ユダヤ人に五輪不参加呼びかけ

　米国のユダヤ人指導者らが三十日に、中国によるチベットでの人権弾圧などを理由に、北京五輪をボイコットするよう、世界のユダヤ人選手らに呼び掛ける声明の発表を計画していることが二十九日、明らかになった。

　計百七十五人が既に署名したという。中国による人権抑圧のほか、パレスチナのイスラム原理主義組織ハマスと中国との友好関係などもボイコット理由として挙げた。

　中心人物の一人によると、署名した人たちは、後にホロコースト（ユダヤ人大量虐殺）を行ったナチス・ドイツによる一九三六年のベルリン五輪と同様に、中国が五輪を（人権弾圧などの）事実から国際社会の目をそらす手段として使おうとしているとみている。

------------------
米ユダヤ系有力者、北京五輪のボイコットを呼びかけ
2008.5.1 10:52

　【ワシントン＝山本秀也】全米ユダヤ人会議（ＡＪＣ）のリチャード・ゴードン会長ら在米のユダヤ系有力者１８５人は４月３０日、北京五輪のボイコットを世界のユダヤ人に呼びかける宣言を発表した。中国政府のチベット弾圧や、イラン、シリアなどとの緊密な関係を理由に「ユダヤ人はこうした政権のごまかしに手を貸すべきではない」と訴えており、中国には痛手となる。

　「中国の五輪は戒律にそぐわない」と題した宣言は、「ホロコースト（ユダヤ人虐殺）記念日」にあたる同日を選び公表された。ユダヤ系組織「デービッド・ワイマン・ホロコースト研究所」（ワシントン）が取りまとめにあたった。

　宣言は、ナチス体制下のドイツで開かれたベルリン五輪（１９３６年）が、「ユダヤ人への迫害から世界の目をそらす役割を果たした」と指摘。その上で、これと同様に、中国が五輪を利用して「内外での人権抑圧への注意をそらそうとしている」と非難した。

　具体的には、中国政府に関して、（１）ダルフール地方での住民虐殺問題を抱えるスーダン政府を支援（２）チベットでの抑圧（３）自国民の権利侵害（４）イラン、シリアへのミサイル供給（５）パレスチナのイスラム原理主義組織「ハマス」との友好関係－を挙げ、「世界のユダヤ人に北京五輪への参加中止を求める」と訴えた。

　全米ユダヤ人会議は、ローゼンブラット副会長らが４月２８日に中国の周文重駐米大使と会談し、チベット、ダルフール問題などへの懸念を伝えていた。また、ワシントンのホロコースト記念博物館では、ベルリン五輪に関する特別展が４月下旬に始まるなど、在米ユダヤ人社会では、北京五輪に批判的な空気が強まっていた。

----------------
Send the athletes, keep the politicians home
THE JERUSALEM POST Apr. 5, 2008

People throughout the free world concerned about Tibet, Darfur, human rights, as well as Chinese foot-dragging on the issue of a nuclear-armed Iran are campaigning to boycott this summer's Olympic Games in Beijing.

Among Israelis, calls to shun the competition continue to gain momentum. The Hebrew Writers Association - itself a frequent target of Arab boycotts - has appealed against an Israeli presence in Beijing. Petitions, op-eds and protests abound.

China's human rights record is admittedly among the most abysmal. Just last week Amnesty International highlighted China's crackdown on lands-rights activists jailed for their protests against wholesale evictions to make room for Olympic facilities and to facelift Beijing. Detentions-without-trial, repression of civil liberties campaigners and Internet censorship in China have, if anything, intensified in the Olympics' advent. All this, moreover, is overshadowed by the ongoing violent suppression of demonstrations in Tibet and the attendant media blackout.

China's blatant transgressions were no secret before Beijing was chosen to host the 2008 games, but that die was cast years ago and is now a fait accompli. This, perhaps, is why no Western government has called for an outright ban on the games, regardless of European Parliament President Hans-Gert Poettering's recommendation that a boycott be considered.

THAT BEING the case, Israel would be wise to follow the lead of the EU and of the Bush administration by rejecting boycott calls.

Indeed, we are the last country which should champion boycotts. Israeli athletes still are victims of relentless, brazen Arab and Muslim blacklisting. Although the reasons in Israel's case are vastly different from those proffered against China, this nation - whose soccer and basketball teams must play in Europe and were once exiled to Oceana - should as a matter of principle strenuously oppose all politicization of sport.

This isn't to say that sport in general and the Olympics in particular were ever unadulterated by politics. The philosophical idealism that presents sport as isolated from geopolitical realities has always been baseless. Governments have always heavily influenced their countries' Olympic committees, even in democracies. Recall the American administration's pressure in favor of boycotting 1980's Moscow Olympics - a move regarded in retrospect as counterproductive, particularly because only a few nations (Israel included) bowed to Washington's demands and many athletes (British especially) participated outside national auspices.

Of course, the Jewish state has a special empathy for those whose human rights are abused. Visions of the 1936 Berlin Olympics - festooned in Nazi banners and geared to celebrate the Teutonic superman, while Jews were already persecuted under the infamous Nuremberg Laws - still sear our memories.

Yet from today's Berlin comes a formula which Israel would be well advised to adopt. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has announced she will not attend the Olympics opening ceremony. If enough other free world leaders follow suit, that in itself will send a message to China's upper echelons.

Staying away from Beijing would be just the sort of moderate censure to which Israeli elected officials should enlist. Granted, Beijing is an enticing destination for a political junket and President Shimon Peres, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Knesset Speaker Dalia Itzik are already reported to be lining up as participants in the very ceremonial events which Merkel and other Europeans aim to expressly forgo.

The most appropriate way to communicate Jerusalem's displeasure with Beijing's repressions, as well as China's generally unhelpful stance toward Iranian nuclear proliferation, short of the ineffectual boycott, is for all those not directly involved in actual competition and training to stay away.

Let the athletes compete and let our politicians stay home and attend to the business of the people. The teams will certainly not miss their political escorts, our consciences would be at least partially assuaged and the public coffers will be somewhat less depleted.

------------------
A 'birthright' for non-Jews?
Shmuley Boteach , THE JERUSALEM POST Apr. 6, 2008

We're now just a few weeks away from Israel turning 60 and the silence, outside anywhere but the Jewish community, is deafening. There was a lot more buildup for the opening of Heathrow's Terminal 5 than Israel's upcoming commemoration.

Israel's monumental achievement, the fact that this tiny country with neighbors hell-bent on eliminating it, has somehow managed to survive, does not seem to be much of a story outside the Jewish world. Some would say that this is appropriate. Israel is, after all, a Jewish state. Why should anyone else care?

But on another level, the fact that no one seems to be celebrating along with the Jews speaks volumes of our failure. Israel, it seems, has lost its ability to inspire all but Jews and evangelical Christians. These two groups see Israel's creation and survival as possessing world-historical meaning. But for the rest of the world, Israel is a country that is in the headlines because of bombs and battles. So, the world is saying, no offence to you Jews, but what does your anniversary have to do with us?

But wait a second. The anniversary of the death of the great Martin Luther King, Jr. was commemorated this past Friday not just by African-Americans and not just in the United States but around the world, including Israel. The movement that King created, although focused primarily on the plight of blacks in the South, is seen as a global cry for freedom and justice. The civil rights movement portended an end to racism and irrational prejudice in every corner of the globe. Thus, it has significance for people everywhere.

But was Zionism not once viewed in the same light? Was it not also a movement by an oppressed people, persecuted in every land in which they resided, to find a home where they could live in peace and freedom? Has it now become a movement that speaks to none but Jews alone?

We Jews have unwittingly contributed to the insular and exclusivist mind-set that has made Israel a Jewish-only project.

Sixty years into the project, we must start thinking differently.

TWO GREAT mistakes have been made by the global Jewish community with regards to Israel. The first is to portray Israel as a modern entity with insufficient historical roots. The second is to portray Israel as a Jewish-only entity with little relevance to the rest of the world.

Mistake number one is captured by a conversation that I had with a businessman who told me a few months back that he was concerned that Israel's emphasis on its 60th birthday might feed Arab propaganda that Israel is a modern entity, created by European-Jewish colonialists who usurped Arab land. Instead of calling this Israel's 60th birthday party, he argued, why not have a different motto along the lines of "Three Thousand Plus Sixty" that captures the uninterrupted nature of the Jewish people's attachment to its ancestral homeland?

He has a point.

Every few years, I travel to South Africa for book tours. Black South Africans, while incredibly loving and receptive to Jews, can be ambivalent about Israel. To them, Israelis seem like white people who colonized the darker-skinned inhabitants of a land not their own. The parallel to apartheid South Africa creates immediate sympathy for the Palestinian side.

I respond by telling my African hosts that the parallel between the two stories is really the reverse. Like black Africans in their land, the Jews were the original people who inhabited ancient Israel. But then the Romans came, colonized the land, decimated the Jewish population, and exiled them to Europe and other parts of the Empire. But the Jews never lost a connection to their ancestral home, prayed every day to return, and a sizable Jewish minority remained even after the exile. Then, 2000 years later, when the opportunity and resources presented themselves, we began to reconstitute ourselves as a sovereign entity. Emphasizing Israel as being only 60 reinforces the view that the Jewish people's relationship with the land, rather than ancient in origin, is a modern phenomenon.

THE SECOND mistake, of making Israel something of only Jewish concern, is captured in the most successful and visionary Jewish program of our time, Birthright Israel. Birthright is nothing short of a miracle, and one of the reasons that I so revere my dear friend Michael Steinhardt and his counterpart Charles Bronfman is their foresight in seeing just how inspirational the modern Jewish state could be to disaffected Jewish youth. But why stop there? Israel has the power to inspire non-Jewish youth as well.

The Jews are history's most influential people, having given the modern world its three foundations: God (universal brotherhood), the Ten Commandments (law), and the Messiah (progress aimed at perfecting the world). Those ideas were all born in the very soil of Israel, the world epicenter of faith and spiritual transcendence. But that's not how the modern world sees it. India and Tibet have become the place of pilgrimage for Westerners seeking enlightenment. Just look at the level of sympathy the world rightly has for Tibet's struggle against China versus the seeming lack of sympathy for Israel's struggle against terrorism. That's because the world feels it has a stake in Tibet's welfare. The heroic Dalai Lama has successfully portrayed his homeland as a place from which light shines to the entire earth and not just Buddhists. Should we not portray Israel in the same authentic light?

Of all the presents we can give Israel on its illustrious "3000 + 60 birthday," none would be more helpful than to inaugurate a Birthright for Non-Jewish Youth program that would seek to bring 50,000 non-Jewish students from around the world to Israel every year. Campuses are the places where Israel is most attacked in the West today. Why not expose non-Jewish students to how stirring Israel is and give them a stake in its future?

I'm scheduled to be leading a press and media Birthright Trip to Israel for Mayanot this summer. So many of my non-Jewish colleagues in the media have practically begged me to attend. Birthright alumni from all over globe will tell you the same. Their non-Jewish friends are envious of the transformative trip to Israel which right now is the preserve of Jewish youth alone.

As for the cost, churches all over the US would contribute, as would non-Jewish philanthropists and foundations sympathetic to Israel. And it would be the best PR Israel ever had.

---------------------
View from America: Forget the fun and games
Jonathan Tobin , THE JERUSALEM POST Apr. 12, 2008

If there's anything that sports fans hate, it's somebody using a political cause to spoil their pleasures. Sports are sports, and politics is politics.

That's the message from the international sports establishment and just about every government in the world, including the United States, regarding the upcoming Olympics to be held this summer in Beijing.

The calls for boycotts or protests against the host country because of their savage repression in Tibet and support of a genocidal regime in Sudan have, more or less, fallen on deaf ears.

Despite the supposedly universal abhorrence for the ongoing mass murder in Sudan and the general sympathy for the people of Tibet - not to mention admiration for the Dalai Llama, their leader in exile - there appears to be little question that the 29th modern Olympiad will go on as scheduled in the capital city of the People's Republic of China.

Indeed, President Bush, who has staked his reputation on an effort to bring democracy to the world, will be in China for the opening ceremonies as a gesture of friendship to Beijing, which will, as other nations have in the past, use the games as the centerpiece of a propaganda offensive.

THE OLYMPICS are an institution that has been largely impervious to the demands of morality. A huge business in and of itself, the Olympics generates a great deal of income for a variety of vendors, especially TV networks that count on the event to generate ratings around the world. Moreover, we are told that any attempt to disrupt the games will not help anyone in China, Tibet or the Sudan. Rather, it is argued, the only victims of a protest will be the athletes who have trained diligently for years and have earned the right to their moment in the sun without having it tarnished or stolen from them for reasons that have nothing to do with sport.

The only times that the games have been disrupted have been when they come up against the demands of state, such as the world wars and the U.S.-Soviet dispute over Afghanistan that affected the 1980 and 1984 games. But desultory attempts to protest the 1936 Berlin Olympics got nowhere since the democracies were at that time more interested in appeasing the Nazis than in confronting them.

With that precedent in mind, there's no reason to think that a rag-tag coalition of nudniks and activists who care about Sudan or Tibet, or even the few who give a damn about the fact that the Beijing government brutally represses their own people, will succeed.

Still, in February, the protest movement got a boost when filmmaker Steven Spielberg pulled out of a commitment to be an artistic adviser to the games because of his support for efforts to force Beijing to stop supporting the government of Sudan, as well as evading the international sanctions that have sought to pressure Khartoum. A month later, the Chinese suffered another public-relations debacle when news leaked out of Tibet of their ruthless smashing of protests in that country against Chinese measures to suppress Tibetan national identity and religion.

Though the Chinese have largely junked the socialist model and opened up their economy, power remains in the hands of the Communist party. The creation of vast wealth for some has led to a new openness in the country, but it has strict limits that make any sort of dissent dangerous. Though it is rarely discussed in the foreign press, the laogai - the Chinese version of the Soviets' Gulag Archipelago - is still very much in operation, even if it is not as vast as in the past.

Economic ties between the West and China have never been greater. This economic leverage resulted in the United States lifting the necessity of yearly congressional approval for most favored nation trading status several years ago, a step that had the effect of virtually silencing labor and human-rights activists who had, until then, at least been able to have an annual forum for exposing Chinese perfidy. Since then, China's economic power has only grown. The fact that investments there are endangered by the absence of the rule of law has not deterred major corporations, as well as media moguls such as Rupert Murdoch, who has junked his anti-Communist beliefs for a share of the loot he's gotten from a close relationship with Beijing.

Critics of Olympic protests also say that boycott efforts will only inflame Chinese public opinion and strengthen the Communist leadership. Since the games are seen as a major boost for the delicate national self-esteem of China, if they are spoiled, the people will blame the West, not their tyrannical bosses. Sadly, their nation's behavior in Tibet is believed to be popular because it is seen as an expression of Chinese nationalism.

But despite all of this, the imperative to speak out is clear. China may be a rising world power, but it should be disabused of the notion that it can do as it likes without being accountable.

As for Tibet, it may be difficult, if not impossible right now, to imagine that county ever regaining its freedom, but the same could have been said of the Soviets' hold on the enslaved nations of the Baltic 25 years ago. The Tibetans and the Dalai Llama have a right to expect free people to hold faith with them the same as we once did with those in Eastern Europe a generation ago.

The fact that China is actively engaged in religious persecution in Tibet, as well as within its own borders (of nonstate authorized churches and mosques) also makes this an issue that Jews cannot ignore. Though the odds of success here seem long, a Jewish community that claims to care about human rights in other situations cannot remain silent about China.

Some fear that protests over Tibet will legitimize the effort to delegitimize Israel because of its conflict with the Palestinians. Still, there is no comparison between a tiny country defending its borders against a portion of the vastly more numerous Arab people that wishes to destroy the Jewish state and the spectacle of a vast power eradicating the ancient nation of Tibet. Nor is there any comparison between this and America's overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq.

Finally, let us dispose of the claim that politics should not disrupt sports. The Olympics, with its flag-waving and anthems, are, by definition a political event. Myths about 1936 aside, the Berlin Olympics was a major victory for Hitler, not his opponents. The Chinese are hoping to match that success. This year, as in Munich in 1972, when the games were considered more important than the slaughter of Israelis, the athletes will still be the pawns of tyrants more than anything else.

The summer Olympics present an opportunity for those who care about human rights to illustrate that even China is not exempt from scrutiny. The competition is not more important than the fate of Darfur, Tibet or even of dissenters in China itself.
Bush should stay home this summer. So should everyone.

The writer is executive editor of the Jewish Exponent in Philadelphia.

-----------------
Boycotting Chinese food, ignoring Chinese repression
By Raphael Medoff | Published 04/25/2008 | Opinion |
Raphael Medoff


View all articles by Raphael Medoff

American athletes are threatening to boycott this summer’s Olympics in China — to boycott the food, that is.

Human rights advocates around the world are urging athletes to boycott the games to protest China’s repression in Tibet and support for the genocidal regime in Sudan. But so far the only cause sufficiently urgent to move American athletes to protest is the danger of unsanitary food in Beijing.

The U.S. Olympic Committee has angrily denounced the idea of boycotting the games in protest against genocide or totalitarianism. "Put together a ranking of the worst ideas ever conceived and ‘Olympic boycott’ would be at the top of that list," says USOC spokesman Darryl Seibel. But boycotting China’s food is a different story.

The USOC plans to bring its own produce to China because of concerns about the safety of local food. Perhaps these U.S. Olympic officials heard that thousands of Japanese recently became ill from eating Chinese dumplings contaminated by pesticides. How will America’s athletes elude the Olympic ban on bringing private food to the games? Where there’s a will, there’s a way. U.S. Olympic officials have devised a plan to have the American team eat all its meals in a training facility that is situated outside the gates of the Beijing Olympic Park and thus outside the rules governing the source of their food. The U.S. Olympic Committee could use a history lesson.

During the year preceding the 1936 Olympics in Nazi Germany, Americans vigorously debated whether to boycott the games as a protest against the Hitler regime’s savage persecution of German Jews. The U.S. Olympic Committee opposed a boycott, claiming that sports should be separate from politics. The Roosevelt administration, which at that point was still interested in maintaining friendly relations with Germany, also opposed boycotting the games.

Supporters of the boycott included the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, many American Jewish organizations, a number of mayors, governors and members of Congress, 41 college presidents, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and two important Christian periodicals, Commonweal and The Christian Century.

Yet only a handful of American athletes were willing to take a moral stand and risk their careers by refusing to participate in the Nazi Olympics.

A number of American Jewish athletes refused to go to Berlin, including high-jumper Syd Koff, who had already qualified for the 1936 team; sprinter Herman Neugass, from Tulane University ("It’s my unequivocal opinion nobody should go because of the way Jews are treated," he wrote to a New Orleans newspaper, explaining his decision); and Harvard track and field stars Norman Cahners and Milton Green.

But only one non-Jewish American athlete joined the boycott: speed-skater Jack Shea, who had won a gold medal in the 1932 games and had every reason to expect he would qualify for the 1936 team. Shea never tried out for the 1936 competition; his conscience would not allow him to. In October 1934, he announced publicly that he would not take part in the Berlin Games as a protest against the mistreatment of Germany’s Jews. (Sadly, Shea’s courageous action is still not adequately explained on the U.S. Olympic Committee’s own Website.) Hitler instructed his thugs to keep out of sight during the Olympics.

America’s athletes arrived, the games proceeded, and international press coverage depicted Nazi Germany in glowing terms. CBS correspondent Howard K. Smith, who was stationed in Berlin, remarked later that the 1936 Olympics were a "triumph for Hitler," perhaps the Nazis’ single greatest propaganda victory. Hitler used America’s athletes to bolster his image. Now China hopes to do likewise.

Will today’s American athletes repeat their predecessors’ tragic mistake? They may dream of following in the footsteps of Jesse Owens, the African-American track star who shocked Hitler with his athletic accomplishments in Berlin. But their real role model should be Jack Shea, whose moral accomplishment was greater than anything that can ever be achieved on a track or a skating rink.

China is not Nazi Germany. But it denies basic civil rights to its citizens; it provides missiles and other advanced weapons to rogue regimes such as Syria, North Korea, and Iran; it is the most important supporter of the genocidal government of Sudan; and it is now engaged in a campaign of brutal repression in occupied Tibet. Surely those causes should be as compelling as the Chinese dumplings that the U.S. Olympic Committee intends to boycott.

Rafael Medoff is director of the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies.

-----------------
US Jewish leaders urge Olympic boycott
MICHAL LANDO , THE JERUSALEM POST Apr. 30, 2008

NEW YORK - On the eve of Holocaust Remembrance Day, US Jewish leaders from across the spectrum are urging Jews to boycott the summer Olympics in Beijing to protest China's human rights record and its assistance to Iran, Syria and Hamas.

A total of 185 rabbis and Jewish leaders so far have signed on to the appeal, which claims that China, like Germany in 1936, is using the Olympics to deflect attention from its record.

"We are deeply troubled by China's support for the genocidal government of Sudan; its mistreatment of the people of Tibet; its denial of basic rights to its own citizens; and its provision of missiles to Iran and Syria, and friendship for Hamas," the text of a joint statement read. "Having endured the bitter experience of abandonment by our presumed allies during the Holocaust, we feel a particular obligation to speak out against injustice and persecution today."

Spearheading the project is Rabbi Yitz Greenberg, a former chairman of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, and Rabbi Haskel Lookstein, head of New York's Kehilath Jeshurun synagogue and the Ramaz School. It is based partially on research by The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies.

The appeal seizes on the creation of a kosher kitchen at the Olympics village to attract Jewish tourists as part of a larger strategy to deflect attention from China's human rights record.

"Jews should not be party to the whitewashing of such a regime," the statement read.

Several representatives of Judaism's major denominations and institutions are signatories, including Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union for Reform Judaism; Neil Goldstein and Richard Gordon of the American Jewish Congress; and Rabbi Joel Meyers, executive vice president of the Rabbinical Assembly, the association of Conservative rabbis.

Lookstein said the call for a boycott is limited to the Olympics and is not intended toward all dealings with China.

"I don't think there is anything wrong with people doing business with China, but the Olympics is not business, it is fun and pleasure," Lookstein said.

"They should not be able to be the center for the world's most famous sporting event, and Jews should be sensitive to that.

"I don't think people should spend their discretionary time or funds in support of an activity which serves to give legitimacy to a government which is doing some terrible things," added Lookstein.

"Are they analogous to the Nazis? No. But if they told Sudanese to stop genocide in Darfur, it would stop in a dime," he said. "Instead they are standing by while innocent blood is being shed."

Organizers of the petition say there is a lesson to be learned from the 1936 Olympics in Berlin. Shortly after the Berlin games, President Franklin D. Roosevelt told American Jewish leaders that he had been informed by visitors to Germany "that the synagogues were crowded and apparently there is nothing very wrong in the situation [of Germany's Jews] at present."

Rafael Wolff, director of the Wyman Institute, said totalitarian regimes have a record of using international events to whitewhash human rights abuses.

"Sadly, even presidents get taken in by propaganda," he said. "One hopes President Bush won't similarly fall for efforts by the Chinese government to soft-pedal their abuses today."

--------------------
The Tibet Question: Is Self-Determination, as a Principle, Absolute?

by Kim Petersen / April 29th, 2008

Were I to invoke logic, however, logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

– Spock, Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan

Progressives are grappling with the Tibet Question and how it is framed. One historical narrative depicts Tibetan people as being liberated by Chinese Communist forces from an oppressive system of feudalism run by the Lamas.1 Another historical narrative disputes this depiction. It argues, compellingly, that history should come from the mouths of the people living that history.2

One writer offered a rationale for a progressivist split on Tibet: “Tibet is a case in which the struggle for basic rights and nationhood is being carried out against a communist government, so it has brought with it a host of questions for the leftist, who naturally leans towards socialism or communism as an ideological example of a system that stands in contrast to the ‘imperialist west’.”2

The historical narrative, however, may not be the most important factor when considering the Tibet Question. In Tibet, there appear two main streams within the Tibetan resistance to Chinese domination. One stream, led by the Dalai Lama, claims to be friendly to China and desires only greater autonomy — not independence. Another stream calls for Tibetan independence. Since progressivism is guided by morally derived principles, how does this approach bode for the people of Tibet’s aspirations for self-determination?

Many progressives, human rights advocates, and opportunistic right-wing ideologues point to the principle of self-determination. In the United Nations Charter, Article 1(2) states:

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace …

This principle, as enounced in the UN Charter, leads many people to call for the independence of Tibet. They point to the principle of self-determination as if it were a sacrosanct, inviolable concept. But is the principle of self-determination an absolute? As a guiding concept, self-determination is fine, but as an absolute, inviolable principle, self-determination is flawed.

For example, do the resource rich regions of Bolivia have a right to separate from the rest of the state and horde the wealth?3 Is this what self-determination is about? Given that the Bolivians in the provinces of Santa Cruz, Beni, Pando and Tarija are predominantly of European derivation, it would be akin to according preeminent territorial rights to the descendants of colonialists. Is this what self-determination is about?

As a second example, the predominantly French-speaking province of Québec has long flirted with separation from federation with Canada. However, since the sentiment for separation varies by geographical region within Québec, anti-separatists propose a partitioning of the province should separatism ever carry the day in a referendum. Moreover, thoroughly undermining the self-determination aspirations of Québécois (mainly Francophones) is that it is based on the rejection of the self-determination of the Original Peoples of Québec! Is this what self-determination is about?

China and Tibet

I have never been to Tibet, but I lived one year in China. China is ruled by a Communist party dictatorship. It is certainly no longer a dictatorship of the proletariat. Workers’s rights, wages, and conditions of employment are abysmal.4 The situation is far from optimal, but some people argue that the Chinese are better off than previously.5

Just as Tibetans struggle, so do the bulk of China’s citizens. It is the plight of villagers and most working Chinese. Granted, the struggles differ. The Tibetan struggle is mainly for sovereignty, whereas the daily struggle for most Chinese is primarily economic. Tibetan self-determination, however, might impact upon all of these people. This presents a quandary: can the Tibet Question be legitimately considered in isolation from its impact upon other Chinese?

It must be affirmed that while the right to self-determination might not be sacrosanct, the human rights of Tibetans are inviolable. The Chinese regime must be pressured to uphold human rights, and it must be held to account for violations of human rights. The human rights of Tibetans must be respected, absolutely.

Targeting the Olympics in Support of Tibetan Sovereignty

China will hold the Summer Olympics in Beijing this year, and enormous prestige has been staked to the games. It is no wonder, then, that Tibetan sovereignists have targeted the Olympics.

The Olympics are not sacrosanct. The blood of oppressed humans must not be sacrificed for the sweat of “elite” athletes or for the frivolities of Olympic eminences. In fact, “elitist” games must rank quite low on any list of societal priorities. So the Olympic Games are, indisputably, a legitimate target for protest in support of human rights.

There is talk about western nations boycotting the Beijing Olympics. Because of corporate globalism’s economic investments in China, this boycott is highly unlikely to occur, so instead there is a push for international “leaders” to boycott the opening ceremonies.6 However, if the self-determination of Tibetans is to be advocated, then the same principle should be observed when it comes to the Olympics slated for Canada in 2010. Where are the outcries and threats of an international boycott of the Vancouver-Whistler Winter Olympics in 2010? The 2010 Olympics has been awarded to a colonial entity to host games on land unceded by the First Nations?7 No country has hosted the Olympics more than the colonized landmass of the United States, but which US Olympic games did these human rights groups ever boycott? The bias among human rights groups ultimately threatens to undermine their raison d’être.

Tibetan self-determination is predicated on factors such as history, culture, religion, distinctiveness, resistance to outside oppression, and desire to chart its own path. Tibetans do have a history — a long history. But does a long history, whatever that history may be, accord a preeminent right to self-determination? The long history also reveals that, aside from expanding its territorial realm, Tibet has been under foreign suzerainty for many centuries, including British, Chinese, and Mongolian.8 Is there a statute of limitations on aspirations for self-determination? If self-determination is a principle based in morality, then one would argue against such a limitation.

Universality of Self-determination

If Tibetan aspirations for self-determination are still valid after many centuries, one wonders about other regions where self-determination has, much more recently, been suppressed and rejected. Quickly, the Zionist annexation and occupation of historical Palestine springs to mind. Zionist Jews point to “their” Israelite ancestors, Yahweh’s promise, and a 3,000-year history to mask and excuse the undeniable racism toward the indigenous Palestinian people.9

One Israeli researcher notes that Sephardim and Ashkenazim are converts to Judaism; that is, that they are religious Jews and not ethnic Jews.10 Some Jews readily admit that the founding of the Israeli state was enabled by territorial theft.11

Elementary morality decrees that whatever condition you seek to impose upon another being, you must, first and foremost, also impose upon yourself. All nations and all peoples must be accorded equality of rights. If the western world wants to criticize China for suppressing a Tibetan independence/greater autonomy movement, then it must not be guilty of shutting its eyes to the Palestinian struggle to regain their historical land. But it is even worse than a willful blindness to the plight of Palestinians because the western world is complicit in the colonization, forced transfer, and genociding of the people in historical Palestine.

The cases of western complicity in gainsaying the sovereignty of other peoples are, regrettably, myriad. In recent times, there is the British-American expulsion of the people of the Chagos Archipelago, ruled illegal by the British High Court in 2000. The ruling has since been subverted by two Orders-in-Council preventing the Chagossians from returning home.12

The “national interests” of Britain and the US have, obviously, taken precedence over the rights of the Chagossians.

This abrogation of law harkens back to the “war criminal” president Andrew Jackson. Jackson had spearheaded the Indian Removal Act, a genocidal transfer program13 to displace the Original Peoples, leaving the land for the colonialists to settle. The Cherokee (Tsalagi) opposed Jackson. In a landmark 1832 decision, chief justice John Marshall of the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Cherokee in Worcester v. Georgia. The Cherokee Nation was ruled sovereign and protected from removal laws. Jackson, in a flippant affront to the law of the United States, dismissed Marshall’s ruling: “He has made his law. Now let him enforce it.”14

The countries of the western hemisphere, by and large, represent an affront to the principle of self-determination. Therefore, if western states, and the citizens of those states, wish to condemn China’s sovereignty over Tibet, then for such criticism to be valid, it must be applied in equal measure to the sovereignty of the US, Canada, Mexico, and to the other countries on down to Tierra del Fuego. Canada and the US exist as colonial states forged on the blood-spilling, destruction, and theft of the territory of people who have lived in Turtle Island since time immemorial.13

Indeed, at this point in history, the US and Britain (abetted by other states) are murderously occupying Iraq and Afghanistan. What is occupation, if not the denial of the self-determination aspirations of the occupied peoples?

Other countries of the western world fare little better in their respect for the principle of self-determination. Aotearoa (New Zealand) and Australia were forged from the theft of the territory of Aborigines and Māoris respectively. Elsewhere in the South Pacific, France clings to New Caledonia, Tahiti, and Wallis and Futuna. The US clings to Guam, Northern Marianas … Without turning to Britain, Africa, and the Caribbean, the point should be abundantly clear: western states are in violation of the principle of self-determination, so they are in no unbesmirched position to criticize other violators.

Does this exculpate China from censure from other states that do not violate the self-determination of its peoples? To the extent that these states refrain from criticizing the US, Canada, France, Britain, etc. it would be highly hypocritical.

Let’s suppose that there was a bellwether of states that were pure on the principle of self-determination for their own people and peoples abroad. Would that grant them legitimacy in denouncing Chinese dominion over Tibet? Yes. The same logic also applies to people who uniformly criticize all crimes of state.

Does this mean that China’s stance vis-à-vis Tibet is weakened? No.

Tibet’s Strategic Military Importance to the Defense of China

For China to relinquish Tibet would be to relinquish a key militarily geo-strategic position at the top of the world. The US has China militarily encircled. The US, through the CIA, has been funding the separatism in Tibet.15 Nonetheless, it is quite understandable that Tibetans aspiring to greater autonomy/independence have accepted such money.

Oneness is a core traditional embodiment of the Chinese consciousness. The return of Hong Kong and Macau were epochal events for Chinese nationalists, who still pine for the return of Taiwan to the Chinese fold.16 To lose Tibet, or Xinjiang, would be utterly unacceptable for the Chinese people who lost face during the years of unequal treaties and colonial occupation. Loss of face, however, is not an acceptable reason for continuing to occupy another people’s territory.

The state of Israel constantly, and risibly, cites security concerns to justify its occupation of historical Palestine. But in the case of China, security concerns appear legitimate. Are the territorial integrity and security concerns of 1.3 billion Chinese of lesser importance than the desire for self-determination among 6 million Tibetans?17

The Chinese know they are encircled. Many know of China’s not-so-long-ago history of having lost face to foreign invaders. Many know of their battles with western imperialism.18 many know that when Mikhail Gorbachev lost control of the USSR due to the economic pressures of confronting the West, the USSR fell apart leaving Russia surrounded by former-USSR satellite states. Unfettered western capitalism then precipitated the implosion of the once proud Russia,19 which was forced to fight to preserve its own unity, as separatists battled for independence in Chechnya. Many Chinese know the ages old axiom of “divide and conquer.” Many, also, know that NATO encroached into the states formerly behind the Iron Curtain, further humiliating Russia.

What, then, would Beijing expect to happen if Tibet is loosened from China? How long before separatism would strengthen in appeal to so-inclined Uighurs in Xinjiang? What would the separation of the already autonomous Tibet augur for a mainland reunification with Taiwan? How long would it be before a US military base is perched upon the Tibetan plateau?

The US has been vociferous about the appearance of another military presence in what it claims to be its sphere of influence. Did the US quietly demur to the USSR in stationing nuclear weapons in Cuba? Yet US nuclear weapons were once stationed near China — in Japan and South Korea.

Given the hypocrisy that many world states face on the principle of self-determination, one might criticize the Dalai Lama. How can the Dalai Lama court colonialist entities to support greater autonomy for Tibet? Does this undermine the legitimacy of a movement for Tibetan autonomy/independence?

Since the US is an undeniable proponent of colonialism, militarism, torture, genocide, and economic plunder abroad, and since, as already argued, the US stands guilty of far worse crimes against its Original Peoples (including stealing their territories), its imperialistic machinations in Asia must be seriously evaluated when critically contemplating China’s incorporation of Tibet.

Human rights advocates and supporters of Tibetan self-determination stand on moral quicksand if they fail to accord equivalent rights to all marginalized, expelled, and/or genocided peoples. I submit that if human rights groups want credibility, they ought to focus on the greater evils. It is US imperialism that jeopardizes Chinese security. It is the US that has surrounded China. It is the US which was deeply involved in the political and territorial separation of Taiwan from the mainland.

When US imperialism falls, other imperialisms may well fall, too. There will appear an opening for peoples previously living under the cloud of imperialist intent. Human rights groups and supporters of self-determination for Tibet should target the removal of the military threat to China to achieve the conditions favorable for greater autonomy/independence in Tibet.

A moral paradox exists under the present China-Tibet scenario: one people’s freedom must not be predicated on the denial of another people’s freedom. Vulcan logic calls, in such a case, for the needs of the many to supersede the needs of the few.20

Pax Americana and China

It is the US that menaces political ideologies and movements that its ruling class considers antithetical to it own interests. It is this threat that gives cause for maintaining Chinese control over Tibet.

There is a long history of Tibet as a part of China (including the years China was under Mongolian rule). This lengthy history predates the existence of a United States or Canada on Turtle Island, and it predates European claims on the western hemisphere.

A principled approach to the Tibet Question would be for progressives to carefully weigh the geo-political realities facing Tibetans and the Chinese, as a whole. Tibet is situated in or near China’s backyard. It is of utmost strategic importance to China (compared with Diego Garcia in the Chagos archipelago which is purely of offensive, and not defensive, US geo-strategic design).

China finds itself ringed with US military bases. Given this situation, is it realistic that it should grant further autonomy or independence to Tibet if this poses a risk to the security of the Chinese state?

Geo-politically, given the current state of Pax Americana, in which the Project for the New American Century (PNAC, predominately neoconservatives) identify China as a preeminent threat,21 greater autonomy for Tibet is a dubious proposition.

Even the UN Charter recognizes that self-determination is not an absolute principle devoid of context. Article 55 calls for “the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples” conditional upon the UN promoting:

a. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;

b. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and international cultural and educational co-operation; and

c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.

The Tyranny of Statism

Ideologically, I am opposed to statism. Borders are a form of tyranny. Borders delineate property in the name of the state. Borders divide humanity.

In an ideal world, people will be permitted freedom of movement. Human decency will demand that visitors and newcomers must be respectful of the indigenous and legitimately long-settled peoples in a region. Erasing borders should facilitate an end to geo-political conflicts and wars over human demarcations. Furthermore, people must share the resources and bounty of the world. This would go a long way to eliminating classism, racism, poverty, and famine. This would be the revolution. The solution is simple. Finding the massive will and courage to implement the solution is the sine qua non.

The Tibet Question is a straw dog. Acceding to Tibetan self-determination — a principle fraught with dangerous potentialities — does not take into account, sufficiently, the legitimate security concerns of one-fifth of the world’s population. An inordinate focus upon the self-determination desires of Tibetans plays into the hands of the PNAC cabal and their highly militarized schemes for a Pax Americana22 heralding a regressivist future. How long before neoliberalism subverts and trends to social justice in an independent Tibet? How long before US military bases and CIA listening posts are perched on the rooftop of the world?

Human Rights Are an Absolute

The state of China must be held accountable for its actions … but not in a human rights vacuum! Progressives, people of conscience, and human rights advocates must firmly support human rights for all peoples. China is a violator of human rights. It is not alone in this regard. Advocacy of human rights demands the denunciation of human rights violations everywhere with measures against the human rights abusers commensurate to the level of human rights violations.

Self-determination is not an absolutist principle. The rights of humanity as a whole are preeminent.

China should take the high road and seek dialogue and rapprochement with the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan exiles. The Dalai Lama claims that he does not seek separation.23 Insofar as the Dalai Lama is the legitimate spokesperson for a majority of Tibetans, he should be held to his word. Tibetans require respect for their culture, religion, and livelihoods. China requires security guarantees. These must be understood. Confrontation is not in China’s long-term interest, and neither is it in the exile community’s interest. Confrontation serves the interest of outside agitators.

To merely consider the Tibet Question as a struggle between a Tibetan resistance and Chinese imperialism is overly simplistic and dangerous.

In the case of Tibet, progressives, human rights advocates, and people of conscience must unequivocally oppose the totality of geo-political imperialism. As far as self-determination is legitimate, then self-determination must be universally applicable.

Human rights, on the other hand, are non-negotiable. They are the bedrock of humanity. Human rights must be respected by humans everywhere, without exception.

Human rights are a principle upon which progressives cannot waver. China must adhere to international law that protects the human rights of Tibetans. The same applies to the human rights of people in western states and states that suffer under foreign hegemony.

Progressives must oppose imperialism everywhere; they must oppose war everywhere; they must support human rights everywhere.

1. Michael Parenti, “Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth,” Dissident Voice, 27 December 2003. #
2. Joshua Michael Schrei, “A Lie Repeated: The Far Left’s Flawed History of Tibet,” Dissident Voice, 5 April 2008. # #
3. Politics In Depth, “Bolivia at the Brink of Separation,” Angus Reid Global Monitor, 3 April 2008. This secessionist push is with the alleged instigation of the US. See Benjamin Dangl, “Undermining Bolivia: A Landscape of Washington Intervention,” Dissident Voice, 22 February 2008. #
4. Kim Petersen, Capitalism’s Ugly Head in China: The Counterrevolution, Dissident Voice, 23 June 2005. #
5. See Kim Petersen, “The Broken Iron Rice Bowl,” Dissident Voice, 18 August 2003. #
6. SBS/Reuters, “Tutu urges opening ceremony boycott,” World News Australia, 28 April 2008. #
7. David O’Brien, “Vancouver OL: Our Olympics, our Tibet,” Winnipeg Free Press, 16 April 2008. See also Maya Rolbin-Ghanie, “It’s All About The Land: Native resistance to the Olympics,” The Dominion, 1 March 2008. #
8. For those who distinguish the Mongolian Qing dynasty from the Ming or other Chinese dynasties, the Chinese, generally, do not. A unifying characteristic of the Chinese people is one China. See Won-bok Rhie, Korea Unmasked: In Search of the Country, the Society and the People, (Kimyoungsa: 2002). #
9. See Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of 3000 Years (Pluto: 1995). #
10. Ofri Ilani, “Shattering a ‘national mythology’,” Haaretz 21 March 2008. #
11. Hannah Mermelstein, “This land was theirs,” Jewish Advocate, 24 April 2008. #
12. “The story of the island,” Telegraph, 12 May 2006. #
13. See David E. Stannard, American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World (Oxford University Press, 1992).” # #
14. Ian Frasier, On the Rez (Picador: 2000), 74. #
15. For reading on CIA involvement and more on imperialistic designs on China and Tibet see “Holy Terror,” The Burbank Digest, 17 April 2008. #
16. As a simple mind exercise, compare the US reaction to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (a conquered Polynesian archipelago in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, thousands of kilometers from the continental US where self-determination is denied to Hawaiians) to how the Chinese might feel about nearby Taiwan? #
17. “about Tibet,” Students for a Free Tibet. #
18. See Kim Petersen, “Chine et dragons sinophones,” in Atlas Alternatif, (Le Temps des Cerises: 2006), 303-313. #
19. Alan Woods, “Preface to ‘Russia: from real socialism to real capitalism’,” In Defense of Marxism, 28 July 2006. #
20. Vulcans are an alien race, from the science fiction series Star Trek who have devoted themselves to the mastery of logic, emotions, and a peaceful existence. #
21. “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century,” A Report of the Project for the New American Century, September 2000, 9, 14, 18, 19. #
22. See “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century,” A Report of the Project for the New American Century, September 2000. #
23. “Dalai Lama ‘not seeking separation’ from China,” CBC News, 22 April 2004. #

Kim Petersen is co-editor of Dissident Voice. He can be reached at: kim@dissidentvoice.org. Read other articles by Kim.

This article was posted on Tuesday, April 29th, 2008