Change in the Tibet Movement

My friend Tenzin Choeying of SFT India is one of the Tibetan exile community’s sharpest organizers in India. He is quoted in an AFP story on the debate that is are currently underway in the Tibet movement about how it needs to respond to Chinese obstructionism.

He still commands vast respect and almost total loyalty, but many Tibetans — including the Dalai Lama himself — acknowledge that their freedom movement must learn to stand on its own.

“We have been relying on him for so long,” said Tenzin Choeying, national director of Students For a Free Tibet.

“The Chinese are just waiting for His Holiness to die because they think that will be the end of the Tibetan movement,” Choeying said.

“We must not fall prey to the same assumption … It is time for the Tibetan community to take responsibility for its future.”

China’s policy of stalling all negotiations towards progress with Tibet is premised on the belief that once the Dalai Lama passes away, so too will the cause of Tibet. They are counting on a leadership vacuum and demoralizing the Tibetan people both inside and outside of Tibet. They are counting on the world not caring once Tibet’s charismatic leader is dead. Choeying’s framing of the current situation is both the process that needs to happen to ensure that this movement doesn’t lose force and that process happening in itself. This kind of leadership is critical.

Bloggers In Pajamas

First, Rachel Maddow clearly rocks. And hard.

Second, the bloggers in pajamas slur is a long-standing straw man. As Jane Hamsher recently noted, top liberal bloggers are some of the best educated people in the political cohort. Attire has no bearing on accuracy or clarity of analysis.

I’ve spent time blogging in my pajamas. I’m comfortable to admit it. When I worked from my apartment as a consultant between the Dodd and Begich campaigns, I would often not leave my home for the entire work day. In those situations, it was totally understandable for me to stay in comfortable clothes and yes…gasp…even pajamas. What’s the big deal? Attire during work is no more disqualifying of quality or the moral ability to do good analysis of political events than chain smoking. I don’t recall anyone getting their skivvies in a twist over Woodward and Bernstein filling the Washington Post offices with smoke during their Watergate investigation. Nor have I ever heard political reporters who pile into the bar at the Hotel Fort Des Moines during caucus season bemoaning their lack of professionalism because they spend much of the Iowa winter drunk.

But I sometimes write in my pajamas, so what do I know?

Arguing Rangzen

Jamyang Norbu has re-issued his important essay, “The Case for Independent Tibet.” I’d highly recommend it for anyone curious about what rangzen (Tibetan for independence) is the necessary position for resolving China’s ongoing military occupation of Tibet. This essay is especially important now as the Tibetan Government in Exile is currently holding talks with key organizations and decision-makers in Dharamsala about the future of TGIE’s policy towards China and how they will pursue resolution of the Tibet question. I and many, many people I know are hoping that the result of these talks will be the return to rangzen as the official position for the Dalai Lama and the TGIE. It’s long been clear that this is what Tibetans inside of Tibet want and Jamyang Norbu makes the case very clear.

Making It Up

Atrios:

Shorter Hank Paulson:
We are making this up as we go along.

Seriously folks, this is not inspiring confidence. But it strikes me that part of the reason that Paulson et alia are forced to make it up as they go along is that they’re clinging desperately to outmoded ways of solving problems. Funneling massive amounts of taxpayer dollars to big corporations to keep their stock values high and their executives compensated is not a way to solve the financial crisis. Had the bailout included meaningful oversight and taxpayers getting something in return – ie ownership of these banks and insurance companies – then we would have greater reins on what is happening now. We would have been able to force the money to be used in a way that actually helped homeowners and small businesses from the pending crisis. But that would have undermined the kleptocracy built over many long years, with the help of the GOP and corporatist Democrats. So it was a non-starter. Instead we went with something that we could easily see would either fail or leave the American taxpayer on the short end of the stick. Now Paulson has to keep making this up as he goes along, which in turn undermines our chances for financial stability.

On Debate

Thers is right:

The most ridiculous thing anyone seriously interested in politics will ever try to do is to “debate” an opponent. You’re much better off trying to win. Try to fight for things like, say, a responsible environmental policy, or equal rights for homosexuals, or no more stupid wars that get a lot of people killed. Win one of these points, and I’ll cheer you on, even if you had to stomp your opponent to do it. Go figure!

I dislike the notion of “debate.” It is naive and counterproductive.

Ye take the high road, and I’ll take the low road, and I’ll get to gay marriage before ye.

Just getting things done is a much better plan than building consensus and finding points of agreement through debate of conflicting sides of an issue. What Thers doesn’t highlight in these three paragraphs, but points out earlier when discussing what it takes to be a member in good standing of the conservative coalition, is that some things are true and some things are false. Some are right, some are wrong. And on most issues, Republicans are wrong. Thus any debate that seeks a compromise solution necessarily involves mixing what is the right thing to do with what is the wrong thing to do. That just doesn’t work. It’s senseless. And it’s why we’re very likely to end up with a crappy health care plan and not health care for all. What we need is forceful advocacy for progressive policies that manifests itself, first and foremost, through the uncompromising.

Deconstructing Propaganda

Rebecca Novick has a long piece in the Huffington Post deconstructing Chinese propaganda in Tibet. She goes into great detail exploring one particular news report of Chinese development in Tibet. What’s remarkable is how incredulous the piece she breaks down requires readers to be. It’s like the Chinese government learned their propaganda techniques from watching late-night infomercials and 1940s war reels, and just threw in a dash of abject Han chauvinism and anti-Tibetan racism to make it uniquely Chinese. Fortunately, according to Novick, no one buys this propaganda:

So who is buying this? No one according to Tenzin Losel, a Tibetan human rights researcher with the International Campaign for Tibet. Losel was raised in Lhasa and now lives in Dharamsala, India. “Tibetans and Chinese both understand that the government report only the good things, never the bad. It’s clear that these people are coached. You can see from the way they speak they’re trying to think about what they’re supposed to say next. We see it as more like an annoyance. When they criticize the Dalai Lama on the TV, my mother would just say, ‘Change the channel'”.

Kunga Samten, a former monk, also grew up in Tibet. “No Tibetans believe it,” he says. “They know it’s all fake.” Samten is from a nomadic family and when he would watch stories like Red Flag Village on TV, especially those where Party officials visit nomad villages, he says he could easily see that it was staged. “The villagers will be in their best clothes when they’re supposed to be working. The authorities tell people what to wear, what to do, and what to say”.

Propaganda won’t make Tibetans stop yearning for freedom. It won’t make them stop celebrating their holidays.  It won’t make them stop worshipping the Dalai Lama. All propaganda will do is put the tacky veneer of control over Chinese ongoing, illegal military occupation of Tibet. And as we saw this spring, Tibetans reject Chinese rule as much today as they did fifty-eight years ago when the first Chinese troops invaded Kham and Amdo in eastern Tibet.

Chinese Govt: “We Will Never Make A Concession” on Tibet

Xinhua:

China said here Monday that no concessions would be made on issues concerning the national sovereignty following talks between central government officials and private envoys of the Dalai Lama.

    “The unification of the motherland, territorial integrity and the national dignity are the greatest interests of the Chinese people. We will never make a concession,” Zhu Weiqun, executive vice minister of the United Front Work Department (UFWD) of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee, told reporters.

…

  Zhu admitted contacts and talks “failed to make progress”. He said the Dalai Lama side should “shoulder full responsibility for that”.

    Asked to comment on the reports in which the Dalai Lama said he would not follow a so-called “middle way” if the talks failed, Zhu said the claim of “middle way” aimed at outright Tibetan independence and thus unacceptable to the central government.

This is very bad news.  The Chinese government is refusing to ever make a concession for freedom in Tibet. The time for the Middle Path and the Dalai Lama’s pursuit for meaningful autonomy is over. Now, only full fledged advocacy for independence for Tibet will work. It’s time the Chinese government be held accountable for their persistent efforts to stifle talks and wait out the Tibet problem in the hopes that when the Dalai Lama dies, the Tibetan cause will die with him. Their cynical ploy to stymie freedom and human rights for Tibetans must be rejected, for it undercuts all claims to Chinese standing as a respected member of the global community.

Just Say No To Joe!

Call Your Senators NOW

Jane Hamsher at FireDogLake outlines the case against keeping Joe Lieberman as a member of the Democratic caucus, specifically as a committee chair.

But it was with the 2008 presidential election that his bitterness became his rocket fuel.  Lieberman was unbound. In addition to acting as McCain’s sidekick and protector, he stumped for Republican senator, campaigning for Susan Collins of Maine and Norm Coleman of Minnesota against their Democratic opponents.

Lieberman promised Reid privately that he would not attack Obama directly and personally. But when prevailed upon by the McCain operatives, Lieberman could not help himself. He played the paragon of decency even as he gleefully accepted the role of snarling attack dog:

  • He said that “Obama has not always put country first.”
  • He thought it was a “good question” to inquire whether Obama is a Marxist.
  • He misleadingly accused Obama of having “voted to cut off funding for our troops.”
  • He repeated the claim that “Hamas endorsed Obama” and said it “suggests the difference between these two candidates.”
  • He sent out an email for McCain, referring to the “Democrat” Party, the derogatory term of art preferred by the most partisan Republicans.

Lieberman went on to deride Obama in a speech before the Republican National Convention (after promising Reid he would not do so), saying he was an “an eloquent young man” who lacked the experience to be President. Reid’s office said that Lieberman’s seniority within the Democratic caucus, and his Chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee might be in jeopardy. Obama’s press secretary Robert Gibbs went on CNN to declare that Lieberman engaged in “flat out lies.” But Lieberman would not let up against Obama.

McCain had wanted to name Lieberman as his running mate. He would then have become the first man to run for vice president as both a Democrat and a Republican. But McCain’s handlers warned him that Republicans would not accept a Democrat on the ticket and that the right-wing would mount opposition to it on the floor of the convention. Instead, McCain chose Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska. Lieberman’seffort to secure Jewish votes for McCain, especially in Florida, were undercut by Palin’s presence. In the end, his strenuous efforts had no effect.

After the meeting between Reid and Lieberman last week, it was reported that Reid told him he was welcome to stay in the Democratic caucus if he traded in his powerful chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee for a less influential one as chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee.  Lieberman gave a press conference afterwards in which he threatened once again to caucus with the Republicans and called Reid’s offer “unacceptable.” But how big a threat was that? Would Lieberman join a diminished Republican minority, have no chairmanship whatsoever, and enter a party in which he could never hope to win a 2012 election in Connecticut?

Lieberman’s aides say he is mulling over his options, whatever those might be. Reid says the discussions will go on. But Lieberman’s call to let bygones be bygones rings as hollow as his promise to draw troops down from Iraq.

During the Bush administration, as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Lieberman showed no interest whatsoever in investigating a multitude of scandals, including those of Hurricane Katrina. He abandoned his promise to investigate them after Rove helped him hold his Senate seat.

If Reid buckles to Lieberman’s threats, permitting him to keep control of the Homeland Security Committee, the Democrats will no doubt discover that Lieberman has a new zeal for investigating that will be a thorn in Obama’s side for the next four years. Still wielding power the turncoat would exact his revenge on the new president.

This really should be a no-brainer. But of course it isn’t, so please take a moment to call Democratic members of the Steering and Outreach Committee and ask them to strip Lieberman of his committee chair.