Why Does the West Not Give Tibet the Kosovo Treatment?

From the desk of Martin Helme on Fri, 2008-03-21 09:41

Western politicians are all calling for an end of violence and “restraint on both sides” after a bloody showdown in Tibet. On a practical level, however, nothing is done to pressure the Red China government to end its oppressive policies, not only in occupied and annexed Tibet but also towards other minority nations in China, dozens of which comprise over one million people. This is in stark contrast with the Western leaders’ behaviour in Kosovo.

While Tibet is a genuine nation, independent until China invaded it in 1959 and began to ethnically cleanse the province, no-one is considering helping Tibet to recover its independence. NATO is not going to send planes to bomb Peking to force it to end its atrocities in Tibet. On the contrary, George Bush, while sending arms to Kosovo, has announced that he is going to Peking for the Olympics in August.

The West’s hypocrisy and double standards are even worse when one considers that, unlike Tibet, Kosovo has never had a legitimate leadership in exile. And that the Tibetan government in exile is recognized not just by Tibetans but by the Western powers as well.

Serb atrocities in Kosovo were massively published and circulated by Western media and politicians who used it to whip up anti-Serbian frenzy, which led to NATO air strikes and the ousting of Serbia’s leaders. Both media and politicians are showing unbelievable subtlety and restraint in their comments on the atrocities in Tibet. There are no calls for international fact-finding missions, no calls to end ethnic cleansing, no demands to find a “roadmap” to Tibet’s independence or magnanimous offers to mediate. All is said to be China’s internal affairs. The Western leaders are rushing to distance themselves from calls to boycott the “genocidolympics.”

Clearly Red China is not the same as Serbia. It is not realistic to expect that NATO, though it bullies a small country like Serbia, would start an outright war with a nuclear Communist power over an uprising in Tibet. But Peking should not be allowed to get away with (mass) murder. There are countless ways for the international community and for individual countries to put pressure on the Chinese Communists and to show that “universal human rights” are indeed universal and hold in the Himalayas, too.

The Tibetans have suffered for decades under Communist repression. They have endured the Sinofication of their culture, the colonization of their homeland and they have seen – like the peoples of Eastern Europe during the Cold War – that there is little or no real support coming from the West. However, the more the West looks the other way, the more it will lose its credibility.

@ kappert

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Tue, 2008-03-25 17:52.

Don't waste my time.Either answer the questions or Sod Off! ***

*** If the West MUST engage in dialogue with the Iranian regime,THAT is also the attitude it should adopt.

re: On Amir Taheri # 2

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Mon, 2008-03-24 23:42.

It didn't help matters that you posted your (non) response on the wrong thread.

 

Here is the original link again with some of the questions I asked you to address.

 

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/21188

 

You favour dialogue between the Iranian regime and the West.In that case perhaps you'd care to read the article again then answer the following questions.

1 WHAT should be the MAIN topic of conversation?

 

2 WHO should give WHICH concessions to WHOM and WHY?  etc.,

@kappert

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Mon, 2008-03-24 13:29.

OK,you've got a deal. Give me a sensible response to that Amir Taheri article I posted and (clue) HURON to something.

on Amir Taheri

Submitted by kappert on Mon, 2008-03-24 16:25.

When president Bush visited the UK, AT made the following prognostics: "But what if a U.S. withdrawal means the return of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein?" As we know, Saddam is dead, the Taliban are back and the U.S. still in Afghanistan and Iraq. In his essay on democracy, he attaches the western sense of democracy to the Greek origin of the word. But of course the old Greeks had another idea of a city/state, government, duties and expectations. They had no funding, tv-shows, and probably had much less tendency to lie as today's politicians. The Western lies are the main point of critique from many non-Westerners. You will not find lies and personal attacks in Muslim politicians. As long as we (the West) foment the clichées without recognizing our lies, we are morally on the looser road.

@ kappert

Submitted by traveller on Mon, 2008-03-24 23:19.

You will not find lies and personal attacks from muslim politicians???
You are really in a kind of dreamworld.
Benazir and Assif Zardari were the biggest, most corrupt thieves and killers in the world. Zardari is now back in the game.
The whole muslim population, as uneducated as they are, wants nothing else but a change of their corrupt, lying, cheating, stealing, murdering leaders.
Please get a brainscan.

@traveller

Submitted by kappert on Tue, 2008-03-25 16:37.

So you found two Pakistani Muslim politicians, therefore 'the whole Muslim population' must be like that. You'll find more in the West (Blair, Bush, Cheney, Aznar, Berlusconi, Gyurcsány, ...), therefore the whole Christian population is rotten.
You don't need a brainscan, it'll be wasted money.

@ kappert

Submitted by traveller on Tue, 2008-03-25 18:25.

You need more?
OK, start from Morocco and go straight to Indonesia by road and car-ferry, and whenever you stop you ask the local politician's name and you got the name of a lying cheating politician. I know quite a few of them personally and I know the different shades of grey in them, but there is no white.
You can start by naming me ONE democracy, a real one, amongst them. The only democracy which is half-way valid is Indonesia and she is very frail and under careful treatment since Soeharto left.

@ kappert

Submitted by traveller on Tue, 2008-03-25 18:28.

I am the one here who is constantly saying that the whole muslim population is not bad, but yes, all their politicians are non-democratic tyrants or would-be tyrants and their population is simply shackled to that "leader" system

@traveller

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Mon, 2008-03-24 12:39.

I wonder if kappert has thought this through? For example,what about all those Indians who were conquered,killed,tortured and driven out of their ancestral homelands by OTHER Indians BEFORE the arrival of the 'palefaces' ?Do they get their 'independence' too and if so from whom?

@Atlanticist911

Submitted by kappert on Mon, 2008-03-24 13:14.

You are evasive, again. As you like webpages you should annex a document about these pre-columbian wars in Northern America for me to study. The notion of 'independence', however, does not apply, as the Indians didn't have the notion of 'state', and far less of 'nation state', which is an European invention. Neither did the Tibetans!

@ kappert

Submitted by traveller on Sat, 2008-03-22 20:08.

I am in favour of the independence of any homogenous ethnic group who wants to be independent in a well defined geographical area where they are a majority and after a majority of this group declares for independence.
In Xinjiang you will have a problem to find a majority for independence, but if so, yes they should have independence.

@traveller

Submitted by kappert on Sun, 2008-03-23 13:03.

So what about the Lakota indians? Or are they not enough a 'homogenous ethnic group', or is their land not a 'well defined geographical area', or aren't they even 'the majority for independence' of their own people?
By the way, I doubt that the majority of Tibetans want independence.

@ kappert

Submitted by traveller on Sun, 2008-03-23 14:14.

The Lakota Indians and the other Indians have an agreement with the US, under duress, but still an agreement. Meanwhile the Indians have a very good slew of laws voted in their favor, giving them very good opportunities to make a very good living. I don't think they want to change the status quo now. Before yes, but not anymore.

@traveller

Submitted by kappert on Mon, 2008-03-24 11:49.

That's very easy: you appease conquered peoples with a 'good slew of laws' designed by yourself of course, and consequently the conquered people must be happy. Otherwise, if there is a majority which wants independence, you give them independence. You should be President of the World!

Bigger objection

Submitted by marcfrans on Sat, 2008-03-22 17:48.

@ Atlanticist

Why respond to Kappert?  You know that he is beyond 'redemption'.  He does not allow facts to stand in the way of his opinions.  The latter have 'ossified'.  It would have been better to ignore him.  But, since you asked...

 

@ Kappert

1)  If Tibet "is linked to China since ever", then Flanders was linked to Germany "since ever" (remember Charlemagne and the 'Holy Roman Empire' etc...).  Did that meaningless generality (of "linkage")  justify  the nazi-invasion of Belgium in 1940?  If it did not, then you should apply the same standard to Tibet.  There was no justification for the Chinese communist takeover of Tibet, and there is no moral justification for their continued occupation of that country.  There could be if China were a genuine democracy and allowed for Tibetan self-government and cultural autonomy.   One wonders what (racist?) principle is guiding you in determining which political rule is 'legitimate' and which is not?.   Whereas the Americans eliminated nazi-rule over Belgium, unfortunately for the Tibetans, Americans have not been found willing to do the same for the Tibetans.  One can hardly blame the US government for that, but one must blame the Chinese Politbureau for the repression in Tibet.

2) You are very misinformed on the Middle East in general, and on the longstanding Arab/Israeli conflict in particular.  A few points relevant to your latest posting:

--  Both jews and 'palestinians' have some legitimate historical claims to parts of Israel/Palestine.  That is a general OPINION of mine.  But it is a historical FACT that jews were there before 'Arabs'.  And one can understand that jews do not want to be "enslaved" again in 'Egypt' (better call it now the Arab world) and have to flee into another diaspora.

-- While there have always been some jews in the lands between the river Jordan and the Meditteranean, those who fought for the independance of the state of Israel were NOT invading "European jews after WW2".  No, the latter came after the state of Israel had become a reality.

-- There has never existed a 'Palestinian' state.  Before 1967, the Arabs in the lands in question were Jordanians or Egyptians, and before that they lived under a British 'Protectorate', and before that under a variety of 'empires'.  The point is NOT that 'Palestinians' today do not deserve a state, but the point is that Israel did not replace or destroy a pre-existing 'Palestinian' state. 

-- At the time of Israeli independence, Israel accepted the UN 'partition plan', whereas the Arabs (all the existing Arab regimes) rejected it.  They will not tolerate a free jewish state in their midst, just like they do not accept a Coptic state, or a Kurdish state, or a Berber state, etc...

-- At the time of Israel's independance struggle, about 700,000 Arabs 'fled' Israel, and about an EQUAL number of jews had to flee Arab countries.  The Israelis integrated their refugees, the Arabs kept most of theirs in 'refugee camps' to foster hate and revanchism.  Your numbers are factually wrong.

-- Your abusive use (leftist-media parroting really) of the term "apartheid" is morally objectionable.   Israeli citizens of Arab descent live in a genuine democracy where their basic civil rights are respected.  By contrast, Arabs in neighboring Arab countries (except lebanon to a limited extent) do not enjoy basic civil rights.  They all live under the arbitrary rule of autocratic regimes (or worse in some cases) and do not benefit from genuine 'rule of law'.        

re: Why

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sat, 2008-03-22 15:41.

Would anybody else care to deal with this one over the next few hours? (I have a life to lead). I will be happy to chip in with my two penneth worth at the appropriate time.

why

Submitted by kappert on Sat, 2008-03-22 15:17.

Tibet is linked to China since ever. It reached formal independence in 1912, when China was a turmoil. It is one of the three Autonomous Regions of China, tibetans are living in a dozen provinces of the People's Republic.
Palestine was invaded and occupied by European jews after WWII. The mufti of Jerusalem was expelled in 1948. Three million Palestinians were forced to leave the 'jewish state of Israel', which applies an apartheid regime since 1967.

@ kappert

Submitted by traveller on Sat, 2008-03-22 17:04.

You have a severe case of brain deficiency, which of course is not your fault, your parents have a mentally handicapped child and I really feel sorry for them.
Germany is linked to France since ages and a bunch of Germans live in France, mostly in Alsace. The 2 countries had some minor discussions in the past. Kappert will you kindly chose which one should swallow the other one.
India and China are linked since the Indian tectonic plate hit the Asian main plate, kindly tell us which one should gobble the other one.
Palestine was invaded by the Jews who came from Sumer(Ur), the Palestinians came from Asia. The Romans complicated matters a bit by destroying the jewish state and afterwards came the moslim Arabs complicating some more.
The freshly composed UN confirmed the existence of Israel and through this confirmation the State of Israel became an internationally recognized state. The Palestinians miscalculated by ignoring the UN and fled Israel to allow the Arab states to eliminate the Jews. Bad calculation, where Hitler and his organized killing machine didn't succeed the Arabs had definitely no snowball's chance in hell. So the losers joined with the other big losers, the communist Soviet Union who was going to save their day. Bad luck again, the 2 losers lost, again.
Solution? Start apologising and start negotiating a real peace without Iran and Hezbollah and in cooperation with Jordan where the real key of peace in Palestine resides.

bunch of Germans

Submitted by Armor on Sat, 2008-03-22 18:39.

Traveller: " a bunch of Germans live in France, mostly in Alsace. "

Since they are Germans, and have always lived there, we should say that they live in a piece of Germany, occupied by France.

By the way, it is in the process of being resettled by muslim immigrants.

Objection

Submitted by marcfrans on Fri, 2008-03-21 23:35.

@ Rob the....

 

By calling Taiwan a "breakaway Chinese province" you are unwittingly playing by the 'rules' of the Beijing Politbureau.  When the People's Republic of China was established, Taiwan was a Japanese 'colony', not a "Chinese Province".  It is true that after Japan's defeat in WW2 by the USA, the mainlanders (the 'nationalists') who fled the mainland (after the communists' victory) ruled Taiwan until about a decade ago.  However, the native Taiwanese do not see themselves as a "Province of China".  At the same time, many of the descendants of the 'nationalists' (foolishly) still like to maintain the fiction that they represent the 'real' China. 

But on the main point you are right. The only force that has kept Taiwan 'free', so far, is the USA. Not Japan, not the UN..... The last time this was 'tested' by the Politbureau in the late 1990's, the 'first' Clinton sent two aircraft carriers into the Taiwan Straights. One doubts that a President Obama would do the same, but McCain would probably see the 'bigger picture' for the long term.

The US is already protecting one breakaway Chinese province

Submitted by Rob the Ugly American on Fri, 2008-03-21 21:16.

in Taiwan. We can only do so much. When you speak of the West standing up for the downtrodden, you really mean only the US and the Anglosphere countries that follow it, even if you don't realize it, because Europe hasn't and doesn't stand up for human rights and decency in any meaningful way. Where the US draws the line in the sand, however, is when Europeans try to sell the Chinese our weapon systems to be used on people trying to gain freedom.

One of the great myths of modern times is how Europeans have somehow gotten the notion that they have some strong tradition of fighting for the downtrodden, or that they somehow stand for human rights. History shows, however, that the opposite is true, and what legitimacy they now enjoy is solely due to the actions of the US. Europeans seem to think that simply because they're no longer slaughtering each other, that's enough to gain some sort of moral legitimacy, without standing up for anyone else. To an American eyes, today's Europeans seem like babies, who proundly brandish their own poo and expect us to treat it like a Rembrandt (and then, of course, go sulk when we don't).

Tibet - Kosovo - Why?

Submitted by Armor on Fri, 2008-03-21 19:23.

I think in Kosovo the western media gave their support to Albanians because they are muslim. Journalists think it would be racist to resist our fate, which is to be overwhelmed by muslim immigration. (Albanians may not be immigrants, but they look like immigrants).
Similarly, journalists think the fate of Tibet is to be overwhelmed by the Chinese...
Who has a better theory?

--
The news from Tibet, yesterday, on french radio, was that the Chinese authorities had admitted to injuring 4 people by gunshot.
As if western journalists should pay attention to official news from Beijing!

Credibility?

Submitted by marcfrans on Fri, 2008-03-21 16:34.

1) Mr Helme is right about the need for western countries to continue to speak up and 'confront' China's communist regime for its numerous human rights abuses, both inside China itself, in Tibet and elsewhere as well.  But I would not worry about a potential loss of "credibility", if the West were to fail to confront China sufficiently. 

Credibility in whose eyes?  Nonwestern ones?  Who else is confronting China?  Are Africa and South America doing so?  Does the 'muslim world' confront China over its human rights abuses?  That would really be like 'the pot calling the kettle black'.  Do Asia's two great democracies, Japan and India, stand up to China for the sake of human rights?  They do not!  Thus, "credibility" (w.r.t. human rights) is - and should not be - a serious matter for western concern. 

 

2) Mr Helme rightly recognises that it is 'easier' to stand up for human rights in some cases than in others.  And China is a particularly hard case, probably the 'hardest' there is currently on the planet.  The conclusion therefore should be straightforward: if one is currently powerless to influence China's regime w.r.t. respecting human rights, one better prepare militarily to defend one's own human rights in the future.  

Lhasa fever

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Fri, 2008-03-21 11:58.

Here's an interesting quote from an article written by a certain Koh Jie Kai at something called the online citizen.

link:    http://theonlinecitizen.com/2008/03/18/tibet/

 

"all land which has been previously conquered by a dynasty,recognised as effectively Chinese rightfully belongs to China today,unless...the people that sit on the land are too strong for us to overcome now...".

 

(Just ask yourself the question,where have I heard that sort of reasoning before?).

 

PS: If the Dalai lama and the kapperts of this world aren't interested in  liberating Tibet, I don't see why I need to make myself ill worrying about it.