Tibet unrest: a little social analysis

[Severian]

Let's have a little more social analysis here rather than assuming that conspiracies have the power to magically produce, by themselves, unrest on this scale.

Nobody has the social power to return Tibet to feudalism. The monasteries and lords no longer own the land. The peasants do.

Of course there's a real question of returning Tibet, and the whole PRC, to capitalism, but the Beijing regime's doing more to promote that than any number of Tibetan monks.

And yes, there clearly is unrest and rioting on a large scale, and the Beijing regime is probably acting with more than its usual brutality to suppress it. There's no other plausible motive for Beijing's determination to close off Tibet and limit information getting out as much as possible. The reports of exile and "Free Tibet" groups may be badly exaggerated - they usually are - but clearly Beijing has something large to hide.

So ask yourself: why did these protests by monks - possibly encouraged by exile groups, yes - spark such widespread riots by other Tibetans, who are mostly peasants and other working people?

Let me suggest they have to be acting out of dissatisfaction with their situation in life. And probably for some of the same reasons that have led workers and peasants in other parts of the PRC to strike and protest.

There's at least some evidence this is the case; a Wall Street Journal reporter wrote that peasants in Riwa were protesting, among other things, the seizure of farmland for construction projects. That's exactly the motive for many peasant protests elsewhere in the PRC. (That version of the article's no longer available online; the WSJ's stingy that way.)

Tibet's shown less unrest than the rest of the PRC 'til now, really, probably in part because it's an economic backwater where little's changed. And yet that same cause can produce growing resentment that's now exploded.

Especially because what opportunies there are in Tibet, tend not to go to Tibetans. Much new business, and the best jobs, have gone to Han Chinese; Tibetans have tended to remain "hewers of wood and drawers of water".

It's horrifying, of course, that this has led some rioters to target Han living in China, raising the possibility if not the reality of bloody, dead-end ethnic conflict like what we've seen in other parts of the world.

So how to prevent that?

Not by pretending there's nothing wrong except for "outside agitators", I'll tell you that.

Anyone wanting to promote the unity of working people of different nationalities and ethnicities has to take on discrimination and oppression - has to support the demands of the most oppressed. There needs to be some form of affirmative action for Tibetans. And you can't oppose your own suppression by a regime - if you support its suppression of someone else, its forcible retention of an oppressed nationality if that nationality wants to leave.

Those are the fundamental considerations for communist policy anywhere in the world - since communists worthy of the name are concerned about class unity, not any particular set of borders.

And those fundamentals apply in Tibet too. There's nothing special about Tibet.

As for all the historical stuff, here's an article I once wrote about it: http://www.seeingred.com/Copy/3.1_freetibet.html

The "Free Tibet" protests in other parts of the world are something else....residents of the world's richest, exploiting countries attacking Chinese embassies, oy. Adds to imperialist pressure for even more pro-capitalist policies by Beijing.

[RedStarOverChina]

Now, this thing that the media on both sides are playing is making the situation impossible to analyze.

Chinese and Western sources interview the same people and come to radically different conclusions. I just don't know which one is more dishonest.

For example, this Canadian tourist, Kenwood, shot videos of the Tibetan riot. He was interviewed and in the Chinese article I read, Kenwood described it as (roughly translated) "an explosion of hatred against Han and Muslim Chinese". Though Dharamsala claims that 100 ethnic Tibetans are killed in the conflict (which was not mentioned in the article), Kenwood probably finds it unlikely because according to him, he "did not see any Tibetan killed".


Then you come across a Western article (http://www.thestar.com/article/346763) interviewing the same group of people, including Kenwood, everything on the Chinese article is no where to be seen.


"There's been a lot of killing here already," Wetmore said in an interview yesterday. "I think there's going to be a lot more.

"The safest place for me – is to be out of here."



With Chinese troops pouring into the Tibetan capital yesterday, and an ultimatum for instigators of last week's riots to surrender to Chinese authorities by midnight today, those staying behind are bracing for the worst.



I could be wrong, but the first impression I got reading this is that the witnesses were testifying against Chinese troops who seemed to be responsible for all the killing.

I hate it when they mess with your mind like this.
If there's a riot in Kingston tomorrow, I'm going after the journalists. :cursing:

[Ferryman 5]

> Washington, DC

> Questions Pertaining to Tibet
>
> 337. Memorandum for the Special Group/1/
>
> Washington, January 9, 1964.
>
> /1/Source: Department of State, INR Historical Files, Special Group Files,
> S.G. 112, February 20, 1964. Secret; Eyes Only. The source text bears no
> drafting information. Memoranda for the record by Peter Jessup of February
> 14 and 24 state that the paper was considered at a Special Group meeting
> on February 13 and approved by the Special Group on February 20. (Central
> Intelligence Agency, DCI (McCone) Files, Job 80-B01285A, Box 1, 303
> Committee Meetings (1964))
>
> SUBJECT
> Review of Tibetan Operations
>
> 1. Summary--The CIA Tibetan Activity consists of political action,
> propaganda, and paramilitary activity. The purpose of the program at this
> stage is to keep the political concept of an autonomous Tibet alive within
> Tibet and among foreign nations, principally India, and to build a
> capability for resistance against possible political developments inside
> Communist China.
>
> 2. Problem--To explain Agency expenditures in support of the Tibetan
> program.
>
> 3. Background and Objectives--At a 13 December 1963 meeting "The Special
> Group approved the continuation of CIA controlled Tibetan Operations [1
> line of source text not declassified]." Previous operations had gone to
> support isolated Tibetan resistance groups within Tibet and to the
> creation of a paramilitary force on the Nepal/Tibet border of
> approximately 2,000 men, 800 of whom were armed by [less than 1 line of
> source text not declassified] airdrop in January 1961. In 1963, as a
> result of the [2 lines of source text not declassified] and as a result of
> the cited Special Group meeting, the Agency began a more broadly based
> political program with the exiled Tibetans. This included bringing 133
> Tibetans to the United States for training in political, propaganda and
> paramilitary techniques; continuing the support subsidy to the Dalai
> Lama's entourage at Dharmsala, India; continuing support to the Nepal
> based Tibetan guerrillas; the reassignment of a part of the unarmed
> guerrillas to India for further training; and the [6 lines of source text
> not declassified]. Operational plans call for the establishment of
> approximately 20 singleton resident agents in Tibet [less than 1 line of
> source text not declassified] two road watch teams in Tibet to report
> possible Chinese Communist build-ups, and six border watch communications
> teams [1 line of source text not declassified]. The [less than 1 line of
> source text not declassified] will stay in direct touch with Dharmsala and
> will conduct political correspondence with Tibetan refugee groups [less
> than 1 line of source text not declassified] to create an increased
> Tibetan national political consciousness among these refugees. The [less
> than 1 line of source text not declassified] was established in October
> 1963, and the communications center serving it, [1 line of source text not
> declassified] is presently being built with a completion date scheduled in
> February 1964.
>
> One of the most serious problems facing the Tibetans is a lack of trained
> officials equipped with linguistic and administrative abilities. The
> Agency is undertaking the education of some 20 selected Tibetan junior
> officers to meet this need. A United States advisory committee composed of
> prominent United States citizens has been established to sponsor the
> education of these Tibetans. Cornell University has tentatively agreed to
> provide facilities for their education.
>
> The Agency is supporting the establishment of Tibet Houses in [less than 1
> line of source text not declassified] Geneva, and New York City. The Tibet
> Houses are intended to serve as unofficial representation for the Dalai
> Lama to maintain the concept of a separate Tibetan political identity. The
> Tibet House in New York City will work closely with Tibetan supporters in
> the United Nations, particularly the Malayan, Irish, and Thai delegations.
>
> The cost of the Tibetan Program for FY 1964 can be summarized in
> approximate figures as follows:
>
> a. Support of 2100 Tibetan guerrillas based in Nepal--$ 500,000
>
> b. Subsidy to the Dalai Lama--$ 180,000
>
> c. [1 line of source text not declassified] (equipment, transportation,
> installation, and operator training costs)--$ 225,000
>
> d. Expenses of covert training site in Colorado--$ 400,000
>
> e. Tibet Houses in New York, Geneva, and [less than 1 line of source text
> not declassified] ( 1/2 year )--$ 75,000
>
> f. Black air transportation of Tibetan trainees from Colorado to India--$
> 185,000
>
> g. Miscellaneous (operating expenses of [less than 1 line of source text
> not declassified] equipment and supplies to reconnaissance teams, caching
> program, air resupply--not overflights, preparation stages for agent
> network in Tibet, agent salaries, etc.)--$ 125,000
>
> h. Educational program for 20 selected junior Tibetan officers-- $ 45,000
>
> Total--$ 1,735,000
>

Go Google

[Severian]

Hm. I could wish for responses that were more....responsive. But anyway.


For example, this Canadian tourist, Kenwood, shot videos of the Tibetan riot. He was interviewed and in the Chinese article I read, Kenwood described it as (roughly translated) "an explosion of hatred against Han and Muslim Chinese". Though Dharamsala claims that 100 ethnic Tibetans are killed in the conflict (which was not mentioned in the article), Kenwood probably finds it unlikely because according to him, he "did not see any Tibetan killed".


Then you come across a Western article interviewing the same group of people, including Kenwood, everything on the Chinese article is no where to be seen.

Surely you must know the Chinese media says what the Chinese government says; it's the same thing.

The same is true of anyone quoted in the Chinese media. At least you're not likely to see opinions critical of the authorities quoted there. And sometimes people have been quoted in the Chinese media stating the opposite of their usual opinions.

The Western media's version may or may not be accurate; but the Chinese press is reliably dishonest.

Strange but true: censorship is bad for accurate reporting.

As I said earlier: we know one fact, that the Chinese government has a lot to hide.

The South African government did a similar thing in the 80s, BTW: banned all foreign TV crews from the country. They might receive unfavorable coverage for it.....but no actual images of protesters being killed.

The Chinese government may be trying to hide the extent of unrest as much or more than the brutality of their response; but it's certain they are hiding the truth here.

Ferryman, is that supposed to be a response? My point is, of course, that the CIA or whatever conspirators are not all-powerful. Not that they're nonexistent.

[RedStarOverChina]

The Western media's version may or may not be accurate; but the Chinese press is reliably dishonest.


I read from both western media and Chinese media on daily basis and as far as I'm concerned, they are equally dishonest!

To suggest that western media is only guilty of factual inaccuracy and do not intensionally distort facts is being gullible to the extreme.

As far as China's decision to seal off Tibet goes, I am quite certain that they are preparing for a bloodbath in case things go terrible wrong. Those people are willing to do that if they feel "national unity" is being threatened, even if it's right before the Olympics.

But as far as the major protests within TAR goes, it seems that there hasn't been violent reactions against the Tibetan protests yet. I haven't read about any tourists witnessing the killing of Tibetans by armed forces. From all the videos that we see, the none of "security personnels" carried guns.

Clearly, the government is trying to show that there has been no violent repression against the rioters. Yet.

[Ferryman 5]

Hm. I could wish for responses that were more....responsive. But anyway.


Ferryman, is that supposed to be a response? My point is, of course, that the CIA or whatever conspirators are not all-powerful. Not that they're nonexistent.

No need to get sniffy. I was just making a contribution to demonstrate that the CIA are all over this and have been for a very long time.

My extract demonstrates for anyone not familiar with these things, the way in which the violent CIA agitators get involved in other states, how they plan in great detail to make 'events' look like spontaneous activity (like Burma) when in fact they are nothing but fascist provocations naively or cynically justified by a wide spectrum of political support in the west.

Everyone with any knowledge at all of these things knows that they have been got-up as another diversion from the economic disaster unfolding in the belly of capitalism. 1930s all over again. But on a much bigger scale.

The dogs in the street are barking it.

[Severian]

To suggest that western media is only guilty of factual inaccuracy and do not intensionally distort facts is being gullible to the extreme.

I didn't say anything about intent. In general, intent is hard to prove and less important than results.

It's a fact that the Western media is sometimes accurate and can be read usefully if carefully; while the Chinese media can be simply discounted except as an indicator of what the Chinese government's line is.


As far as China's decision to seal off Tibet goes, I am quite certain that they are preparing for a bloodbath in case things go terrible wrong.

Things already have gone terribly wrong, from the regime's viewpoint. You don't say how you're "certain" of this explanation - psychic powers?


Clearly, the government is trying to show that there has been no violent repression against the rioters. Yet.

If that's the case, they could best "show" that.....by.......showing it. I.e. allowing TV cameras to show it. Obviously.

If they're acting with restraint, and these are just the protests of a handful of religious fanatics orchestrated by the "Dalai clique" - they're sure shooting themselves in the foot with the media crackdown.

By "no violent repression" you mean not shot in the street? That's setting the bar kinda low, IMO. Is that the standard you apply to other governments' handling of popular unrest?

I just gotta say, you're showing some truly fucked-up class instincts here. The revolutionary instinct is to say, like Orwell: "....when I see a real flesh-and-blood worker fighting with his natural enemy, a policeman, I do not have to ask myself which side I am on."

Yours is apparently the opposite: to reflexively, "certainly", in the absence of verifiable facts - to side with any repressive regime of the privileged faced with popular unrest.

And BTW, to reduce these widespread protests and riots to [i]simply[/] attacks on Han and Hui individuals....would be a distortion as bad as pretending the '92 Los Angeles were all about beating up white truck drivers and burning Korean-owned stores. Without even asking why those unfortunate attacks occurred.....

[Vanguard1917]

I think that our primary responsibility, as 'leftists' in the West, is to oppose attempts by our Western elites to use what's happening in Tibet as a means to provide backing to their assaults against China.

I support the Tibetan people's fight for freedom, and i have no sympathy whatsoever for the Chinese government and its dictatorship over Tibetans and all the rest of the people in China. These people need democracy, liberty and self-determination.

But i think that we have to ask ourselves why so many Westerners (from aristocrats to celebritities to various middle class activists) have apparently taken up the cause of the Tibetans. Are these 'Free Tibet' campaigns progressive campaigns which should be joined? Or are they in fact reactionary campaigns which should be opposed?

It seems to me that these people are using the troubles in Tibet for their own reactionary agendas and to give backing to their petty prejudices. Like i argued in the other thread on Tibet:

'China is offensive to Western middle class activists because it represents development and modernity, things which are seen as evil, arrogant and corrupt, whereas Tibet is seen to represent an idyllic rural society of humble Buddhist folk. The West feels more comfortable with the latter; they prefer their 'third world'ers knowing their place rather than having ideas above their station.'

http://www.revleft.com/vb/your-views-situation-t73377/index3.html

[Ferryman 5]

Severian

You say
“It's a fact that the Western media is sometimes accurate and can be read usefully if carefully; while the Chinese media can be simply discounted except as an indicator of what the Chinese government's line is.”
You say that the western media is “sometimes accurate” and the Chinese government’s line has to be discounted. Why do you infer in this way that the western 'media' are separate from the western 'governments'?
HACKS AND SPOOKS

By Richard Keeble

As Roy Greenslade, media specialist at the Telegraph (formerly the Guardian), commented: "Most tabloid newspapers - or even newspapers in general - are playthings of MI5." Bloch and Fitzgerald, in their examination of covert UK warfare, report the editor of “one of Britain’s most distinguished journals” as believing that more than half its foreign correspondents were on the MI6 payroll. And in 1991, Richard Norton-Taylor revealed in the Guardian that 500 prominent Britons paid by the CIA and the now defunct Bank of Commerce and Credit International, included 90 journalists. ...
In order to berate a comrade you then go on to quote George Orwell as if he was a revolutionary of some kind.

A brief history

Going as far back as 1945, George Orwell no less became a war correspondent for the Observer probably as a cover for intelligence work. Significantly most of the men he met in Paris on his assignment, Freddie Ayer, Malcolm Muggeridge, Ernest Hemingway were either working for the intelligence services or had close links to them. Stephen Dorril, in his seminal history of MI6, reports that Orwell attended a meeting in Paris of resistance fighters on behalf of David Astor, his editor at the Observer and leader of the intelligence service’s unit liasing with the French resistance.
The release of Public Record Office documents in 1995 about some of the operations of the MI6-financed propaganda unit, the Information Research Department of the Foreign Office, threw light on this secret body -- which even Orwell aided by sending them a list of “crypto-communists”. Set up by the Labour government in 1948, it “ran” dozens of Fleet Street journalists and a vast array of news agencies across the globe until it was closed down by Foreign Secretary David Owen in 1977.

Why are you trying to divert attention or otherwise down play the role of the western 'intelligence' in all this and even smuggle Orwell in as a "revolutionary".

[YKTMX]

Nobody has the social power to return Tibet to feudalism. The monasteries and lords no longer own the land. The peasants do.


I agree with this. The idea that "freeing Tibet" is synonomous with re-introducing feudalism is a non-starter.


Of course there's a real question of returning Tibet, and the whole PRC, to capitalism, but the Beijing regime's doing more to promote that than any number of Tibetan monks.

Obviously I disagree with this because it's not really a Marxist analysis. Sev seems to be arguing for some kind of "state autonomy" from the dominant mode of producion which, as a Marxist, I can't accept. The Chinese state is an expression of an economically dominant class or it isn't. It isn't the Chinese workers or peasants whose interests it represents and defends (unless comrades want to argue Chinese workers have an interest in making 8 dollars a week making Nike shoes). It's the interest of an increasingly wealthy, increasingly detached and increasingly self-aware state capitalist bureaucracy. And they will continue to suppor the exploitation of Chinese workers and peasants because that is in their class interest.


The "Free Tibet" protests in other parts of the world are something else....residents of the world's richest, exploiting countries attacking Chinese embassies, oy. Adds to imperialist pressure for even more pro-capitalist policies by Beijing.

The Free Tibetans are easy to have a go at. I fail to see, bar the Eastern Mysticism of some of them (like Prince Charlies), how this solidarity is, in terms of objective criteria, any different from any other solidarity movements for national liberation. For the few remaining Maoists or Stalinists there is the "anti-communist" stuff, but this was also a part of Solidarity's rhetoric in Poland, and most socialists supported their right (or should have) to overthrow Soviet tyranny. Once again, the phrase "pro-capitalist" policies suggests a real misunderstanding of the situtation. Beijing doesn't need "pressure" from "imperialists" to introduce market reforms, they're doing it across their vast country, without any pressure, on a massive scale right now!

Why? Not because the Chinese autocrats are not well-versed on Marx. Not because they've "betrayed" some latent socialist element in revolution. This was ALWAYS the way it was going to go.

It seems clear, in other words, that freedom in Tibet will only come through an overthrow of the Maoist autocracy in Beijing. This may or not be "realistic", but it seems like the only sensible conclusion. The Tibetans are not in any position to assert national self-determination at the present - which is why, incidentally, the current violence seems borne out of frustration rather than genuine hope for change.

[Ferryman 5]

Severian

What do you have to say about Orwell now?

Orwell is revealed in role of state informer
by Tom Utley
Electronic Telegraph, 12 July 1996




An icy blast from the Cold War blew through the Left-wing Establishment yesterday when it was revealed that George Orwell, one of the great heroes of twentieth-century Socialism, had secretly co-operated with the Foreign Office in its propaganda battle against Communism.

"Let's have a little more social analysis..." Severian

[Ferryman 5]

Come on Severian where are you?
Tell us why you slap 'Vaginal_Residue' with this arrogant crap:

" just gotta say, you're showing some truly fucked-up class instincts here. The revolutionary instinct is to say, like Orwell: "....when I see a real flesh-and-blood worker fighting with his natural enemy, a policeman, I do not have to ask myself which side I am on."

Of course he (Orwell) dose not have to ask himself which side he is on. He is a Brit state copper! And has been since he was a colonial policeman in Burma.

Is it not you who are "fucked-up" as you say, because Orwell was in fact a British state agent and not a revolutionary as yoy say.

We're waiting for an answer Serverian

[Ferryman 5]

Severian, are you not going to say anything about Nancy Pelosi's reactionary speech supporting the Tibetan counter revolution organised by religious nutters and the CIA.
Please say something.

[Severian]

The Free Tibetans are easy to have a go at. I fail to see, bar the Eastern Mysticism of some of them (like Prince Charlies), how this solidarity is, in terms of objective criteria, any different from any other solidarity movements for national liberation.

You fail to see, "objectively"? Well, what's their role in relation to "their own" ruling classes?

The movement in solidarity with, say, Palestinians, is opposing a client regime of imperialism. It demands that U.S., British, German, etc., governments end aid to their Israeli client, etc. Even in the Arab countries, Palestine solidarity activity is often repressed by the Arab regimes, and involves material solidarity with Palestinians fighting their oppressors.

In contrast, the "Free Tibet" groups are opposing what Washington has described as a "strategic competitor" and supporting a longtime paid client of the U.S., etc.: the Tibetan government-in-exile. They generally take their political line from that government-in-exile. And their practical demand is for economic sanctions by the imperialist governments against China. There's really little or no other practical or if you like "objective" effect of their activity on anything inside China.

With very few exceptions, trade-war measures by the imperialist governments are something to be opposed not supported. Even against an advanced-capitalist rival, let alone against a Third World country which underwent a sweeping popular revolution - and where some of the gains of the 1949 revolution are still alive and being bittery fought over.

Where do you think the imperialists stand on the privatizations, the market rationalizations, in the Chinese economy? On the strikes and protests by Chinese workers and peasants opposing them? Which way is Beijing pushed by imperialist pressure, imperialist trade sanctions, imperialist demands that China do this or that before getting Normal Trade Relation status or World Trade Organization membership? The same direction or the opposite direction from Chinese workers' demands?

The answer to those questions seems pretty clear to me.

So I agree with Vanguard1917 on this, and I argued the point in the article I linked in my first post.

***

But I was trying to say something new in this thread about, well, new developments. And this is a major new development:

Tibetans inside Tibet, who are most peasants and workers, stepping into the making of history, acting for themselves. Among other things, no longer a blank slate for Westerners to project their "Shangri-La" fantasies of impossibly innocent, peaceful, idyllic people happy in their backwardness. It's like a noble savage complex that's not even about egalitarian tribesfolk - rather about an ancient hierarchical civilization.

The explosion of real-world Tibet is gonna be pretty discomforting for the "Free Tibet" folks too. It's messy, violent, with a mind of its own....includes horrific incidents like the attacks on Han and Hui individuals....

Tibet's violent history has been simply ignored by the Free Tibet people; Tibet's violent present will be impossible to ignore. Shangri-La is dead.

[Ferryman 5]

Severian

You wished for a response that was "more responsive" and now when you get one you sulk.

Why are you giving character references to western media and anti-communists like George Orwell who collected information on communist sympathisers and passed it on under cover of 'journalistic' activities.

Do you not agree that is a strange thing for a communist to do?

[Matty_UK]

I'm surprised that no-one anywhere seems to be pointing out that Han and Hui are now the majority in Tibet, so an independant Tibet could never be anything other than an ethnic dictatorship, and would almost certainly result in ethnic cleansing?

Fuck the middle class "Free Tibet" brigade, they're a bunch of ignorant monk-fetishists. However, Severian is correct; the poor Tibetans have genuine concerns, and affirmative action is probably the best way of handling it; from what I understand, Tibet is an economic backwater so only Han and Hui immigrants have the capital and education to start businesses and get better paid jobs.

[Marsella]

deleted

[Severian]

I'm surprised that no-one anywhere seems to be pointing out that Han and Hui are now the majority in Tibet, so an independant Tibet could never be anything other than an ethnic dictatorship, and would almost certainly result in ethnic cleansing?

Probably the Han and Hui are not actually a majority from what I've read, though there's no good population stats on Tibet publicly available. I guess that comes originally from a claim by some "Free Tibet" groups, but they're known for making strange claims, and in particular seem to be overhyping the facts on migration into Tibet.

(Also you gotta distinguish what's meant by "Tibet" - the Tibet Autonomous Region only, or the TAR plus regions to the east including significant Tibetan populations? Free Tibet people especially use both meanings without distinguishing. The first is sometimes called "political Tibet" and the second "ethnographic Tibet".)

In the Tibet Autonomous Region, anyway, there's been no government program to settle Han or Hui. Most non-Tibetans who go there to make money or take a government post don't stay. The rural areas especially are pretty much all-Tibetan still.

The conclusion doesn't follow even if the premise is correct; assuming non-Tibetans retained voting rights they'd have plenty of say in an independent Tibet; but Tibetans, as a large minority, might have more say than currently in the PRC.

Autonomy is also a possibility - right now the TAR is not very autonomous in practice. Outside the TAR....some kinds of autonomy can be very local, for small areas that are majority-Tibetan. Note that significantly, there's a lot of unrest in areas east of the TAR, parts of Sichuan province etc.


However, Severian is correct; the poor Tibetans have genuine concerns, and affirmative action is probably the best way of handling it; from what I understand, Tibet is an economic backwater so only Han and Hui immigrants have the capital and education to start businesses and get better paid jobs.

Thanks....lemme say there are a number of education and language-related policy problems. For example, higher education is mostly available only in Mandarin....

[Ferryman 5]

This would not be a topic of any thread if the CIA funded TPUM (Tibetan Peoples Uprising Movement)had not organised setting fire in 300 locations including 214 shops, the destruction of 56 vehicles, one civilian doused in petrol and burned to death. (very progressive) 61 police injured, 6 critically.

Why then has "Affirmative action" become the focus of this tread. Why is no one looking for the provocateurs and their paymasters Check this:

(NED is 'National Endowment for Democracy' organisation)


"Conclusion
This article has demonstrated the close ties that exist between the Dalai Lama's
non-violent campaign for Tibetan independence and U.S. foreign policy elites who
are actively supporting Tibetan causes through the NED. This finding is
particularly worrying given the high international media profile of many of the
groups exposed in this article, especially when it is remembered that the NED's
activities are intimately linked with those of the CIA. This funding issue is clearly
problematic for Tibetan (or foreign) activists campaigning for Tibetan freedom, as
the overwhelmingly anti-democratic nature of the NED can only weaken the
legitimacy of the claims of any group associated with the NED.

In this regard
it seems only fitting that progressive activists truly concerned with promoting
freedom and democracy in Tibet should first and foremost cast a critical eye over
the antidemocratic funders of many of the Tibetan groups identified in this study.
Only then will they be able to reappraise the sustainability of their work in the light
of the NED's controversial background. Once this step has been taken, perhaps
progressive solutions for restoring democratic governance to Tibet can be
generated by concerned activists, so that Tibetan people wanting to reclaim their
homeland will able to be more sure that they are bringing democracy home to
Tibet, not polyarchy.

Michael Barker is a doctoral candidate at Griffith
University, Australia. He can be reached at
[email protected] ([email protected])

References in this article are available @

www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6530 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6530) "

[Ferryman 5]

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/images/attachement/jpg/site1/20080324/0013729ece6b0951327514.jpg
Local residents mourn the five girl employees who were burned to death in a clothing shop after rioters set fire to the shop during the March 14 Lhasa riot March 23, 2008. The civilian death toll has reached 18 after the riots. [Xinhua]

[YKTMX]

Well, what's their role in relation to "their own" ruling classes?


Well, if they had any sense they would see that rather than British and American imperialism having any problem with Chinese Capitalism, they admire it and wish to see it prosper.

The weasel words from the British and the Americans over this latest upsurge in Tibet are discredited as soon as they are uttered. The West's reliance upon the Chinese wage slaves is so "deep" that anything beyond rushed press releases condeming "violence" is beyond the question. Their support for the Dalai Lama has a propagandistic function and some marginal political utility, but they know, if they've any sense, that he won't be going back to Tibet any time soon.

This state of affairs is not in any way analogous to the billions of dollars of military aid and unlimited political and diplomatic assistance given to the client states in the Middle East.


Where do you think the imperialists stand on the privatizations, the market rationalizations, in the Chinese economy?

In favour, I imagine. Where do you think the Chinese investors who recently bought the MG motor firm in Britain stand on privatizations and "market rationalizations" in Britain? In favour, I imagine.

The CCP are an organ of international finance capital.

[Ferryman 5]

The CCP are an organ of international finance capital.
They might be that and more, that still dose not make them (by a long long way)the centre of imperialist chaos in the world either economically, politically or militarily. And all the conservative and Troskyist attacks on the CCP won't make it into the main or biggest villain of the peace in Tibet or anywhere else.

That title goes to US and European imperialist reaction, the driving force of all violence oppression and poverty. You could overthrow the arch-revisionists and capitalists in China as you and your reactionary allies did in Russia and you will not have advanced the fight against imperialism by one jot, you will have thrown it back once again. But that is the job of Trosktism.

[R_P_A_S]

I think that our primary responsibility, as 'leftists' in the West, is to oppose attempts by our Western elites to use what's happening in Tibet as a means to provide backing to their assaults against China.

I support the Tibetan people's fight for freedom, and i have no sympathy whatsoever for the Chinese government and its dictatorship over Tibetans and all the rest of the people in China. These people need democracy, liberty and self-determination.

But i think that we have to ask ourselves why so many Westerners (from aristocrats to celebritities to various middle class activists) have apparently taken up the cause of the Tibetans. Are these 'Free Tibet' campaigns progressive campaigns which should be joined? Or are they in fact reactionary campaigns which should be opposed?

It seems to me that these people are using the troubles in Tibet for their own reactionary agendas and to give backing to their petty prejudices. Like i argued in the other thread on Tibet:

'China is offensive to Western middle class activists because it represents development and modernity, things which are seen as evil, arrogant and corrupt, whereas Tibet is seen to represent an idyllic rural society of humble Buddhist folk. The West feels more comfortable with the latter; they prefer their 'third world'ers knowing their place rather than having ideas above their station.'

http://www.revleft.com/vb/your-views-situation-t73377/index3.html

OK. this is exactly how I feel. thats why im not sure where i stand.. i don't get the whole situation. but you sorta echo my thoughts.

[Severian]

Well, if they had any sense they would see that rather than British and American imperialism having any problem with Chinese Capitalism, they admire it and wish to see it prosper.

You're conflating two different things here: do they like to see economic growth in China, and are they adversaries or allies of China's rulers.


The weasel words from the British and the Americans over this latest upsurge in Tibet are discredited as soon as they are uttered. The West's reliance upon the Chinese wage slaves is so "deep" that anything beyond rushed press releases condeming "violence" is beyond the question.

Oh. So what should they be doing beyond "weasel words", then? You seem to be denouncing Washington and London for appeasement of Beijing.....which is natural only if you think they should be following a more hostile policy.

Should we only oppose imperialist hostility against their weaker adversaries....and denounce their "weasel" caution and hesitation to take action against their stronger adversaries?


This state of affairs is not in any way analogous to the billions of dollars of military aid and unlimited political and diplomatic assistance given to the client states in the Middle East.

I believe I was pointing out how the Free Tibet movement is not analagous to, say, Palestine solidarity campaigns.

You're right that Tibetan exiles get far less aid than they used to, or say than Iraqi exiles got recently, etc.

But where are the "billions of dollars of military aid and unlimited political and diplomatic assistance" given to Beijing if it's a U.S. or British client regime?

If that were the case, I'd be happy to join you in opposing that aid...since it's not, nobody can make a progressive demand or cause out of "Free Tibet", or any of the other anti-China campaigns.

The only demand anyone can make is an end to "appeasement", or as you put it "weasel words", i.e. less cautious policy by the imperialists against an adversary who has a strong military and economy, raising the costs of even "sanctions", i.e. economic aggression....

I'm getting a little tired of typing, so I'll borrow an old argument on this same point:
"Let us suppose that a Japanese condemns the annexation of the Philippines by the Americans. The question is: will many believe that he does so because he has a horror of annexations as such, and not because he himself has a desire to annex the Philippines? And shall we not be constrained to admit that the “fight” the Japanese is waging against annexations can be regarded as being sincere and politically honest only if he fights against the annexation of Korea by Japan, and urges freedom for Korea to secede from Japan? "