Appeasement

CTA Embarks On Campaign Promoting The Demise Of Tibetan Nationhood

Image:eluniversal adapted by @tibettruth

The Central Tibetan Administration, formerly known as the Tibetan Government In Exile, has announced Sunday July 20th that it is embarking an indoctrination campaign to convince Tibetan settlements across India of the merits of its utterly failed and politically suicidal solution for Tibet (Middle Way Approach).

This envisages and has as an objective of improvements on Tibetan autonomy under present national and regional laws as defined and enforced by the Chinese regime. It runs counter to the political struggle waged by Tibetans inside occupied Tibet, who have for decades resisted the illegal and violent occupation of their land and throughout have demanded independence for Tibet. That central political aspiration remains, yet Doctor Lobsang Sangay is evasive and callously dismissive of Tibetan nationhood and the legitimate objective of Tibet’s people by insisting that he is seeking not even basic democratic rights for Tibetans but only the application of current legislation on autonomy for ‘minorities’ from China’s authorities. See HERE

A few keywords come to mind here; betrayal, surrender, appeasement and insanity, while we would ask Doctor Sangay and his colleagues if they are willing to exchange their somewhat comfortable lives in exile for the questionable benefits of a life as a citizen of China under the tender mercies of the Communist Party of China?

State Department Becoming China’s Mouthpiece On Tibet

Here’s an educational video on why exactly Tibetans should not consider the State Department any true friend, and certainly no supporter of the very goal of independence that Tibetans demand in their struggle against the tyranny of Chinese occupation. Checkout the snake-oil being dispensed here by US State Department spokesperson, Ms Victoria Nuland, who in just under a minute successfully manages to deliver the agenda of appeasing China’s sensitivities on Tibet while misrepresenting the nature and object of such protests by Tibetans.

She suggests that it is ‘policies’ which are causing Tibetans to self-immolate, carefully choosing to ignore the reality that it is China’s illegal and vicious occupation of Tibet that is driving some Tibetans to carry out these singular political actions. Of course her Department is anxiously aware never to stray into the issue of Tibet’s political status or imply any recognition of Tibet as a nation,or former independence. This is revealed by Ms Nuland correcting herself at 0.27/28 seconds of the video when she first states;

” Urge the Chinese Government at all levels to address policies in Tibet…” Which she swiftly changes to “Tibetan areas”

This craven appeasement towards the Chinese regime was on display again during a Washington DC press conference. In response to China firmly rejecting overtures from the exiled Tibetan Administration for negotiations on autonomy. a State Department spokesperson yesterday called upon the Chinese authorities to enter discussions with the Dalai Lama.

“We have continued to urge the Chinese Government to engage in substantive dialogue with the Dalai Lama or his representatives without preconditions as a means to reduce tensions, obviously urge China to address policies that have created tensions in Tibetan areas and that threaten the Tibetan unique culture,” (Emphasis Added) Source: http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/us-asks-china-for-unconditional-talks-with-the-dalai-lama_937718.html

This phrase is a cynical construct designed and engineered within the ideological laboratories of China’s regime to promote the falsehood that Tibetans are an ethnic group of China confined to various locations, yet as it slyly implies, firmly within Chinese territory. The facts are of course very different as Tibetans are a distinct people surviving in an independent nation under illegal and brutal occupation. The State Department denies that reality and has embraced such obvious propaganda from China, along with mainstream media it happily complies with China’s bogus claims over Tibet.

State Department Deputy Spokesperson Marie Harf reinforced such disinformation. The misrepresentation she peddled to assembled journalists shifted attention away from the core truths of Tibet’s cause by suggesting it is China’s policies alone that are generating Tibetan protest. She invites the somewhat logical conclusion that should China moderate or cease its oppressive measures then Tibetans would end their demonstrations. Yet her employer’s know full well that Tibetans are struggling not simply to end repressive policy but to assert Tibetan independence and national identity.

A subject too toxic for a State Department whose foreign policy values regarding China are to maintain, further secure and encourage positive ties with the Chinese Regime, the truth of the Tibetan struggle is therefore an unwelcome distraction, and so is ignored, denied and lied about in the pursuit of appeasing America’s number one investor.

Is This The Voice Of America Or China?

Image:wills330

Getting increasingly pissed at Voice Of America and its VOA Tibetan Service which consistently feature maps that may as well have been drafted by the propaganda department of China’s regime! When Tibetan national and cultural identity is facing a steady erosion due to China’s colonization of Tibet just what are organizations, which are seemingly sympathetic and supportive of Tibet’s cause doing promoting the cynical fictions engineered in Beijing’s laboratory of disinformation?

The answer may well be found in understanding that VOA is an extension of, and more importantly funded by, Federal Government, the State Department of which is no friend of Tibetan independence. Indeed their policy on China, summed up in one word, ‘appeasement’  is driven by trade and other economic considerations, after all guess which totalitarian country is bankrolling the United States!

So the suits over at 2201 C Street NW Washington, DC get the jitters on the mention of Tibet, especially regarding the issue of its status, Tibetan independence is a very dirty expression to John Kerry’s advisors. For decades the position has been to avoid entirely any reference to the historic and legal factors that support Tibet’s sovereignty and to focus instead on issues of human or cultural rights. The State Department has welcomed (and who knows may have been a consulting architect) the exiled Tibetan Administration’s  ‘Middle Way Policy’ as that concedes Chinese territorial claims over Tibet. In advocating that and calling for dialog between the Dalai Lama and China on a resolution of the Tibetan issue, the DC diplomats are being duplicitous and evading entirely the reality that Tibetans inside Tibet are struggling to demand their national independence.

So to placate the sensitivities of the Chinese Regime concerning Tibet and maintain the lucrative commercial relations between the US and China every effort is made to reassure the tyrants of Beijing that the Government of the US does not in any way regard Tibet as separate from China. Which brings us back to the reportage of the Voice Of America and its Tibetan Service.

Given this somewhat cynical and corrupted context is it any wonder that when reporting on Tibet or Tibetan protests that VOA features maps that show only the so-called ‘Tibet Autonomous Region’ and endorse China’s claims that other Tibetan regions are part of Chinese Provinces!

Image:voiceofamerica

It is censorship of the most perfidious kind, a gross hypocrisy by an organization that declares itself a voice for freedom of speech,and human rights, yet operates an editorial policy that misrepresents the facts in order to conform to the dictates of a State Department which must be suffering from sciatica given the amount of kow-towing it does to China’s regime.

San Leandro Do You Really Want To Ally Your City With Tyranny?

What Does This Represent To You You?

Image:londonmedals

We have now received a very informative and helpful response from Marian Handa, City Clerk of San Leandro addressing specific questions we presented on the recent City Council meeting on the subject of it’s flag raising policy. As we had also published these in the form of an open communication to inform our friends and subscribers, the detailed reply kindly provided by Marian may be read HERE It is featured to assist those who are actively concerned about the proposal to raise the flag of China above City Hall reach an informed understanding of the Council’s position and consequences of any amendments regarding this policy.

One thing for sure certain Council members appear curiously determined to associate San Leandro with an emblem that goes far beyond culture, to claim as some have that the Chinese flag is a cultural representation has the same hollowness as asserting that the flag of the National Socialist Party Of Germany represented German culture!

An Emblem Of Peace & Culture?

An Emblem Of Peace & Culture?

The procedural administration of City Councils of course vary and each operate according to agreed policy and democratically determined process, that was evident in the debate and public presentations of March 17,during which many Tibetans attended and gave powerful testimony as to why it would be unacceptable to honor China’s regime by flying the Chinese flag over City Hall. We wonder though how many folks at that meeting were aware that the recommendation to change the current flag raising policy seems not to have been drawn from open discussion with active and encouraged participation from the public but apparently was based upon the sole recommendation of San Leandro City Manager, Chris Zapata!

According to the official communication we received from the City Clerk:

“The City Manager recommends that Council modify the existing flag policy to require applicants requesting the raising of a special designation flag or flag of a foreign nation to provide a detailed assessment of the ancillary needs associated with their request. For example, if a ceremony were to be held along with the raising of the flag, the applicant would be directed to provide an overview of the requested location and duration of the event, the specific timing of the event, the number of anticipated attendees, or any other associated logistical needs that would impact City resources or staff. Additionally, the City Manager recommends that the decision to raise such special designation flags or flags of foreign nations rest solely with the City Council. As such, the policy should be revised to remove the City Manager from the approval process.”

Would San Leandro City Council Have Flown The Racist Apartheid Flag Of South Africa As Emblem of Peace & Friendly Relations?

Would San Leandro City Council Have Flown The Racist Apartheid Flag Of South Africa As An Emblem of Peace & Friendly Relations?

Are we the only folks here to consider such a recommendation, if made by an individual, minus any consensual or open discussion and lacking public participation, runs counter to transparent, democratic process? On what basis did the City Manager decide to propose such amendments, was he lobbied by Council Members beyond public scrutiny? Perhaps this was an executive and non-accountable decision? Whatever the facts there are a number of questions raised. For example has Chris Zapata in setting out these proposals operated within the remit of his office? Does his administrative jurisdiction extend to drafting recommendations to alter wording of present policy? What authority does his office possess to propose policy changes?

Would San Leandro City Council Have Flown The Genocidal Flag Of The Khymer Rouge As Emblem of Peace & Friendly Relations With Cambodia?

Would San Leandro City Council Have Flown The Genocidal Flag Of The Khymer Rouge As An Emblem of Peace & Friendly Relations With Cambodia?

In removing from the Mayor final authority in any decision on flag raising, which the City Manager’s recommendations proposed, such a determination would be left to a vote of the Council. That was agreed during the meeting of March 17 by a majority of 4 to 3, so if such a position endures then in all likely-hood we can expect San Leandro at some future date to vote in favor of raising the Chinese flag at City Hall. We can only presume that the City Manager, in suddenly intervening in this fashion was very aware of such consequences, which will make some wonder as to the influences that may have operated behind the scenes. Clearly this issue is set to continue generating widespread concern at just what is going down in the city’s council? Are we really seeing an effort to serve local opinion on the matter, is this truly about acknowledging Chinese culture, or is it the tip of a much darker agenda? We are going to present such concerns to Chris Zapata, stay tuned!