The fact that the media has turned global protest into 'Free Tibet Month', after ignoring the slaughter and oppression of the Palestinians, and downplaying antiwar sentiment worldwide, is a glaring example of their Bias.
If Kant were dug up tomorrow and asked about the Palestinians, he would probably answer: "Give them what you think should be given to everybody, and don't wake me up again to ask silly questions."
If Kant were dug up tomorrow and asked about the Palestinians, he would probably answer: "Give them what you think should be given to everybody, and don't wake me up again to ask silly questions."
Apri1 7, 2008
"Not You! You!!!"
Tibet and Palestine
By URI AVNERY
"Hey! Take your hands off me! Not you! You!!!"--the voice of a young woman in the darkened cinema, an old joke.
"Hey! Take your hands off Tibet!" the international chorus is crying out, "But not from Chechnya! Not from the Basque homeland! And certainly not from Palestine!" And that is not a joke.
* * *
LIKE EVERYBODY else, I support the right of the Tibetan people to independence, or at least autonomy. Like everybody else, I condemn the actions of the Chinese government there. But unlike everybody else, I am not ready to join in the demonstrations.
Why? Because I have an uneasy feeling that somebody is washing my brain, that what is going on is an exercise in hypocrisy.
I don't mind a bit of manipulation. After all, it is not by accident that the riots started in Tibet on the eve of the Olympic Games in Beijing. That's alright. A people fighting for their freedom have the right to use any opportunity that presents itself to further their struggle.
I support the Tibetans in spite of it being obvious that the Americans are exploiting the struggle for their own purposes. Clearly, the CIA has planned and organized the riots, and the American media are leading the world-wide campaign. It is a part of the hidden struggle between the US, the reigning super-power, and China, the rising super-power - a new version of the "Great Game" that was played in central Asia in the 19th century by the British Empire and Russia. Tibet is a token in this game.
I am even ready to ignore the fact that the gentle Tibetans have carried out a murderous pogrom against innocent Chinese, killing women and men and burning homes and shops. Such detestable excesses do happen during a liberation struggle.
No, what is really bugging me is the hypocrisy of the world media. They storm and thunder about Tibet. In thousands of editorials and talk-shows they heap curses and invective on the evil China. It seems as if the Tibetans are the only people on earth whose right to independence is being denied by brutal force, that if only Beijing would take its dirty hands off the saffron-robed monks, everything would be alright in this, the best of all possible worlds.
* * *
THERE IS no doubt that the Tibetan people are entitled to rule their own country, to nurture their unique culture, to promote their religious institutions and to prevent foreign settlers from submerging them.
But are not the Kurds in Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria entitled to the same? The inhabitants of Western Sahara, whose territory is occupied by Morocco? The Basques in Spain? The Corsicans off the coast of France? And the list is long.
Why do the world's media adopt one independence struggle, but often cynically ignore another independence struggle? What makes the blood of one Tibetan redder than the blood of a thousand Africans in East Congo?
Again and again I try to find a satisfactory answer to this enigma. In vain.
Immanuel Kant demanded of us: "Act as if the principle by which you act were about to be turned into a universal law of nature." (Being a German philosopher, he expressed it in much more convoluted language.) Does the attitude towards the Tibetan problem conform to this rule? Does it reflect our attitude towards the struggle for independence of all other oppressed peoples?
Not at all.
* * *
WHAT, THEN, causes the international media to discriminate between the various liberation struggles that are going on throughout the world?
Here are some of the relevant considerations:
- Do the people seeking independence have an especially exotic culture?
- Are they an attractive people, i.e. "sexy" in the view of the media?
- Is the struggle headed by a charismatic personality who is liked by the media?
- It the oppressing government disliked by the media?
- Does the oppressing government belong to the pro-American camp? This is an important factor, since the United States dominates a large part of the international media, and its news agencies and TV networks largely define the agenda and the terminology of the news coverage.
- Are economic interests involved in the conflict?
- Does the oppressed people have gifted spokespersons, who are able to attract attention and manipulate the media?
* * *
FROM THESE points of view, there is nobody like the Tibetans. They enjoy ideal conditions.
Fringed by the Himalayas, they are located in one of the most beautiful landscapes on earth. For centuries, just to get there was an adventure. Their unique religion arouses curiosity and sympathy. Its non-violence is very attractive and elastic enough to cover even the ugliest atrocities, like the recent pogrom. The exiled leader, the Dalai Lama, is a romantic figure, a media rock-star. The Chinese regime is hated by many - by capitalists because it is a Communist dictatorship, by Communists because it has become capitalist. It promotes a crass and ugly materialism, the very opposite of the spiritual Buddhist monks, who spend their time in prayer and meditation.
When China builds a railway to the Tibetan capital over a thousand inhospitable kilometers, the West does not admire the engineering feat, but sees (quite rightly) an iron monster that brings hundreds of thousands of Han-Chinese settlers to the occupied territory.
And of course, China is a rising power, whose economic success threatens America's hegemony in the world. A large part of the ailing American economy already belongs directly or indirectly to China. The huge American Empire is sinking hopelessly into debt, and China may soon be the biggest lender. American manufacturing industry is moving to China, taking millions of jobs with it.
Compared to these factors, what have the Basques, for example, to offer? Like the Tibetans, they inhabit a contiguous territory, most of it in Spain, some of it in France. They, too, are an ancient people with their own language and culture. But these are not exotic and do not attract special notice. No prayer wheels. No robed monks.
The Basques do not have a romantic leader, like Nelson Mandela or the Dalai Lama. The Spanish state, which arose from the ruins of Franco's detested dictatorship, enjoys great popularity around the world. Spain belongs to the European Union, which is more or less in the American camp, sometimes more, sometimes less.
The armed struggle of the Basque underground is abhorred by many and is considered "terrorism", especially after Spain has accorded the Basques a far-reaching autonomy. In these circumstances, the Basques have no chance at all of gaining world support for independence.
The Chechnyans should have been in a better position. They, too, are a separate people, who have for a long time been oppressed by the Czars of the Russian Empire, including Stalin and Putin. But alas, they are Muslims - and in the Western world, Islamophobia now occupies the place that had for centuries been reserved for anti-Semitism. Islam has turned into a synonym for terrorism, it is seen as a religion of blood and murder. Soon it will be revealed that Muslims slaughter Christian children and use their blood for baking Pitta. (In reality it is, of course, the religion of dozens of vastly different peoples, from Indonesia to Morocco and from Kosova to Zanzibar.
The US does not fear Moscow as it fears Beijing. Unlike China, Russia does not look like a country that could dominate the 21st century. The West has no interest in renewing the Cold War, as it has in renewing the Crusades against Islam. The poor Chechnyans, who have no charismatic leader or outstanding spokespersons, have been banished from the headlines. For all the world cares, Putin can hit them as much as he wants, kill thousands and obliterate whole towns.
That does not prevent Putin from supporting the demands of Abkhazia and South Ossetia for separation from Georgia, a country which infuriates Russia.
* * *
IF IMMANUEL KANT knew what's going on in Kosova, he would be scratching his head.
The province demanded its independence from Serbia, and I, for one, supported that with all my heart. This is a separate people, with a different culture (Albanian) and its own religion (Islam). After the popular Serbian leader, Slobodan Milosevic, tried to drive them out of their country, the world rose and provided moral and material support for their struggle for independence.
The Albanian Kosovars make up 90% of the citizens of the new state, which has a population of two million. The other 10% are Serbs, who want no part of the new Kosova. They want the areas they live in to be annexed to Serbia. According to Kant's maxim, are they entitled to this?
I would propose a pragmatic moral principle: Every population that inhabits a defined territory and has a clear national character is entitled to independence. A state that wants to keep such a population must see to it that they feel comfortable, that they receive their full rights, enjoy equality and have an autonomy that satisfies their aspirations. In short: that they have no reason to desire separation.
That applies to the French in Canada, the Scots in Britain, the Kurds in Turkey and elsewhere, the various ethnic groups in Africa, the indigenous peoples in Latin America, the Tamils in Sri Lanka and many others. Each has a right to choose between full equality, autonomy and independence.
* * *
THIS LEADS us, of course, to the Palestinian issue.
In the competition for the sympathy of the world media, the Palestinians are unlucky. According to all the objective standards, they have a right to full independence, exactly like the Tibetans. They inhabit a defined territory, they are a specific nation, a clear border exists between them and Israel. One must really have a crooked mind to deny these facts.
But the Palestinians are suffering from several cruel strokes of fate: The people that oppress them claim for themselves the crown of ultimate victimhood. The whole world sympathizes with the Israelis because the Jews were the victims of the most horrific crime of the Western world. That creates a strange situation: the oppressor is more popular than the victim. Anyone who supports the Palestinians is automatically suspected of anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial.
Also, the great majority of the Palestinians are Muslims (nobody pays attention to the Palestinian Christians). Since Islam arouses fear and abhorrence in the West, the Palestinian struggle has automatically become a part of that shapeless, sinister threat, "international terrorism". And since the murders of Yasser Arafat and Sheik Ahmed Yassin, the Palestinians have no particularly impressive leader - neither in Fatah nor in Hamas.
The world media are shedding tears for the Tibetan people, whose land is taken from them by Chinese settlers. Who cares about the Palestinians, whose land is taken from them by our settlers?
In the world-wide tumult about Tibet, the Israeli spokespersons compare themselves - strange as it sounds - to the poor Tibetans, not to the evil Chinese. Many think this quite logical.
If Kant were dug up tomorrow and asked about the Palestinians, he would probably answer: "Give them what you think should be given to everybody, and don't wake me up again to ask silly questions."
Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom. He is o a contributor to CounterPunch's book The Politics of Anti-Semitism.
http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery04072008.html
"Not You! You!!!"
Tibet and Palestine
By URI AVNERY
"Hey! Take your hands off me! Not you! You!!!"--the voice of a young woman in the darkened cinema, an old joke.
"Hey! Take your hands off Tibet!" the international chorus is crying out, "But not from Chechnya! Not from the Basque homeland! And certainly not from Palestine!" And that is not a joke.
* * *
LIKE EVERYBODY else, I support the right of the Tibetan people to independence, or at least autonomy. Like everybody else, I condemn the actions of the Chinese government there. But unlike everybody else, I am not ready to join in the demonstrations.
Why? Because I have an uneasy feeling that somebody is washing my brain, that what is going on is an exercise in hypocrisy.
I don't mind a bit of manipulation. After all, it is not by accident that the riots started in Tibet on the eve of the Olympic Games in Beijing. That's alright. A people fighting for their freedom have the right to use any opportunity that presents itself to further their struggle.
I support the Tibetans in spite of it being obvious that the Americans are exploiting the struggle for their own purposes. Clearly, the CIA has planned and organized the riots, and the American media are leading the world-wide campaign. It is a part of the hidden struggle between the US, the reigning super-power, and China, the rising super-power - a new version of the "Great Game" that was played in central Asia in the 19th century by the British Empire and Russia. Tibet is a token in this game.
I am even ready to ignore the fact that the gentle Tibetans have carried out a murderous pogrom against innocent Chinese, killing women and men and burning homes and shops. Such detestable excesses do happen during a liberation struggle.
No, what is really bugging me is the hypocrisy of the world media. They storm and thunder about Tibet. In thousands of editorials and talk-shows they heap curses and invective on the evil China. It seems as if the Tibetans are the only people on earth whose right to independence is being denied by brutal force, that if only Beijing would take its dirty hands off the saffron-robed monks, everything would be alright in this, the best of all possible worlds.
* * *
THERE IS no doubt that the Tibetan people are entitled to rule their own country, to nurture their unique culture, to promote their religious institutions and to prevent foreign settlers from submerging them.
But are not the Kurds in Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria entitled to the same? The inhabitants of Western Sahara, whose territory is occupied by Morocco? The Basques in Spain? The Corsicans off the coast of France? And the list is long.
Why do the world's media adopt one independence struggle, but often cynically ignore another independence struggle? What makes the blood of one Tibetan redder than the blood of a thousand Africans in East Congo?
Again and again I try to find a satisfactory answer to this enigma. In vain.
Immanuel Kant demanded of us: "Act as if the principle by which you act were about to be turned into a universal law of nature." (Being a German philosopher, he expressed it in much more convoluted language.) Does the attitude towards the Tibetan problem conform to this rule? Does it reflect our attitude towards the struggle for independence of all other oppressed peoples?
Not at all.
* * *
WHAT, THEN, causes the international media to discriminate between the various liberation struggles that are going on throughout the world?
Here are some of the relevant considerations:
- Do the people seeking independence have an especially exotic culture?
- Are they an attractive people, i.e. "sexy" in the view of the media?
- Is the struggle headed by a charismatic personality who is liked by the media?
- It the oppressing government disliked by the media?
- Does the oppressing government belong to the pro-American camp? This is an important factor, since the United States dominates a large part of the international media, and its news agencies and TV networks largely define the agenda and the terminology of the news coverage.
- Are economic interests involved in the conflict?
- Does the oppressed people have gifted spokespersons, who are able to attract attention and manipulate the media?
* * *
FROM THESE points of view, there is nobody like the Tibetans. They enjoy ideal conditions.
Fringed by the Himalayas, they are located in one of the most beautiful landscapes on earth. For centuries, just to get there was an adventure. Their unique religion arouses curiosity and sympathy. Its non-violence is very attractive and elastic enough to cover even the ugliest atrocities, like the recent pogrom. The exiled leader, the Dalai Lama, is a romantic figure, a media rock-star. The Chinese regime is hated by many - by capitalists because it is a Communist dictatorship, by Communists because it has become capitalist. It promotes a crass and ugly materialism, the very opposite of the spiritual Buddhist monks, who spend their time in prayer and meditation.
When China builds a railway to the Tibetan capital over a thousand inhospitable kilometers, the West does not admire the engineering feat, but sees (quite rightly) an iron monster that brings hundreds of thousands of Han-Chinese settlers to the occupied territory.
And of course, China is a rising power, whose economic success threatens America's hegemony in the world. A large part of the ailing American economy already belongs directly or indirectly to China. The huge American Empire is sinking hopelessly into debt, and China may soon be the biggest lender. American manufacturing industry is moving to China, taking millions of jobs with it.
Compared to these factors, what have the Basques, for example, to offer? Like the Tibetans, they inhabit a contiguous territory, most of it in Spain, some of it in France. They, too, are an ancient people with their own language and culture. But these are not exotic and do not attract special notice. No prayer wheels. No robed monks.
The Basques do not have a romantic leader, like Nelson Mandela or the Dalai Lama. The Spanish state, which arose from the ruins of Franco's detested dictatorship, enjoys great popularity around the world. Spain belongs to the European Union, which is more or less in the American camp, sometimes more, sometimes less.
The armed struggle of the Basque underground is abhorred by many and is considered "terrorism", especially after Spain has accorded the Basques a far-reaching autonomy. In these circumstances, the Basques have no chance at all of gaining world support for independence.
The Chechnyans should have been in a better position. They, too, are a separate people, who have for a long time been oppressed by the Czars of the Russian Empire, including Stalin and Putin. But alas, they are Muslims - and in the Western world, Islamophobia now occupies the place that had for centuries been reserved for anti-Semitism. Islam has turned into a synonym for terrorism, it is seen as a religion of blood and murder. Soon it will be revealed that Muslims slaughter Christian children and use their blood for baking Pitta. (In reality it is, of course, the religion of dozens of vastly different peoples, from Indonesia to Morocco and from Kosova to Zanzibar.
The US does not fear Moscow as it fears Beijing. Unlike China, Russia does not look like a country that could dominate the 21st century. The West has no interest in renewing the Cold War, as it has in renewing the Crusades against Islam. The poor Chechnyans, who have no charismatic leader or outstanding spokespersons, have been banished from the headlines. For all the world cares, Putin can hit them as much as he wants, kill thousands and obliterate whole towns.
That does not prevent Putin from supporting the demands of Abkhazia and South Ossetia for separation from Georgia, a country which infuriates Russia.
* * *
IF IMMANUEL KANT knew what's going on in Kosova, he would be scratching his head.
The province demanded its independence from Serbia, and I, for one, supported that with all my heart. This is a separate people, with a different culture (Albanian) and its own religion (Islam). After the popular Serbian leader, Slobodan Milosevic, tried to drive them out of their country, the world rose and provided moral and material support for their struggle for independence.
The Albanian Kosovars make up 90% of the citizens of the new state, which has a population of two million. The other 10% are Serbs, who want no part of the new Kosova. They want the areas they live in to be annexed to Serbia. According to Kant's maxim, are they entitled to this?
I would propose a pragmatic moral principle: Every population that inhabits a defined territory and has a clear national character is entitled to independence. A state that wants to keep such a population must see to it that they feel comfortable, that they receive their full rights, enjoy equality and have an autonomy that satisfies their aspirations. In short: that they have no reason to desire separation.
That applies to the French in Canada, the Scots in Britain, the Kurds in Turkey and elsewhere, the various ethnic groups in Africa, the indigenous peoples in Latin America, the Tamils in Sri Lanka and many others. Each has a right to choose between full equality, autonomy and independence.
* * *
THIS LEADS us, of course, to the Palestinian issue.
In the competition for the sympathy of the world media, the Palestinians are unlucky. According to all the objective standards, they have a right to full independence, exactly like the Tibetans. They inhabit a defined territory, they are a specific nation, a clear border exists between them and Israel. One must really have a crooked mind to deny these facts.
But the Palestinians are suffering from several cruel strokes of fate: The people that oppress them claim for themselves the crown of ultimate victimhood. The whole world sympathizes with the Israelis because the Jews were the victims of the most horrific crime of the Western world. That creates a strange situation: the oppressor is more popular than the victim. Anyone who supports the Palestinians is automatically suspected of anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial.
Also, the great majority of the Palestinians are Muslims (nobody pays attention to the Palestinian Christians). Since Islam arouses fear and abhorrence in the West, the Palestinian struggle has automatically become a part of that shapeless, sinister threat, "international terrorism". And since the murders of Yasser Arafat and Sheik Ahmed Yassin, the Palestinians have no particularly impressive leader - neither in Fatah nor in Hamas.
The world media are shedding tears for the Tibetan people, whose land is taken from them by Chinese settlers. Who cares about the Palestinians, whose land is taken from them by our settlers?
In the world-wide tumult about Tibet, the Israeli spokespersons compare themselves - strange as it sounds - to the poor Tibetans, not to the evil Chinese. Many think this quite logical.
If Kant were dug up tomorrow and asked about the Palestinians, he would probably answer: "Give them what you think should be given to everybody, and don't wake me up again to ask silly questions."
Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom. He is o a contributor to CounterPunch's book The Politics of Anti-Semitism.
http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery04072008.html 
Comments
Hide the following 11 comments
same old
10.04.2008 03:24
Clearly? Not really. This has been written all to often without any evidence. Consider how things have changed since 1959.
And yes, the Tibetan people do have the right to live their lives as they wish without Chinese repression. Perhaps now is the time to show some solidarity to that end.
StopWritingStartDoing
Actually ...
10.04.2008 04:20
Interesting that you felt compelled to comment.
Carol Off, of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, did a great story a few years back detailing how the CIA engineered both Ukraine's 'Orange Revolution' and Lebanon's 'Cedar Revolution', and how they were designed for Western media consumption, complete with 'branding' and english signs, even though their participants don't speak english.
She went on to show the enbrace of both of these by the media, just as the media has embraced this story, even as it has virtually ignored similar stories, the most recent being Israel's slaughter of civilians in Gaza, in which the media misrepresented, or omitted altogether, much of the vital context which would have turned the tables on Israel, and increased international condemnation.
Off lauded these tactics of 'Regime Change' (which is illegal), but nonetheless, exposed the plots involved.
Reclaiming the “Orange Revolution”
Free Palestine
The Shah of Tibet
10.04.2008 08:48
Tibet sits on the worlds largest undeveloped mineral deposits, including the worlds largest remaining reserves of Uranium. QED.
Now about Tibetan 'human rights' - many many other peoples on the planet are far more deserving of our sympathy and action, it's just they don't have anything that the US wants, or the color of their skin is too dark.
If Tibet wants to be free it should do so without the help of the US drug-cartel/terrorist organisation known as the CIA.
Felix
religious mumbo jumbo
10.04.2008 09:25
The Dalai Lama would be the head of state simply because people believe he is a re-incarnated bloke, who was another re-incarnated bloke, who was an....you get the idea. Its bloody ridiculous.
how about electing the 'chosen one'? - no f*cking chance.
FREE* TIBET! (for unelected theocracy)
*Democracy not required (just hand over the Uranium)
anon
Independence movements and empire
10.04.2008 11:03
These movements obviously arise from genuine injustices, but are all these independance movements really the way forward in this world? Is it simply impossible for all these different ethnic groups to live together? Did the Jews really need their own state; was it actually impossible for Jews and non-Jews to live together?
Do the Palestinian's need their own state? Wouldn't it be far better to allow the Palestinian refugess to return home, recognise that the West Bank is so dotted with settlements it will never be a viable country, and transform the struggle away from an independance struggle, to one of equal rights with the Israelis, in a single state?
I just get the feeling that all these calls to 'independance' are self-destructive, and only serve the interests of a powerful US empire, who funds these movements in order to destabilise and take control of regions. In Latin America, this is reaching an absurd point, with US sponsored movements in the gas and oil rich regions of Bolivia and Venezuela now trying to get 'independance'; there is no real cultural, linguistic or ethnic reason to have a seperate country of 'Zulia' or 'Sucre', its just the people in those regions don't like sharing the oil money with everyone else. And the US of course supports it, hungrily eyeing up the resources that will available for their companies to exploit, rather like it is doing with Tibet now.
Both the Palestinians and the Tibetans suffer genuine, shocking oppression, but I don't think the solution is independant states for both of them; this may sound very sweet and hippy, but we have to be able to overcome differences and live together. Thus they should fight for more rights, more respect, autonomous, but within one country with their oppressors. This seems less threatening, but is actually more powerful, and less open to manipulation from outside, interfering forces like the US.
Hermes
National Libertation struggles
10.04.2008 14:02
It is obviously in US interests to destablise the middle east and Tibet but National Liberation struggles are widely debated by anarchists - and most agree that the US Empire is against any independent nationalism. Of course that means independent of the US, not just the current local overlord.
"The concern is independent nationalism which is unacceptable in itself because it extricates some part of the world that the US wants to dominate. And it has an extra danger if it is likely to be successful in terms that are likely to be meaningful to others who are suffering from the same conditions. So in the former colonial world, the Third World and the south, the problem was what planners called the rotten apple that might spoil the barrel or a virus that might infect others. The virus is independent nationalism that seems as though it may be successful in terms that are meaningful to others that are suffering similar problems." -
"Now the Scottish really want to split from the English. "
No, we don't, personally speaking, nor could we 'split from the English' as eight percent of the Scottish population is first-generation English 'settlers'. If they are still here on Independence Day then I would prefer them to stay than any right of return for the voluntary exiles of the Scottish diaspora, at least they chose to live here and contribute to society. We are proud to be a mongrel nation. Can we live in peace with our neighbours ? Would you be happy with a neighbour that orders you around and takes what they want from your house ? What we'd like is equality and liberty. We'd like all our laws formulated locally. We'd like a say in where our soldiers get sent. We'd rather not store Englands nuclear crap when we are a net exporter of electricity and don't need nuclear power anymore than we need your nuclear weapons. The resource argument was used to steal Scottish oil to invest in the South East of England, and we were lied to about that by the British state in the last referendum or else Scotland would be as economically secure now as Norway is.
Scotland is hardly a developing nation though and we've not fought for independence for over 250 years so it's not typical of your other examples. As an anarchist I would oppose a Scottish state, but being anti-nuclear and anti-war, I support independence as the quickest way to end the British state.
"Do the Palestinian's need their own state? "
There will be no real peace between states ever, the only real solution is the 'no-state' solution. However I'd argue in such a situation, being occupied by an abusive power.the only way to reach a no-state solution is first through the two-state stage. The only alternative to that is the 'no-people' solution that is implied by Israels WMD and it's creeping genocide in Gaza.
Danny
Stop treating this as a contest
10.04.2008 14:54
This article suggests that noone is writing or reporting on what is happening to Palestinians, and that Tibetans are getting all the press coverage.
Well, a quick database search of UK broadsheets for the last six months shows that's rubbish: 1174 articles about Palestinians compared to 483 mentioning Tibetans.
I'm also not convinced by the "They don't need our support because they want a theocracy" argument. Try saying that about Iran on here, and you'll get accused of being racist, anti-Islamic and part of the US imperialist conspiracy. But if you're in favour of giving Tibetans the chance of a theocracy you're a supporter of mumbo-jumbo and back the CIA. *sigh*
If the spot-light which the Olympics is putting on China can help give greater freedom to the oppressed Tibetans, then that makes the argument for bringing that same international support to Palestinians even greater. That should be welcomed.
But this jealous, "No fair! They're getting all the publicity! if the group x have not got freedom yet then group y shouldn't have freedom either" whingeing is damaging to all sides.
Norville B
...
10.04.2008 16:15
Anyway, I agree with you about Scotland. It's bad enough having to have the bloody Queen as head of state...but you see, there's the problem. It's not the fact that Scotland is or is not part of the UK...many countries have achieved 'national liberation', only to end up just as bad or even worse than before, such as Zimbabwe, for example. The problem is the state which we're all suffering under. Scotland will just be yet another liberal 'democracy', and although you'll have gotten rid of the monarchy, which is a step in the right direction, nothing really fundamental will have changed. The State is the problem, and people throughout the UK should tackle it together.
Tibet and Palestine will attain liberation and then we'll have, great, two new states. Just what we need, more states. One could be a theocracy, the other will be under the corrupt rule of a dodgy, US supported Abbas. In my opinion, it would be better, and more dangerous for the 'State' of Israel, if the Palestinians ceased demanding a seperate state, and instead demanded equal rights, and a reconciliation with their occupier. For that reason, supporters of Zionism hate the idea, and even Bush now plugs the idea of a Palestinian state. But two states is not going to happen, in my opinion. They used to say 'One state will never happen, it's unrealistic', but now it looks more and more inevitable. Well, I might be surprised, you never know, Israel is getting nervous about the demographic facts on the ground, and may try to fob the Palestinians off with what is left of the West Bank and Gaza before it's too late...but I think Israel, the West Bank and Gaza are too tied up now to ever be disentangled. When the Palestinians stop trying to constantly disengage from their oppressor, and instead blend into them, demand to be treated the same as them, transform it into a civil rights struggle instead of a national liberation struggle or a struggle for land, then they will win.
I think the same applies to Tibet. although the difference in Tibet is that numbers are very much more on the side of the Chinese. Chinese settlers are coming in, and ethnic Tibetans are becoming a minority in their own land. But just this fact makes a struggle for national liberation futile...like the genocide of the indigenous american, or the Australian aborigine, Chinese settlers will just keep moving in, and Tibetans will be more and more marginalised. If instead the struggle becomes one of civil rights, and not seperatism, then the chance exists to build bridges across ethnic divisions with other Chinese, in the same province and beyond, and garner sympathy for their cause, where it matters.
Hermes
Independence from America
11.04.2008 00:08
Yeah, they were going after Yugoslavia, that was the independent state. Same with the Iraqi Kurds, they were going after Iraq.
They (whatever the ruling empire happens to be at that point in time) will go after any nationalist movement that refuses to obey orders. To do that they will promote and fund any disruptive movement in that nation. So, if the UK had been an opponent of US policy, then Scottish Natonalists would not only be receiving funding from the US, we'd be your equivlent of the Northern Allliance. When I spray paint pro-independence slogans my first choice is not 'Independence from England' but 'Independence from America', taking my lead from Linda Percy. There is no point being free of Westminster, which has proven it is now a subsidiary of Washington.
Alternatively Venezuala, which is a threat to the empires interests, will doubtless have any regional autonomy plan backed by the US. The US wish for hegemony, global domination, will break each country up ijo smaller and smaller pieces in the hope of negating any future threat from them. I think that is a good strategy for us too, I only differ from Bush in what countries I would target first.
I believe national liberation struggles are not the enemy of anarchists, they are just often a necessary intervening stage of evolution in the age of empires.
Danny
...
11.04.2008 13:18
But in the theoretical situation that a strong Scottish Independance movement WAS being funded or covertly supported by the US, I can imagine you would end up somewhat uncertain over what to do. Do you cut a deal with the devil, to achieve your aims? I imagine that's how the Shia of Iraq are feeling right now...its terrible how all these different powers just play with different peoples hopes and aspirations, and then discard them when they've served their purpose.
Hermes
Northern
11.04.2008 16:07
No, I am pretty certain I would try to execute every Scot who cut a deal with the US. Independence, whether personal or national, cannot be achieved by selling yourself from one owner to another. Still, maybe my feelings would change if the UK had killed a million of my people in the past five years, but I cannot comprehend how that would affect me. It would be the same dilemma Eire faced in the second world war. We still have oil and gas you know - the rumours it has run out are as fictitious as when that lie was first spun by Labour in 1979. Although it is a finite resource, what is left becomes more valuable as other sources diminish. If you are cynically minded, and I hope you are, then the best way to tell when our oil has truly run-out is when we are finally granted independence 'democratically'. That is why Labour tried to rig the last election here. Support for independence has risen dramatically here since the SNP came into power, it is neck and neck just now. The truth is Scotland is owned by England, and England is owned by the US, so any step towards liberation is positive. Independence will probably enrich Scotland even without oil and gas, judging from the higher prosperity in the other small European countries, but I'd rather be poor and free than a pampered slave. (Admittedly economic arguments mean nothing to me, if shit was currency then I would have been born without an arsehole). Isn't it telling that most people in Berwick Upon Tweed want the border moved south of their town ? Fuck, I'd annexe any part of the North of England that wanted to be free of Westminster if I was First Minister. Newcastle has more in common with Glasgow than it has with Reading.
If you want to shut me up though, ask me what I'd do if I was a Venezualan anarchist. That's where it becomes tricky. You want to oppose your own state, but you also want to oppose the ruling genocidal empire, and the Venzualuan state is a threat to US hegemony. I think that is why we get so many posts from Venezualan or Cuban anarchists -some of that will be right-wing trolling. Compared to say, Colombian anarchists, which wouldn't be so difficult to support but who rarely get mentioned. Another reason is the US vassal Colombia slaughters more of it's anarchists, which has to tell you something. I'd like to see Venezuala anarchist, but I think it is much more urgent to see Colombia anarchist.
Nice to talk to you Hermes,
The ghost of Ahmad Shah Massoud
aka
Danny