I seem to have stirred up my blogosphere colleagues by pointing out the obvious: the left invests a tremendous amount of energy in condemning the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, but little or none in condemning the much worse Chinese policy in Tibet. No one who follows political journalism and activism can doubt that this disproportion exists. My Keloland colleague Cory Heidelberger at Madville Times has this:
Dr. Blanchard draws attention to "China's brutal occupation and colonization of Tibet," as demonstrated by China's murderous crackdown on Tibetan dissidents this week. He then commits an odd logical stretch of Madvillian proportions, accusing the international left of spending more time criticizing Israel over Palestine than holding China accountable for its oppression of Tibet.
I don't see why I am making an "odd logical stretch." If you think that imperialism, colonization, brutal oppression, religious persecution are bad and worth protesting about and taking action to stop, and it is clear that Case A is much worse than Case B in all these things, it does seem odd if you spend all your attention on Case B and largely ignore Case A.
The rest of Cory's post is well-written and worth reading. I certainly agree that the integration of the U.S. and Chinese economies limits the actions of our government with regard to Tibet, but economic realities never stopped the American or European left from pursuing any agenda!
In my post, I pointed this out:
European scholars have called for the ostracism of their colleagues from Israel. I missed the part where they want to punish Chinese scholars for the much worse atrocities committed by their nation.
Kelsey, at DakotaWomen, has this reply:
Certainly, if there are Chinese scholars hostile to Tibetan independence working in Europe and receiving no criticism, the(unnamed, un-cited) European scholars who have called for the ostracism of their Israeli colleagues are big hypocrites. If such Chinese scholars, European scholars, and Israeli colleagues do indeed exist, then right on, Ken.
My apologies for not providing links and specifics. I thought that the story I had in mind was pretty well-known. Apparently not. Here is the story, from the BBC:
Members of the Association of University Teachers (AUT) decided to suspend all links with Haifa and Bar-Ilan universities. They were complicit in a system of "apartheid" towards Palestinians, delegates at the AUT's council heard...
AUT delegates called for an end to all co-operation with Haifa and Bar-Ilan and to discourage UK investment in them. Israel's policies in the occupied territories were described as "colonial and racist".
Well, if Israel's policies in the occupied territories justify such a boycott, why not a similar boycott against Chinese universities? Don't hold your breath.
But Kelsey assures us that "lefties love Tibet," and she provides powerful evidence:
The left doesn't care about Tibet? That must be why The Tibetan Freedom Concert was put on by notable conservatives The Beastie Boys and features right-wing staples like Rage Against the Machine. I'm sure the reported support of Tibet by Democrats is because of some vast leftist MSM conspiracy.
The Bestie Boys! There is a powerful organ of left-wing activism. Rep. Pelosi and Lantos meet with the Dalai Lama. Can't ignore that. But I did a quick search of three major national journals on the left: The Nation, The Progressive, and the Washington Monthly, from 2000 to the present. The first mentions Israel 588 times in that period. I got 20 hits for Tibet. The Progressive has only 129 hits for Israel with 5 for Tibet. The Washington Monthly had 104 and 6 respectively. Now there are all kinds of legitimate reasons why Israel commands a lot of attention. But there is no legitimate reason why Tibet commands almost none. I admit I didn't do a thorough vetting of all these citations, but I haven't yet seen a single article focusing on repression in Tibet. I suspect that one would find the same pattern by a search of The New Statesman or Le Monde.
To be fair, as China floods Tibet with troops in advance of the coming Olympics, The Nation does have a "web-only" article on the situation, by a sports writer. He devotes most of his column not to Tibet, but to oppressive acts by the Mexico and U.S. during previous Olympics. Tibet just can't seem to hold the average leftist's interest for more than a paragraph. But that's more than the other two can manage. A search of "Tibet" at The Progressive site yields nothing. There is no a hint of interest at the Washington Monthly. Britain's left wing press does better. The British Guardian does have a piece that actually focuses on the present situation, as does the New Statesman.
Allow me a couple of confessions. One is that I have been deeply influenced by Zen Buddhism, and this gives me a personal interest in this story. Another is that Professor Schaff is certainly right that the blame for the West's neglect of Tibet is widely shared on all sides. It is perhaps excusable if I prefer to criticize the other side.
But it is worth noting that the international left spent decades putting pressure on South Africa and Israel. In the former case, this produced a striking achievement. But the fact of the matter is that both these regimes were capable of moral embarrassment, they had/have a conscience. Regimes like China, North Korea, or Syria, do not. I think the right is more capable of dealing with that fact than the left is.
Recent Comments