A Word to My Pro-China Commenters

In the last three weeks I’ve been getting volumes of comments from Chinese citizens, China supporters, and Chinese expats regarding Tibet. I have not approved any of them. You’re not seeing these comments on my site because I frankly don’t care to provide a forum for anti-Tibetan, historical revisionism on behalf of a country that has oppressed Tibetans for over 50 years and is responsible for the death of at least 1.2 million Tibetans in that time. This is my website. It, like China, is not a free country. But unlike China it is not a country – it’s just a blog run by me, a guy with things to write about the world around him. As such, I have no obligation to give people who not only disagree with me, but support policies of violence in response to calls for freedom and who cheer on the cultural genocide of Tibet.

That’s not to say that I don’t use this blog as a forum for discussion with people who don’t agree with me. I’ve had many Republican commenters who I argue with on FISA, Iraq, the rule of law, and torture policy (to name a few topics). But those are discussions that take place amongst people who, under the law, are equals. We may disagree, but neither side faces systemic efforts by the powers that be to literally destroy either of us for making our arguments. This is not the case when it comes to Tibet and China. In fact, the opposite is true.

Chinese government sympathizers have all the power in the dynamic. They have the guns, the troops, the money, and a terrifying willingness to use all of these things to control, subjugate, and marginalize Tibetans. Through population transfer, Han Chinese settlers now outnumber Tibetans in their own land. Through the addition of arbitrary lines on maps, China has fractured Tibet into so many pieces that it has changed what the world casually considers to be Tibet. In such a situation, I feel no need to give the oppressors space to continue their oppression in the marketplace of ideas online.

I choose not to give them one more platform, however small, to extend their hegemony and their efforts to silence Tibetans and their supporters. If any of my pro-China commenters have a problem with this, I have a suggestion for you. Rather than trolling my comments sections and making me delete dozens of your comments, go start your own blog and run it however you please.

No, Not Really

Marc Ambinder asks:

Can you imagine, or envision, a Democratic/Netroots’ based Senate challenge to Clinton in four years?

No, not really. For there to be a primary challenge of Hillary Clinton, there would have to be a Democrat willing to run against her. Hillary Clinton probably has the highest name ID of any Democrat in America not named Bill Clinton. She has near-complete institutional support in the New York State Democratic Party. I think we can safely rule out all current members of the NY House delegation. I’d also guess that any netroots back House challengers this cycle (people like Jon Powers or Eric Massa) would, if they win, not likely challenge her.

Who does that leave? People not holding federal office and vain and/or rich people. I can’t comfortably speak about the vain/rich people (though I doubt the netroots would support Tasini, The Remix), but here are the non-federal office holders that come to mind:

  • Eliot Spitzer: Ha, right.
  • David Patterson: I doubt a Governor would take out a Senator from his own party.
  • Tom Suozzi: I think his future is probably brighter in Albany than in Wshington.
  • Andrew Cuomo: He served in the Clinton administration and I don’t think he’d show that kind of disloyalty.

Not sure who else would be on this list, but perhaps some NY bloggers will weigh in.

The reality is that while some Democrats don’t want Clinton to be President, most New Yorkers (not just Democrats) think she’s a very good Senator. While I don’t always agree with her tactics and I wish she would take a more vocal role in fighting for change within the Senate, I think she generally votes well. She would have to do something along the lines of voting for war with Iran or voting for telecom immunity for me to even consider supporting a primary challenge to her in 2012 – and I don’t see her being so politically blind to do either.

Tibet News & Solidarity Update

The Tibetan Center for Human Rights and Democracy reports that following prayer sessions mourning the murder of a Tibetan monk yesterday in Luhuo, a protest started that was met with gun fire by Chinese security forces. At least one monk was shot and is now in critical condition; other monks, nuns, and lay people are likely to have been arrested.

The European Union has called on China to stop its violent crackdown on Tibetans. It is considering a boycott of the Beijing Olympics:

“If there are no signals of compromise, then I believe the boycott measures would be justified,” President Hans-Gert Pottering said in an interview with German newspaper Bild am Sonntag Tuesday.

“We must not exclude the possibility of a boycott of the Beijing Olympics. We want them (the Games) to be a success, but not at the expense of the cultural genocide of Tibetans,” the official added.

Amnesty International, French Prime Minister Anthony Sarkozy, and the United Nations have all been outspoken this week in their condemnation of China’s actions.

The BBC has another report on how Chinese cyber attacks are targeting Tibetan independence groups outside of Tibet, as well as groups that are working to stop the genocide in Darfur.

Much attention is starting to shift towards China’s expulsion of all foreign journalists from Tibet shortly after the violent crackdown on pro-independence protests started.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, told the Canadian broadcaster CBC last week that Beijing needed to account fully and credibly for what is happening in Tibet.

“China is ready to open its door to 30,000 foreign journalists in August. Why can’t it open its door to one or two foreign journalists in Tibet now, when the world is equally interested in what is happening in Tibet as it will be in what will be happening in the Olympics?” she said.

The Albany Project reports on New York City police officers beating and threatening to kill Tibetans who were taking part in a peaceful protest for Tibet outside of the United Nations. As Student for a Free Tibet’s Deputy Director Tenzin Dorjee said when he was arrested by plain clothes Greek security officers at the lighting of the Olympic torch earlier this week:

“The Chinese government is oppressing me even in a free country, the Chinese government is spreading its oppression and
dictatorship like a cancer around the world.

“Instead of the world changing China, China is changing the world – dragging it in the direction of oppression.”

This is not what the Olympics were supposed to do. The presence of the international community was supposed to liberalize China’s human rights policies. Instead, we have watched them consistently regress to the point where murder is the operative crowd control tactic and there is not one single foreign journalist inside a Tibet, which makes up about 25% of the total land controlled by China. We have watched the Indian government, the Nepali government, and the Greek government play integral roles in stopping peaceful, lawful protests of China’s occupation of Tibet. We have watched the International Olympic Committee alternatively defend China’s human rights progress and refuse to dialogue with Tibetan independence groups over their grievances.

China’s actions in Tibet continue to be the rightful target of international condemnation. Tibetans inside and outside Tibet are clear in their aspiration for freedom. The voices from the worlds’ governments and NGOs must only become louder. And they must be prepared to back up their words with actions, consequences, and punishments for China’s systemic violence against Tibetans.

Avaaz Petition Breaks 1 Million Signatories

1 Million Strong for Tibet

Avaaz.org’s petition to Chinese President Hu Jintao, asking him to stop the violent crackdown against pro-independence protests in Tibet, has crossed the 1,000,000 signatory mark in just seven days.  They have now adjusted their goal to 2 million co-sponsors, something that  while incredibly far off may actually be achievable based on the viral nature of this petition.

While I will state up front that it is not an apples to apples comparison for a number of reasons*, I think it’s interesting to place the viral growth of this petition next to the much-hyped Facebook group Barack Obama (One Million Strong for Barack). Created after Obama announced his candidacy in 2007, 1 Million Strong for Barack was considered the largest and fastest growing Facebook group. It attracted much media and blog attention and was a testament to the social organizing powers of Facebook. That said, it never reached 1,000,000 members and took well over a week for it to become viral.

The point I’m trying to make by putting this Facebook group in parallel to this petition by Avaaz is that there is tremendous sentiment for Tibet. It’s remarkable to me as someone who has been involved in the Tibetan independence movement for over eight years to see such a tremendous outpouring of support for Tibet around the world, just as it’s remarkable for me to the international press and world governments finally pay attention to the Tibet issue and China’s attitude towards basic human rights. This Avaaz petition is a clear quantification of the global resonance for Tibet. Tibetans inside Tibet and outside Tibet have stood up to demand their freedom and the world has responded by supporting them.

If you have not yet signed Avaaz.org’s petition to stop China’s violent crackdown against Tibetans, please do so today. If you have already signed the petition, click here to send an email to your friends asking them to join you.

* Facebook is much smaller than the whole internet. The Obama group was relevant only to the Facebook users who were engaged in American politics. Avaaz.org’s membership is international, as is the support for the Tibet issue, thus creating a larger natural constituency than the Obama group has recourse to. Avaaz is an existing organization with their own email list that helped seed the growth of this petition. My comparison is one of sentiment and viral political activity, not raw numbers or capacity for growth.

Chinese Paramilitaries Open Fire on Hundreds of Monks, Nuns

China’s violent crackdown on monks, nuns, and lay people of Tibet who want freedom continues:

Paramilitary police opened fire on hundreds of monks, nuns and Tibetans who tried to march on a local government office in western China yesterday to demand the return of the Dalai Lama.

Residents of Luhuo said that a monk and a farmer appeared to have been killed and about a dozen people wounded in the latest violence in Tibetan areas of China. Xinhua, the official Chinese news agency, said that one officer was killed when police confronted a “lawless mob” in Luhuo.

The demonstration began at 4pm when about 200 nuns from Woge nunnery and a similar number of monks from Jueri monastery marched towards the Luhuo Third District government office. They were joined by several hundred farmers and nomads, witnesses said.

Shouting “Long Live the Dalai Lama” and “Tibet belongs to Tibetans”, they approached the office. The paramilitary People’s Armed Police appeared and ordered the crowd to turn back. Witnesses said that shots were fired and two people appeared to have died. They identified one as Congun Dengzhu, a farmer, and the second as an unknown monk.

Public assembly and petition is met by bullets. This does not sound like restraint to me.

Also, the Avaaz petition in support of Tibet is approaching one million signatories.

TGIE Death Toll Up to 130

The Tibetan Government-in-Exile has updated their confirmed death toll to 130 throughout Tibet.

“These are not necessarily new casualties. This could be information that we could not get before,” [TGIE Prime Minister Samdhong] Rinpoche said, adding that the numbers also included fatalities from Tibetan areas in provinces such as Gansu and Sichuan.

“We are afraid the number could go up when we get more information from remote areas,” he said.

The TGIE is obviously being very conservative in their statements, only releasing people who have been confirmed dead. Reports from Tibet have indicated higher numbers, though the absence of any foreign media in Tibet thanks to the Chinese government’s expulsion of all foreign journalists makes getting confirmation hard.

Anti-Cassandra

Paul Krugman, responding in part to Glenn Greenwald’s post today, writes:

Reading some of today’s news, it suddenly struck me: we’re living in the age of the anti-Cassandra.

Cassandra had the gift of prophecy — she saw, correctly, what was coming — but was under a curse: nobody would believe her.

Today, our public discourse is dominated by people who have been wrong about everything — but are still, mysteriously, treated as men of wisdom, whose judgments should be believed. Those who were actually right about the major issues of the day can’t get a word in edgewise.

What set me off was the matter of Alan Greenspan; as Dean Baker like to remind us, news analyses of the housing and financial crisis almost always draw exclusively on “experts” who first insisted that there wasn’t a housing bubble, then insisted that the financial consequences of the bubble’s bursting would remain “contained.”

It’s even worse, of course, on the matter of Iraq: just about every one of the panels convened to discuss the lessons of five disastrous years consisted solely of men and women who cheered the idiocy on.

Yep, this pretty much says it all.  I think this a great description of a horrendous problem on Krugman’s part. It’s a somewhat more PG version of the Dirty Fucking Hippy narrative bloggers have used over the last six years and is something that is worth pushing into discourse.  I hope Krugman considers devoting a full column to this subject; as the preeminent liberal political opinion writer in America, his platform can get this sort of meme noticed. The only way we can get this dynamic to change is by identifying it and forcing others to do the same.