Am I the only one to think that the present disorders in Tibet are a little too convenient?
Tibet has been occupied by the Chinese military since 1959. The population (you cannot really talk a bout a "Tibetan people", too many tribes, clans, customs, cultures etc) has sufferred horribly by the hand of the (formerly) Maoist government. Ethnic Han settlers had been dispatched in Tibet and they have been freed from China's strict "one child" policy, there has been a cultural genocide the likes of which were not seen from the days of the European "unification" movements and there have been all the assortied nasties usually associated with military occupation.
Yet the world has been largely silent about it and the present Dalai Lama was considered some kind of folkloric, colorful figure that appealed only to "alternative" movie stars until very recently when he was "discovered" by mainstream politics. I cannot but think that, being a shrewd politician as well as a charismatic religious leader, he willingly allowed himself to be drafted in by the "anti-Chinese" front so strong in Washington and Bruxelles at the moment. he probably had the best and most peaceful intentions but as an old saying go "be very careful about the friends you choose".
Last week the mass media, which has ignored the pitiful conditions of the Tibetan population for almost half a century (including the unspeakable disasters wrought by the Red Guards movement), suddenly discovered that Tibet is occupied by very evil yellow skinned men who are oppressing the peaceful monks and their followers... now haven't I seen this movie last year? Is this a re-run of Burma's "Saffron Revolution"?
Yes but there's something slightly different to it. By carefully studying the scant images available and the reports from slightly less biased media sources it would appear that, yes, the Chinese military acted heavy handed as usual, but there's more to it.
It would appear as if part of the campaign is not directed against the well-armed occupation forces, but against unarmed Han settlers. Differently from Israel most of these persons are not heavily armed fanatics but whole families forcibly "relocated" here by Mao Zedong during China's Great Famine or who went West attracted by higher salaries and better living conditions (government intervention at its very best again). There are reports of "Chinese citizens" been lynched or doused with gasoline and set on fire and a few pictures depict scared Han students being herded to school on foot by heavily armed soldiers. Whatever this is a sincere explosion of xenophobia against an invading people or is the work of agent provocateurs which slipped in from across the border I cannot say. But experience has taught me that there's always more than meet the eyes when the mass media move this way.
I find suspicious to say the least that this came to the world's attention at this moment. Beijing will host the 2008 World Chauvinistic Championships (I meant Olympics, sorry about letting that one slip) and given the present economic conjunction there's little doubt that China will become an even heavier player in the world's economics this year. There's also the small issue with the US going all chummy with the present, fiercely nationalist Indian government, a long-time enemy of China which still see India's 1961 crushing defeat by the hands of Zhou En Lai's soldiers as an offence to be avenged in blood.
Yes, there's something rotten in Tibet and it stinks to High Heaven... I meant to the Roof of the World.
The reason the US is not putting up a fuss in Tibet is simple. What is the US supposed to do? Cry? Scream bloody murder? Stop trading with China? Stopping trade would impoverish hundreds of millions of Chinese and hose US consumers? Then Tibet will really feel backlash. There are some things that even the most powerful nation on Earth can not do. This is one of them.
I personally believe in NON-INTERVENTIONIST foreign policy and I do not believe that the US should do anything. Also I think the US should withdraw soldiers from the 190 countries they reside and cut the military dramatically.
I don't strongly believe in non-interventionism as in theory I think evil ought to be confronted, but in practice I believe in an intelligent military way of thinking: if you have overwhelming force, then storm the fort of evil - if you don't, stay on your ass. There is NO middle way, you should never try to win a battle - enter the battle if you are sure you win, or avoid it altogether. Gambling with lives is highly immoral.
Even Iraq proved to be a too tough challenge. It was a stupid thing to do. No way could the NATO do anything in the military sense about Tibet other than to suffer a devastating defeat. So liberating Tibet is out. Therefore every kind of threat must be out.
Economic pressure would be economic suicide. What else can be done? Nothing but at least don't keep silent about it. Sometimes you have to suffer evil to have it's way but at least you can speak up. Condie should at least condemn it like ***. Would it help? No, but it would at least show they are passive not because they don't care but because they cannot do anything.
I am also for a non-interventionist foreign policy, on all levels. I think good old Lord Jesus got it right when he said that who sees the straw in his brother's eye usually doesn't see the beampole in his own. If you don't like the Holy Bible think about a homeowner telling a person living a couple of blocks down the road that his roof is leaking when his own house is litterally falling to pieces.
What's happening in Tibet is surely terrible, but we simply do not have the moral authority to go around the world lecturing the "savages" on "human rights". How does the US government expect to be taken seriously by the Chinese when it kills innocents abroad and jails innocent at home in the name of "democracy"? How do the Europeans expect to be taken seriously by the Chinese when they are passing more and more restrictive pieces of legislature each day and when they are clamoring (chickenhawk fashion, of course) for sending troops to Africa to save the poor starving children (probably by killing off other starving children's parents)?
Years ago I learnt a golden rule: when a government or a big corporation from the military-industral complex starts talking about "moral values", "our Enviroment", "our children's future" etc, run. Run for the hills as quickly as your feet carry you.
Aparently China had it's soldiers dress up as Buddhist monks and order them to stage a violent riot so they could use it as an excuse to bring in the military and crush the "rebellion".
http://buddhism.kalachakranet.org/chinese-orchestrating-riots-tibet.htm
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Free Software Foundation
...not to get side-tracked, but "Even Iraq proved to be a too tough challenge"
How so? We took over the country in a couple days...
As far as occupation goes... well the violence there isn't much worse than what America experiences every day... what's the real difference between some kid shooting up his class room and some terrorist blowing himself up in a market?