You keep using that word…
Published by violet April 21st, 2008 in Punkass!, WarKarol Sheinin unwittingly highlights certain differences of opinion as to the meaning of English words:
I want to free Tibet as much as the next person (in fact, my parents can confirm that I had a “Free Tibet” sticker hanging in my room in their house since about 1992) but I’m not sure what scaling the Golden Gate bridge or messing with the Olympic torch is going to do about it. I believe it was Mark Steyn who said that all the Free Tibet people would have a fit if we made a move to do anything to actually free Tibet.
Yes, because when you say, “free Tibet” in that sentence, you seem to mean, “bomb Tibet.” However problematic nice liberals wanting to Free Tibet! might be, they are unlikely to confuse the two.
Maybe you could start selling bumper stickers. It makes me feel rather ill to say so, but they’d probably catch on.
No, actually, that’s not what I was saying at all. Forget military action, ANY move to actually free Tibet, like putting sanctions on China, or even direct criticism, would be met with outrage by the liberals of the world. Especially if it’s Bush that does any of that. They’d call him a renegade or a cowboy or a renegade cowboy who wants to start World War whatever number we’re up to at this point, and is just trying to incite China for his own imperialist ends (probably oil, or gold, or the blood of small Chinese children). You can’t “free” a country by slapping a bumper sticker on your car and hoping real hard. And “raising awareness” doesn’t work either. Action works. But liberals aren’t in to action. Talk is just that much easier. And not harsh talk either. That might upset someone.
Except that Amnesty is calling for (and, obviously, doing) exactly that. Except that Gordon Brown—not exactly deeply loved by liberal dems himself—was lauded for criticizing China’s actions and meeting with the Dalai Lama.
Sanctions are hard, because they are usually more harmful than helpful. You’re want to apply pressure to the leadership, not make life worse for the population, but sanctions have this tendency to do the latter without doing the former.
Of course, sanctions on China would be almost hilariously ineffective. In this case, import restrictions on higher-end Chinese-produced goods might be somewhat effective at applying pressure on the Chinese government. Also, they will nevereverever happen!
Acting directly in support of your beliefs to build good institutions, subvert failing ones, and improve peoples’ lives… that’s kindof a radical bedrock. And people are, in fact, building schools and monasteries, and broadcasting in defiance of Chinese media control. Even Students for a Free Tibet apply pressure on western companies to divest from problematic projects in Tibet, which has at least some effect.
Well, Karol, yes, bombing other countries is wrong. See, as liberals, we (crazy enough) believe that people dying is bad. Yes, even people of different ethnic backgrounds. Now, if the U.S. wanted to (emphasis on this word now) peacefully negotiate with China to “free Tibet”, that would be met with approval. Just like if the U.S. had done anything to help the monks being killed in Myanmar.
Now, Karol, when the U.S. invades a soverign country, in a blatant attempt to steal thier oil, that’s bad.
So, lets see what we have:
1. US attempts to open diplomatic relationship with China over the issue of freeing Tibet, or coming to some sort of reasonable compromise. GOOD.
2. Bush tells China to free Tibet or we’ll bomb them back into the stone age. BAD.
3. Bush takes a firm stance against human rights violations in Tibet and condemns China. GOOD.
4. Bush calls the Chinese a bunch of Communist dipshits who need a good kick in the ass. BAD.
Do you get it now?
1. US attempts to open diplomatic relationship with China over the issue of freeing Tibet, or coming to some sort of reasonable compromise. GOOD.
Result: Nothing.
3. Bush takes a firm stance against human rights violations in Tibet and condemns China. GOOD.
Result: Nothing.
Live in the world as it actually is, not as you’d like it to be.
And, P.S. you don’t like people dying but that’s exactly what you advocate when you advocate inaction. Ask the families of the people killed in Saddam’s human shredders.
Um, I don’t think the W Administration really could do much about Tibet–or was that Nepal?
oops–bad htmlin’, but here you go.
“And, P.S. you don’t like people dying but that’s exactly what you advocate when you advocate inaction. Ask the families of the people killed in Saddam’s human shredders.”
I’m sure the families of the 200,000-1,000,000 Iraqi people killed so far by America’s “action” in Iraq are SO much happier than they would have been if we’d remained “inactive”. And I’m sure the families of the 4,000 dead American soldiers would agree with them.
Or maybe not…
(I find it kindof hilarious that Akismet flagged my comment as spam. Bad learning spam filter! Go sit in the corner.)
Wait, so now I’m confused as to what you mean by, “…or even direct criticism….”
That’s good advice, it is, but it applies to everyone. I really get the “stab the bad people” desire, I do. There are these bad people, and if we stab them, maybe there won’t be bad people anymore. Or if there are, we can just stab them, too! There is this way in which it is endlessly satisfying to contemplate, and whenever I read about seriously injustice occurring anywhere in the world, there’s this little bug in my brain that wants to be like, “well, that non-violence experiment was kinda funny,” and strap on a flak jacket and pick up an AK.
The thing is, well… that would be stupid. And it wouldn’t solve anything. It’s established that the war in Iraq has, shall we say, been quite unhelpful in improving the lives of people living there. Other uses of military force are (or would be) a lot more justifiable, but only in response to acute violent action, and only insofar as it’s necessary to stop that action and make the area safe for non-combatants. The best way to address chronic institutional malevolence or failure is almost without exception not with guns or bombs, and recognizing that is fundamental to doing any kind of actual work with oppressed people in Tibet (or anywhere else for that matter).