As well as
The BBC reports that what it calls the ‘next UN investigator into Israeli conduct in the occupied territories’ has defended his comparison of Israeli actions in Gaza to those of the Nazis. But a couple of paragraphs down it adds something that should be (but isn’t) decorated with little red warning flags.
Professor Falk is scheduled to take up his post for the UN Human Rights Council later in the year.
Ah – the UN Human Rights Council. How depressing it is that that sounds like a good thing and is in fact a very bad thing. The IHEU explains why.
By 2005, the Commission for Human Rights had become widely discredited…The Commission was abolished by vote of the UN General Assembly in 2006 and replaced by a shiny new Human Rights Council…Of the first four resolutions passed by the Council, three were resolutions condemning Israel. Whatever breaches of human rights law Israel may have committed, it beggars belief that these were the only violations of human rights on the planet worthy of condemnation by the Council. By way of contrast, the Council adopted a resolution which inter-alia congratulated the Sudan for its efforts to bring peace to Darfur.
The Human Rights Council is a terribly compromised body which doesn’t actually support universal human rights at all.
Professor Richard Falk said he believed that up to now Israel had been successful in avoiding the criticism that it was due.
Yet the Human Rights Council singles Israel out for censure while remaining silent on gross human rights violations in many other places, Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe to name two. So has Israel really been successful in avoiding the criticism that it is due? It may have avoided it in the US; I think that’s a fair claim; but in the world at large, and at the UN? Not so much.
A spokesman for the Israeli Foreign Ministry said that Israel wanted the UN investigator’s mandate changed, so that he could look into human rights violations by the Palestinians as well as Israel.
As well as, not instead of. The Human Rights Council, appallingly, seems to be all about instead of.
Are you aware that he’s also a 9/11 conspiracy nut as well?
He even wrote the forward to loony theologian David Ray Griffin’s 9/11 conspiracy theory book, ‘The New Pearl Harbor’.
Oh, christ; no, I wasn’t. And here’s a nice touch: he was the only candidate. Israel protested that, but to no avail.
(Coincidence: I’ve just been formatting your article on conspiracy nuts.)
I live in a bit of a backwater. Why isn’t there more opposition shown to a Human Rights Council which is obviously not up to doing the task which is assigned to it? It’s a simple question, I know, but the more we hear about it, the more absurd the whole thing becomes. Is the UN as a whole — and I ask this out of ignorance — a dead letter, or does it still have valid and important things to do? Clearly, at the time of the Iraq war (or at least the beginning of it) the Americans and their lapdog (the British imperial lion) simply ignored the UN and made up its own story, so if others are doing the same we shouldn’t be altogether surprised. But is there any life left in the UN or has it become as moribund as the League of Nations? Questions asked sincerely, by the way. I simply do not know.
There is considerable opposition – but perhaps not enough attention. I haven’t known enough about this myself…I was aware of some of it, but I should have been paying more attention. Part of the problem in my case is that for years I thought of human rights (not totally inaccurately, I think) as too often a pretext for stamping out anything to the left of Ronald Reagan.
But still – it is odd that there’s not more about this in newspapers and magazines and on blogs etc.
I’m going to include this under this topic since you really haven’t given many options. I’m glad you linked to the article about old Tibet not being a Shangri-la. I was in India in the late fifties when the Dalai Lama came out of Tibet, when the Chinese moved in. I can still remember being in a long line of ‘sight-seers’ going to have a look at the Dalai Lama in Mussoorie. (We all filed past as he sat on a cushion. He must have been very young then.) Can’t remember where the house he was staying in, but somewhere to the west in Mussoorie, down in a little valley. But I can remember at the time thinking that, given everything I had heard about Tibet, it wasn’t all that bad that the Dalia Lama (and the Panchan Lama, was it? I can’t remember) were ousted, since their rule was so dictorial and cruel.
So, I am in a little bit of a moral quandary when I hear about the revolt of the Tibetan people against their Chinese overlords. I think, from what I can gather, that there is some justification, and that Tibetans have been treated shamefully by the Chinese. At the same time, they were treated shamefully by their Buddhist overlords too.
It’s a curious thing, that religion very often turns up, in situations like this, as the liberating force. The truth is, I suppose, that, like Orthodoxy in the Soviet Union, anyone who hates your enemy is your friend, no matter how unjust that anyone might have been before.
That’s why matters between Israel and the Arab states is such a tangled web at the moment. Religion, in this case, plays such a complicated role that it is hard to separate all the strands. Somehow the Jews have got the worst of the deal here, since the Arabs (or Muslims) seem to have carte blanche to say whatever they like about Jews, but no one dare say anything about Muslims. (See Deborah Lipstadt’s blog where she shows Carter’s book and Mein Kampf in the same bookstore window display in contemporary Damascus — I think.)
There is no way in which these things can come out right if we can’t look closely at the role that religion plays in all this, and it’s very often an unsavoury one.
Eric,
Maybe we’re back onto the “simple answers appearing attractive” issue again by a slightly tangential route.
Israel’s (mostly) been having the best of the organised smiting over the last few decades.
The Moslem bloc keep passing (non-binding, thank F@ck) bigoted resolutions at the UN, while sporadically lobbing indiscriminate death over at Israel.
Large groups within both populations have a huge vested interest in this state of enmity continuing…
(who else heard the Radio 4 report – last week? – about zionist “outposts” on the west bank, where ultra-orthodox “God gave us this land” teenagers are kicking the crap out of the groups of left-wing israelis who are trying to stop their illegal settlements? all joy and fun…)
And yes, religion gives them all the handy excuse they need to secure their own internal power-bases, while treating their fellow-human-beings-next-door like animals.
Even if the will existed, there’s not much the UN could do to stop it, to be honest – they’d probably just gang-up and attack whatever force was sent to keep them apart.
OB,
I wrote about it on my blog (where B&W gets front-page promotion), but then almost no-one reads it – possibly ‘cos it’s normally a music industry-comedy-stuff kind of affair…
:-)
There’s a quote I can’t quite recall about ‘many monuments being erected to solemn asses’, or something of that nature? anyone?
p.s. I entirely forgot to plug meself…
“Mid-Life Bassist”
http://andyhgilmour.blogspot.com
:-)
The initial BBC report on Richard Falk hyped him as UN “expert” , then downgraded him to UN “man”. They must have received complaints…
I was disconcerted by the opinion piece on Tibet by the chinese student . That is standard Chinese propaganda and fails to convince several grounds :
1. Despite the theocratic dictatorship, there is little evidence the Tibetans themselves wanted their rulers gone and their society overturned in such a drastic fashion. The tibetans and their new teenage leader, the Dalai Lama who has himself since acknowledged the failings of the old Tibet, weren’t given a chance to reform their own society. Though I will never file past the man nor genuflect to him, Dalai Lama strikes me as a reasonable person who is willing to compromise on many issues, not least his own political power. I may be suffering from the richard gere syndrome but surely it is relevant to at least check if any tibetan is advocating a return to the bad old feudal ways?
2. What replaced the tyranny of the unelected monks was the arguably worse tyranny of the unelected CCCP overlords, foreigners to boot. The sneaky implication that the chinese communists were ‘rescuing’ the Tibetans because they had a better appreciation of human rights is ridiculous and outrageous. The CCCP of the great leap forward, the cultural revolution, the gang of four, the Tiananmen massacre? Please!
Eric. Blairs a sycophant, Britain is a lap dog, whats next no war for oil or Bush lied people died?
Mirax,
Is a theocratic dictatorship in need of further details for it to be avoided? I know Mr. Lama does everything he can to sound ‘reasonable’ in Western eyes – he even does specific efforts to woe those unhappy unspiritual leavers of churches of the past posing his spirituality off as more reasonable than the old spirits of the West.
The fact is that Mr. Lama is deliberate in his vagueness on most anything. He’s certainly not claiming economic issues, or even language issues but playing the cards of ethno-religious tradition. The current education system is not only in Mandarine, Tibetans are not forced into the one-child policy – & it is far from apparent that the economic backwardness of Tibetans is more to blame on Chinese misgivings than on being kept until the 50’s in a medieval system which is, now from exile, keeping in the person of Mr Lama a persistent shadow over Tibet.
For sure China is not without blame, as it is obviously also not without merit, but to organize global a pro-theocracy wave as we see now is simply bollocks.
Who would advocate turning over all of Palestine to Hamas? Nobody I hope, but Hamas as rightful a claim to tradition & oppression as Mr. Lama does (I don’t think Mrs. Lama is on the table, or is it?). Abusing the pacificist card into his favour (thanks to his allpervasive vagueness) does not make a difference.
In the end the only solution there is a one-state solution that is not based on ethno-religious divisions. Give Hamas & the right wing Israelis a common thing to fight, maybe that will make them see that they’re both equally human.
GT, the remark on Hamas was comparative & no single cell in my body has a grain of sympathy for any of ’em. But I don’t think a two-state solution solves it, & certainly not if the first is for Hamas & the second one for orthodox Jews.
Much like a one-state China is the best solution as well (& a one-state Cyprus, a one-state Serbia …)
JoB, A one-state Palestine would quickly lead to a Jewish / Israeli minority and there we would be again, the same vulnerability, the same helplessness, and this time with an extra vengeance.I am utterly amazed that people cannot see this. The fact is they don’t want to.
Two states is the only possible option. If there are several Islamic states why not a Jewish one? Especially a secular Jewish state, less, in most respects, to do with religion than with ethnicity. Especially in view of the record, where the pogroms and murders had far less to do with religion than with race.
As to the appointment of Professor Falk, that removes any remaining shred of credibility from the Council.
George,
On the credibility of the Council, you are absolutely right: none except that it shows how much is still to be done.
On two-states, I see your point but it does not convince me. There should not be Islamic states, there should not be secular Islamic states – whatever that may mean – & there shouldn’t be a need for a Jewish state. Obviously there is an ‘in the meantime’ but that shouldn’t be such that it is really by its design perpetuating the situation like a two-state solution.
The fact remains that a secular Jewish state – whatever that may mean – has a similar problem than a one-state: that of an Arab minority.
It is decidedly injust for the Jews to have to take into account those limits that were historically not taken into account when dealing with them but the alternative is worse: basing the claim to a state either on religion or race is a recipe for mischief.
JoB writes on Israel/Palestine:
>In the end the only solution there is a one-state solution that is not based on ethno-religious divisions.< And while we’re about it let’s have a World Government ruling over a harmonious world… Wouldn’t that be loverly?
Apologies for being facetious – I dashed that off on impulsively! What I intended to indicate is that it advances discussion of an issue not one iota to put forward a “solution” that has not the remotest possibility of implementation in the forseeable future.
JoB, I am obviously with Allen on this. In the infinite run, or let us say simply the very long run, there may be a time when states are not based on religion or race – or indeed language (and all that entails, ie the history of religion and race) but then why have states at all?
The problem is history. If only it would go away and no one remember anything! But then we might be condemned to repeat it all anyway.
We do forget and we do repeat. We are currently in the process if forgetting and repeating. Historically Jews have been minorities for millennia. And what good has it done them? Why should they not be in a majority somewhere? Why should most other people have a majority in some secure place but not the Jews? I could add others beside, including the Kurds. Jews are not alone in wanting security and autonomy.
For all its faults (and which state does not have faults?) Israel is a democracy comprising everyone from saints to lunatics, from liberals to conservatives, from Muslims to Jews. It does actually work as a state. It is, geographically, tiny. It is a fly on the great body of the Arab world. That world would like to crush it and make it disappear.
How little it would take to establish a Palestinian state if the will were there on all sides. It is chiefly Israel’s mere existence that prevents it.
Apparently Tibet/China doesn’t catch on as a topic ;-(
Allen, George,
The two-state solution is not getting a lot of traction either. We could debate for a long time who’s to blame but that does not change the fact of the matter. Independent of Hamas or what have you – it’s quite apparent the Palestinians do have understandable issues with what is being offered (if it really is being at all genuinely offered).
By the way – there are good reasons for states, insomuch there are good reasons to have municipalities, cities & so on: to make for better government. Language is a good indicator for making a state, ethnicity unfortunately still is – race & religion decidedly are not.
I have nothing against a greater Israel if is not the greater Israel of lunatic religious people insisting on however mild a form of segregation.
GT,
Now that’s oversimplification. We can’t fault Israel for the fact that some of its citizens are lunatic. But we cannot fault Palestinians across the board for the lunatics of Hamas. Certainly, it is not merely Hamas/Hezbollah that have an issue with the proposals to date for 2-state solutions. Obviously – one should not fault Fatah & other Palestinians in labeling their opposition to the Israel’s proposals as being anti-Semitic.
Repeating things in a mocking tone doesn’t make them less true, Richard. Britain’s conduct in the run-up to the Iraq War was shameful, and it turns out that Bush did lie and quite a lot of people have died. (And the ones who are left are somehow worse off than they were under a tinpot dictator.)
Thanks dzd. I wasn’t sure what to say in response to Richard. It rather took me by surprise. If anyone watched Blair, during the run-up to the Iraq war, it was quite clear that he was the puppet, and Bush was pulling the strings. Both of them lied, and the intelligence on which war was declared was falsified. Hans Blix, the UN investitgaor at the time, made it clear that, to his knowledge (I know, Saddam Hussein was making it very difficult, and seemed to be hiding things), there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and he pleaded for more time, that was not given him, the US and Britain were so set on war. (Now they have a credible threat in Iran, and neither of them is saying a thing.) Of course, the boastful bully that he was wouldn’t allow Saddam to show the world that this was true. But the basis on which the US and Britain opted for war was pretty slim. A lot of people lied, there was an incredible amount of self-deception going on, and no one seemed to have any idea what the outcome of the whole venture (or adventure) would amount to. No wonder things are a mess.
So, was Blair a sychophant? Yes, I think he was. And he was a sychophant, I think, mainly because he had an idea that he was playing on the big stage. (Possibly he wanted his war, just like Maggie had hers in the Falklands.) He wanted to be a Great Power player, in homage to Britain’s imperial past. And I think it is a sad thing that someone as shallow as Blair happened to be in charge just at that moment. (How shallow he is became staggeringly clear after his speech about religion and globalisation at Westminster Cathedral.)
Someone with more depth might have seen things in a different perspective. Perhaps, just maybe, such a person might have seen that there was no way that a western nation could intervene in a Middle Eastern struggle without some pretty serious fallout. I mean, didn’t the Sudan or Palestine (or Iraq, for that matter, where Bomber Harris cut his military teeth) teach the British anything?
And the war in Iraq has certainly not helped the situation between Israel and the Palestinians either. Israel comes to look more and more like a western enclave, something like the Crusader states, in the region. And as Jewish fundamentalists ramp up their claims the possibility of a two state solution, which, I think, might have been possible way back when, looks increasingly unreachable. And, with the OIC having the biggest clout at the UNHRC, Israel will go on being the whipping boy, while all around them Muslim fundamentalism is whipping up the same anti-Jewish propaganda that the Nazis espoused.
There is no easy way out of this, and the UN, clearly, has nothing to offer. Blair spoke so passionately about religion and globalisation. Hasn’t he noticed that religion is what is dividing our world, not uniting it? The shortsightedness of the religious never ceases to astound me, and Blair’s naiveté too.
I was going to post earlier, but left it, now Eric says it @ 19:35:30. Bleak.
Well, one account of what happened with Blair is that in order to restrain Bush in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 he promised unconditionally to back him up on whatever he decided about Iraq later. He boxed himself in. But Bush apparently made that promise the condition of his paying any attention to Blair at all, so Blair made the promise.
On the other hand (she said hastily) I don’t want this thread to veer off onto an Iraq discussion following Richard’s hit-and-run intervention – so let’s drop the Iraq theme, please.
Richard – I’ve told you more than once, and recently, not to do those drive-by comments. I’m telling you again. Don’t deposit those unargued provocations; all they do is derail the discussion. If you want to say something provocative, you have to make an argument.
Misunderstanding, GT. My fault. It is not I who think Israel’s existence is the problem. It is the surrounding states who do that.
Eric, politicians have to deal with the world as it is, and that includes religion in all its forms. The naive thing would be NOT to recognise that. Telling religious people that they are idiots is not going to be particularly effective.
The religious sense isn’t a simple ON / OFF button for most people: it is the greyest of shadowy grey areas. It is specific forms of religion at specific times that are the serious problem: fundamentalism is a problem. Especially when it takes over the state.
For all that religion is not the only thing dividing the world. I am sure we can both think of much else.Resources, wealth, language, race, nationality, power etc etc… and many of these overlap with religion at times.
I speak as a fully-paid up secularist. It is states that need to be secular. People can be – and will be – what they like.
>People can be – and will be – what they like.< A propos of which, see this: New Humanist, March/April 2008
Rush hour of the gods
India’s middle classes are becoming increasingly pious, says Meera Nanda
http://newhumanist.org.uk/1731
On the other hand, George, about your “there may be a time when states are not based on religion or race – or indeed language (and all that entails, ie the history of religion and race) but then why have states at all?” –
There already is such a time, there already are such states. The US is one (however much the more zealous Christians try to insist it is and always has been a Christian Nation), and there are others. The idea for which the people of Sarajevo held out against the snipers for so long was that such a state can and should exist. One reason Canada doesn’t just cheerfully wave good-bye to Quebec is because Canada is a state not based on religion or race.
Whereas Quebec would be a state based on speaking seventeenth-century French and some really stinky cheese thing they do – poutine?
The UK, of course, is based on neither race, nor religion, but on medieval notions of fealty [overlaid with religion, I grant you]. Amazing that a country with such a consciously reactionary state structure should have given birth to so many of the world’s great radical thinkers, and given shelter to so many others. Sometimes it isn’t what you are, it’s what you do that counts…
If language would be sufficient basis for a state, Flanders would be joined with the Netherlands.
That has to be the prime example of an ex absurdo argument.
Sorry to go off on the Iraq tangent. But, really, George, I say! Blair isn’t a politician any more (well, that’s the thought), and he’s still harping on about religion. In fact, he tells us why he didn’t “do” religion while he was at 10 Downing St. So, it’s not as though I were suggesting that we ignore religion. Just that religion is an impossibly complicating factor in all this. There is no way through if we emphasise religion. If we’re going to settle anything, religion will have to be set aside.
As to poutine, that is enjoyed by many people outside Quebec. Many forget that the French stretched all the way from Nova Scotia (Port Royal and Louisburg) to Manitoba (site of the Riel Rebellion), and throughout northern New England as well, and poutine is relished throughout, whether you speak Quebec French — which is not quite as 17th century as you think — or Acadian or Cajun French.
What holds Canada together? Your guess is as good as mine. Entropy maybe. Perhaps those who speak French really think their best bet is with the Canadian federation, instead of going it alone with our great neighbour to the south.
The real problem, though, the Quebec and Iraq distractions to one side, is how we deal with a world in which human rights are as mangled as they are at the UN just now. How does it come about that Muslim antisemitism is acceptable speech, while criticisms of Islam are not? At the moment, whatever the excesses of Jewish fanatics (and they are considerable), Israel is, I think, the only state in the mid-east, or near-east (it depends on where you start, I guess), that has a reasonable approximation to protection for human rights, and its recent denigration, because of constant attacks from Hamas, and the entire Arab (and therefore Muslim world) ranged against it, is really unconscionable, and the UN is the provocateur here, not the rapporteur.
The reason I made that comment was to chalenge Erics ludicrous lap dog remark O.B to my mind it is such lazy thinking to asume that Blair had nefairious motives for going to war just because you disagree with the war, there are many factors that would have influenced Blair on this decision but for the most part I think he was covinced by the neo con argument of using Iraq as the first of many dominos in the mid east,I think history will vindicate him on this but I acept that reasonable people can disagree on this. It is just childish to use terms like lap dog or sycophant to describe Blair, does Eric realy think that Blair is so shallow that he would send 100 plus young people to their death just because he wanted a war of his own or to suck up to George Bush?
Yes
Serious commentary from people at the time suggested that Blair was far from a lap dog, and was in fact well behind the idea of regime change. I’ve never understood the desire to play down Blair’s role, while at the same time wishing to view him as a criminal. It’s possible that accepting the reality that Blair was for the war on his own terms means that there has to be an acceptance of a possible humanitarian aspect about the war, or draws attention to the fact that regime change was made a policy of the US in 1998 under Clinton. What are these people going to do when Bush goes?
Well, Scoop, you may be right and I may be wrong. However, at the time I thought, as I listened to Blair’s speeches, that when a leader on one side of the Atlantic is saying almost the same thing as the leader on the other side, then this is more than coincidence.
And when it turned out that they were telling the same lies, well, it makes all the informed commentary at the time look just a little bit questionable.
You and Richard may well be right, but it simply doesn’t compute for me. It’s well known that long before 9/11, Bush had his eyes on Iraq. Very soon after he was inauguration he was looking hungrily at Mesopotamia. It was so rich in accessible military targets, after all.
So, I’m not convinced, but I could be, I suppose, if there is considerable evidence going back before the twin towers terror, that links Blair with the idea of regime change in Iraq. At the time, I know, the Canadian government was not convinced, and suffered the outrage of Americans for some time for not joining the ‘coalition’, although we had a few naval vessels in the gulf. But Blair, with a large immigrant Muslim population in Britain, had so little to gain. What did he gain, by the way?
No, I am right and you are wrong. Further discussion is pointless since your last comment betrays the brainlessness of your position adequately enough for readers.
OB:
>On the other hand (she said hastily) I don’t want this thread to veer off onto an Iraq discussion following Richard’s hit-and-run intervention – so let’s drop the Iraq theme, please.< JoB:
>Apparently Tibet/China doesn’t catch on as a topic ;-( < I’m unclear why all the assertions in an article on Tibet by a Taiwanese student should necessarily be taken as accurate history. I don’t profess to know what Tibet was like before the Chinese government deposed the Dalai Lama, but here is a rather different view of the Tibet/China debate: http://studentsforafreetibet.org/article.php?id=425
Allen, I don’t know whether they are accurate (didn’t read the link – nor will I read this link – one can link for every subject on every angle). I have a problem because Mr. Lama is a theocratic figure that drivels quite some new age talk but never comes to questioning his own position. I also have a problem because – even if there are undoubtedly many things China can & should improve – Mr. Lama’s alternative is vague on many things but very clear on the fact that he has a god given (in this case self-given) right to speak on behalf of all Tibetans. I also have a problem because many seize the moment to attack a state with many issues but at least not the issue of neglecting its citizens in favour of its Gods.
>Mr. Lama’s alternative is vague on many things but very clear on the fact that he has a god given (in this case self-given) right to speak on behalf of all Tibetans.< No doubt you’re more up on this subject than I am, but perhaps you’d like to provide evidence of any statement made by the current Dalai Lama in recent times to this effect. On the other hand, he has stated the following in April 2008: > Once Tibet achieves autonomy, I will resign voluntarily. I am already is a semi-retired position. Happily, in the political field, we have elections taking place every five years. On the spiritual side, we have young, qualified people who will take care of Buddhist culture. One old monk can devote time to preparation for the next life.< http://www.infochangeindia.org/analysis260.jsp
Allen, I doubt whether I’m more up to it but I share your interest in it so I’m happy to research links in forums of your liking (this environment isn’t adapted to that type of discussion).
In the meantime, it helps if you do a wikipedia on Dalai Lama & click on as there is much useful information that is probably balanced enough with both sides trying to tweak it their way ;-)
You quoted:
> Once Tibet achieves autonomy, I will resign voluntarily. I am already is a semi-retired position. Happily, in the political field, we have elections taking place every five years. On the spiritual side, we have young, qualified people who will take care of Buddhist culture. One old monk can devote time to preparation for the next life.< – Tibet is autonomous, the question is what is the level of autonomy. Mr Lama wants Hong Kong style & China wants it more Basque style (as it is today from what I gather) – resignation, the question is when? & as what?. Surely he cannot resign from being God. As surely any new political leader “honouring Tibetan traditions”, will heed the advise of God. As he can apparently not help being God, why can he not give the resigning sign now. It would be at least some concrete way of showing extinguishing an Olympic flame by force is not quite a show of peace. – being semi-retired, can one get more woolly than this. Cheers from Geres, & absolutely no difference to Tibetans. – political elections, among 100.000 or so exiled Tibetans majoritarily extreme traditionals & mostly financially dependent from the CTA itself financially dependent on Mr. Lama’s success with Richard Gere et al. – on the spiritual side, none of my business (& none of his either if he takes his Tibetans seriously as proper individuals) – preparing for the next life; yeah, right, he’s absolutely not busy at all with taking the 2008 Olympics as the last straw occasion to get political victory Vague & woolly – riding on a more and more purely racist anti-Chinese wave in the world. Foei!
> I don’t profess to know what Tibet was like before the Chinese government deposed the Dalai Lama….
This is from Tom Clark’s book The Great Naropa Poetry Wars (which otherwise mostly concerns the fallout from the “crazy wisdom” of the Tibetan-American guru Chögyam Trungpa in the 1970s):
A rather different picture from that painted by Students for a Free Tibet, to be sure. (Their version: “Chinese guides … made a half-hearted attempt to show me the ‘feudal torture chambers’ of old Tibet and a statue of a liberated serf ‘breaking the chains of bondage’; the guides barely seemed to believe it themselves.”)
Tibet is just a side issue, the real problem is China.
At least with respect to the former Soviet Union, Stalins crimes were at least partialy denounced a few years after his death by Kruschkov(sic).
The current Chinese Prime Minister is the heir in line direct of the greatest mass murderer in human history, and a pervert to boot.
When will we see some Western journalist have the courage to give a Chinese PM the lie direct and to state that his government has no legitimate authority and simply stands like a cockerel on top of a midden heap composed of 70 million corpses?
I so agree Gordon.
Hu Jintao is a pervert?
Where do you get your 70million figure from?
And a journalist is going to tell the CCP they are not legitimate. Then what? The PRC instantly collapses in a heap??
Bizarre!
My bad punctuation!I meant to state that Mao was the pervert.
For the 70 million there is this link
http://www.amazon.fr/Mao-Lhistoire-inconnue-Chang-Jung/dp/2070775054 which is to a fairly recently published book. But like most things these days if you just google “Mao China 70 million dead” you will find a lot of material on this subject, not all of which is in agreement with the figure I stated.
On the last point, why are tyrants like Hu softsoaped by the Media?
Why shouldn’t Flanders be re”joined with the Netherlands”? Why?
De Witt
And your point is?
Please Gordon, not the Chang-Halliday book. Are you serious?
There is enough evidence for Mao’s crimes not to have to evoke vague references to 70 million dead (a number that is subject to some serious debate). The whole ranking of evil by quantity of corpses has always struck me as quirk of the anti-communist position. Hitler’s deaths < Mao's deaths, hence Communism bad. Pinochet deaths < Castro deaths, Hence Pino not so bad. All are disastrous, but quantity as the ultimate benchmark is just lazy. As for why Hu is soft-soaped? Maybe he has sensitive skin. Or maybe there’s that inconvenient economic factor…
DFG
I have no idea and I suspect you do not have either how true these numbers are and we will have to wait until the collapse of the current chinese regime before we get any Stasi style revelations.
As for comparaisons between Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pinochet and Castro, perhaps we can agree that these were or are filthy tyrants?
Lastly, Why should our fearless journalists be inhibited by economic factors that might constrain only politicians like Bush or Brown?
If you look at the origins of the numbers, you may find that no Stasi (I think you might mean KGB?) archive-opening will back the your assertions. However, that is not my point. You raised the number. Several times. Now you say you have no idea as to the veracity of those numbers. Not very convincing.
The reference to economic factors may have been a little obscure. Let me put it bluntly: to a large extent, the PRC gets soft-pedalled (sensitive bunions) because most of the west has an economic interest in the PRC. That is all. But again, not my point. Even if a journo was to do what you say, I am sure Hu is unlikely have an epiphany, abolish the CCP and immediately call elections.
I suspect DFG that our dialogue risks abusing our host’s site. However their is one last point that I would like to make. You have said “Even if a journo was to do what you say, I am sure Hu is unlikely have an epiphany, abolish the CCP and immediately call elections.” and similar stuff.
Now it has never been my hope to achieve a Damascus Road conversion of the Chinese PM but rather to wish that the Western Media would adopt a more objective posture wrt the propensity to commit human rights violations.
In my opinion these vary, to take a current snapshot, over a scale of 5 orders of magnitude between, say, Norway and Sudan. China at the present time lies at about 3 and within living memory somewhere about 6 or 7.
Cheers Gordon.
Thanks for clarifying.
Makes sense to me. Now let’s argue about your 3 and 6/7 figures….Only joking.