By whom? was our first reaction. The USA? Seems to us a little clarification is required on this, after all if the Chinese leader is indeed ‘respected’ then what precisely is being accorded such approbation? It’s unlikely Donald Trump was referring to a personal quality of China’s President, we can though be sure his comment was in praise of Xi’s political leadership.
Let’s take a moment here to reflect on that. The President of the United States, an albeit dysfunctional nation yet built upon principles of individual liberty and democracy, is openly admiring a totalitarian dictator, unelected by the people of China. A man who presides over the world’s most repressive regime. Under which censorship, torture, forced-labor camps and executions ensure that Xi Jinping and his Communist Chinese Party maintain total control.
Unless of course Trump’s remark was cosmetic posturing, a diplomatic nicety, which both parties inwardly recognize as such. However, in singling out Xi Jinping for such a compliment the President is saying that he cares little for China’s harrowing record on human rights or the brutal oppression of Tibetans. Indeed his comment, if taken to its logical conclusion, is essentially approving such violations, since Xi Jinping, his political ideology and political regime is responsible for the long and dark list of atrocities which blights China and occupied lands such as Tibet and East Turkestan.
We reckon some clarity is in order on this matter and we’ll be contacting the Whitehouse and State Department to get a response. You can help too. Why not ask your Senator to raise the following question:
‘Does the President consider the leadership of Xi Jinping to be a dictatorship and if so would he explain his description of the Chinese leader as “highly respected”
Meng Hongwei is a loyal member of China’s Communist Party, since November 2016 he has has also been the President of Interpol, the global policing partnership. An election greeted with considerable alarm among human rights groups, which were justly concerned his appointment would lead to abuse of the organization’s powers to issue international arrest warrants. Particular targets would of course be those voices of dissent against the Chinese regime. Which while terrorizing Tibetans, torturing Uighurs and vicously oppressing its own people is cynically branding protesters against its tyranny as terrorists.
It’s an irony off of the scale for sure. Meanwhile the world’s most repressive state, which maintains its power through forced labor camps, torture, executions and censorship has its Deputy Minister Of Public Security (the very department that inflicts such violations) leading Interpol!
This week Beijing is hosting Interpol’s annual assembly and Meng Hongwei will be ensuring that ‘terrorism’ is given prominence on the agenda. No doubt his keynote speech will receive warm applause from international police representatives. It will also please the Chinese regime which is slyly seeking to legitimize (and manipulate global political opinion) its oppressive actions in East Turkistan as a just response to what it claims are terrorists. They would expect nothing less of their ideological colleague, who during a briefing of a Chinese police unit being dispatched to Syria during 2014 advised them to place:
“Politics first, party organization first and ideological thinking first.” (Source: New York Times November 10, 2016)
How such thinking complies with and respects the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which Interpol is supposed to uphold as a core value, is difficult to understand. If anything it suggests that Meng Hongwei has a clear conflict of interest. While his position as a Chinese Minister presiding over a department which systematically inflicts a range of abuses makes a mockery of any claim that Interpol is commited to human rights principles.
Cambridge University has a tradition of accommodating the Chinese regime, we need only to recall a willingness of Trinity College to host in 2013 prominent members of China’s Ministry of Public Security. On the condition from conference organizers that no mention of human rights or issues such as Tibet were permitted!
Now the University is embroiled in another China-linked controversy, as Cambridge University Press (CUP) has conformed to a demand from the Chinese authorities to block online access to journals and other data. Unsurprisingly the subject areas targeted for such censorship include Tiananmen, the so-called Cultural Revolution, Tibet, East Turkistan, Hong Kong, and Taiwan.
In response to the international concern and outrage which has followed CUP has issued a statement which contains the following:
“The issue of censorship in China…is not short term issue and therefore requires a longer term approach.….we will continue to take every opportunity to influence this agenda”. Emphasis added. (tweeted by @CambridgeUP 8/8/2017)
Such a response has a worrying similarity to comments drafted by the British equivalent of the State Department, which also masks its appeasement of China with arguments of ‘constructive engagement’ and being a ‘force of moderation’. In truth however such change never materializes, the human rights atrocities continue, forced labor camps flourish, women forcibly sterilized, while Tibetans are brutally denied their cultural and national freedom.
Cambridge University Press is hiding behind the same self-serving justification, yet in doing so it is in contradiction to the values of human rights and freedom of thought it claims to champion.
“Freedom of thought and expression underpin what we as publishers believe in..” (tweeted by @CambridgeUP 8/8/2017)
Really? From where most reasonable and intelligent folks are standing CPU looks to be in an indefensible position. Being actively complicit in censorship on the inane suggestion that at some undetermined future point its engagement with China’s regime can realize ‘progress’. Meanwhile blood-stained cash from China continues to fund the world of academia and Cambridge University no doubt benefits from its more than cordial relations with the Chinese authorities and numerous companies and institutions!
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?