The Chinese regime and its Tibetan stooges are currently running a 10 day ‘training program’ in Lhasa, more accurately described as an intense brainwashing exercise targeting senior Buddhist figures from across occupied Tibet. The aim of this event, run by the ‘Institute of Socialism in Tibet’ is to indoctrinate and coerce on the subject of reincarnation, a process which Xi Jinping and his thugs are seeking to control and define.
Take these comments (from a Tibetan collaborator and active member of China’s communist party) issued on Friday 23rd August. Mr Suolang Renzeng, of the so-called ‘TAR United Front Work Department’ cautioned that reincarnation is “never a religious-only issue or a living Buddha’s personal right” going onto insist it being an important representation of the Communist Party of China’s strategies and policies in the region.
Ever fearful of Tibetan cultural and national identity, particularly the role of the Dalai Lama China’s seeking total control over every aspect of Tibet’s Buddhism. Under this suffocating and dictatorial lockdown only the enlightened wisdom of the Chinese regime has the authority to declare what constitutes a genuinely reincarnated Tibetan Buddhist!
Can you imagine what John Lennon would have thought about a museum in his Liverpool home-town installing facial recognition technology to invade the privacy of visitors, in an act of big-brother surveillance? Maybe his son can write a song about that? Yet for sure that’s what has happened according to a report by the UK campaigners Big Brother Watch, and what lies behind the decision is a cause for real concern to anyone valuing human rights and the intrusion of the state upon civil and personal liberties.
The World Museum has admitted that such technology was operated, and in a curious twist stated that the decision to extract the bio-metric data of its visitors was taken during an exhibition on China’s ‘terracotta warriors’.
It seems the move was suggested by the local cops! Now what on this good earth would they be so concerned about? Details are scarce, a tight lid has been closed which makes us wonder what was going down behind the scenes. What facts are known show that several Chinese government and academic institutions were closely involved with facilitating the exhibition. That it was taking placed in England, for the first time outside off of London suggests that UK authorities such as the Foreign Office would have a key role.
While in the background would be lurking security agencies like MI5. Such monitoring and involvement would have the goal of ensuring matters proceeded without incident or controversy. After all like China’s ‘Panda Diplomacy’ these artifacts are used by the Chinese regime as soft propaganda, exhorting the cultural marvels of an ancient past, for very present political purposes.
Given the appeasement which runs through UK policy towards China there would have been an acute sensitivity surrounding the exhibition, the question is who requested that face-scanners be part of security measures? From what we know Britain has some legal restrictions and protocols on the deployment and operation of such technology, on what basis then did the cops press the museum to employ such an intrusion of personal privacy?
Did they have confirmed intelligence of a planned protest or criminal action? If so surely an increased police presence would have been an appropriate measure? Was this the result of a confidential accord reached between the UK and Chinese government? Meanwhile we should of course give thought to the use of the bio-metric data which was taken from all those who visited this exhibition. Who had responsibility for it? Was it shared with any other agencies, including the Chinese authorities? Just where is that digital record now?
Whatever dirty politics or anxiety saturated diplomacy may be behind this gross violation of citizens right to privacy, one fact remains the Chinese regime and its technological attack dog, Huwawei have implemented the world’s most oppressive facial-recognition systems against the people of China and indeed in occupied lands such as Tibet and East Turkistan.
That a supposed liberal democracy like the UK has authorized such surveillance against its own people, in probable collaboration with and appeasement of China’s totalitarian regime is a deeply disturbing development. One that should be thoroughly exposed and challenged!
Image: cellphone images made possible by an extremely brave Tibetan
This is what happened. Yachen Gar, a major Tibetan Buddhist center, the size of a small town was invaded couple years back by Chinese paramilitary. On the orders of China’s regime the bulldozers moved in, centuries old buildings demolished, thousands of monks and nuns homeless. Rounded up by armed Chinese troops they were forced onto convoys of buses, destination prison camps. Held there under a brutal program of political indoctrination, mental and physical abuse, Tibetans whose daily life was dedicated to following the teachings of Buddhism now are forced to renounce their cultural identity. Failure to comply results in beatings, torture and additional years of detention.
Today we read that Tibetan nuns being held at Jomda near Chamdo in occupied Tibet have been beaten to a pulp by Chinese thugs, their supposed crime? Having each and every day being forced to sing songs in Chinese praising Xi Jinping and China’s communist party, followed by hours watching propaganda films on Chinese military campaigns these Tibetans are in psychological trauma. Some breakdown into tears. It was this response, which was seen as disloyalty and dissent against the glorious Chinese government, that resulted in a number of brutal assaults against these Tibetan women. Left unable to walk, barely conscious and seriously bruised they were removed into isolation cells. Following this attack they were informed their detention would be increased, more endless days of misery and indoctrination.
While these atrocities are being inflicted and China wages cultural genocide against Tibetans the political world shrugs, what kind of world are we inhabiting, in which such atrocities are ignored so as to maintain positive relations with China’s terrorist authorities?
“The UK signed an internationally binding legal agreement in 1984 that enshrines the one country two systems rule, enshrines the basic freedoms of the people of Hong Kong and we stand four square behind that agreement, four square behind the people of Hong Kong…There will be serious consequences if that internationally binding legal agreement were not to be honoured.”. (Source BBC TV)
Wonder what his Chinese partner thinks of such a response? Lucia Hunt, born in Xian China we can only presume she has been given clearance by the English security services? Is she perhaps discretely monitored? After all as the case with Huawei has revealed the Chinese regime is actively engaged in a spying and propaganda war, stealing commercial, industrial information, influencing politicians and media.
Not that Jeremy Hunt, his government colleagues or Conservative party are unduly concerned, far too busy appeasing China in the greed-driven scramble to secure deals. Taken the craven and servile policy on China adopted by the Foreign Office (not so different to that of the State Department). Hunt’s assurances on standing with Hong Kong should be taken with an ocean of salt. After all was it not another Conservative government headed then by Margaret Thatcher which betrayed the people of Hong Kong. Having been bullied and dictated to by China into signing a dangerously compromised treaty on the status of the island, they turned their backs upon Hong Kong’s plight. Just as UK governments have consistently done with Tibet.
Since then successive UK authorities have remained largely silent on the increasing erosion of rights supposedly enshrined by the ‘international legal agreement’ on Hong Kong.
The basic truth remains that states such as the UK are preoccupied with maintaining and securing trade arrangements with China, the plight of Tibet, Hong Kong, East Turkistan, Southern Mongolia, Manchuria, and that of Chinese people is of little importance. Their suffering and denial of basic freedoms is responded too with hand-wringing platitudes and cosmetic gestures. With that in mind just what does Jeremy Hunt mean by ‘serious consequences’ and from whom?
All things reach their end and so it is that the Glastonbury Festival in England has concluded, tents are being put away, bags filled, cars prepared for the journey home. Many wonderful memories, good music, new friends, sunshine and solidarity under the sun.
We’ve been very happy to support and report on the activism of our UK colleagues, #teamGlasto4TIBET who did an amazing job raising the Tibetan flag across the event, special shoutout to @goonchild4 @_silverbomber @MrChrisBrand They were very kindly sponsored by a number of our longstanding supporters, who made it possible to supply Tibet Flags, poles and other items. Genuine thanks to @dh_a_heller, @HeyJude408, @JamesDoorley, @ofhominidae.
Appreciation must also go to @tibettruth who were tireless in reporting and networking the action. Respect too for the many Tibet Flag images shared by @anonymzmeduza and @ZerodEgo.
Next year is the 50th anniversary of the Festival it would be a great occasion to see once more the beautiful symbol of Tibet flying.
Donald Trump may be many things to different people, a figure who incites almost unsurmountable arguments for, or against. One aspect of his persona however that must surely be agreed upon by his admirers and critics alike is the recognition that his modus operandi is that of bluster and opportunism. This explains his numerous volte face. His words may appear as drawn from inviolable principle and conviction, as implied by his invective on China’s trade practices and impact on the US economy. Yet this is a man driven by the securement of the deal. As such there’s no consideration of humanitarian ethics operating, only the ambition to maintain or advance profit. In that objective what looked to be uncompromising commitments are like chess pawns, abandoned when their strategic use is exhausted, or circumstance changed.
The latest turn around followed his meeting at the recent G20 Summit with Chinese tyrant Xi Jinping in which he suddenly declared (to the dismay and understandable consternation of the US political and national security establishment) that America was open for business with Huawei, the controversial tech company. This statement runs counter to the genuine concerns expressed by the President’s security advisers, that the considered alarm signalled to the White House regarding the risks to national security by allowing trade with Huawei was nevertheless unceremoniously dumped.
This suggests that Trump’s inflamed and emphatic announcements with respect to that Chinese corporation were little more than calculated rhetoric, his Executive Order blocking US companies from using Huawei‘s technology, an investment posture to be called in for the advancement of wider goals.
Having decided such objectives are now realized, by affirming American corporations can now freely invest in Huawei‘s products and services the President, in his economic calculations, must be satisfied that he has captured trading advantage to the United States, Well only time will reveal the facts on that matter.
Meanwhile, it remains the case that Huawei is deeply embedded with the Chinese regime, and cannot function without its approval. That it covertly serves as a conduit for China’s intelligence services is widely known, while lesser realized is that it has constructed (and actively operates) within occupied lands such as Tibet and East Turkistan a mass-surveillance infrastructure well beyond the nightmarish vision of George Orwell’s 1984. As shown by President Trump’s vacillations on China such factors do not trouble those who value only commercial expansion and furthering economic supremacy!