respected, what the Chinese Communist Party terms, its ‘One China Policy’ (a propaganda fabrication to justify its colonialist occupation of nations such as Tibet, East Turkestan, Southern Mongolia and Manchuria).
Image:xinhua
In so doing Ireland’s Prime Minister was effectively denying the Tibetans right to independence and conceding that Tibet is part of China, pragmatism has replaced conscience and ethics as the heartbeat of Ireland’s foreign policy. Some excuse such craven appeasement of China by claiming Ireland’s simply following a European Union, yet whatever interpretative denial or pragmatic arguments used to explain away the troubling absence of moral principle within Enda Kenny’s Government the reality is that in occupied Tibet the long suffering Tibetans continue to endure a vicious and illegal occupation, under China’s bloody maw.
It has not crossed the conscience of an Irish Government, that promotes economic trade with China over the human rights and freedoms of Tibetans, to recall that when Ireland was part of the ‘One UK Policy’, the only way to end the suffering, oppression and assault upon Ireland’s people, was to challenge the lie of such a policy and restore Irish independence. Sadly not only has Enda Kenny abandoned any moral dimension to foreign policy but he has also forgotten the history of his own nation and the principles and sacrifices upon which its independence was regained.
