Please Continue To Pray Peacefully As We Round You Up For Slaughter
By Ben Domenech Posted in China | Communism | Foreign Affairs | Human Rights | Tibet — Comments (55) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Now when Daniel learned that the decree had been published, he went home to his upstairs room where the windows opened toward Jerusalem. Three times a day he got down on his knees and prayed, giving thanks to his God, just as he had done before. (NAS)
I was asked by a friend once about the two bumper stickers I had on my first car when I was a teenager. One was a Catholic pro-life sticker written in Spanish - the other, a small flag of Tibet. He asked me if I was trying to get my car keyed by everyone at once, or if they would just take turns.
For me, the question still is: Why aren't conservatives leading the way for Tibetan freedom?
While it may inspire very different demographics, I still believe that these two battles speak to the very soul of American conservatism. If conservatism means anything, it means this: that we are all born with an equal claim to certain rights given to all mankind, and that these include the right to live, and live freely, regardless of whether your life is inconvenient, or another claimed to own it, and the power to determine its fate ... and the right to worship, regardless of whether the deity you serve is unpopular with the ruling authorities of your nation. The claim to the first principle gave rise to the abolitionist movement and the Republican Party; the claim to the second gave rise to the Pilgrims and the birth of America itself.
And that principle is at the heart of the conflict in Tibet today.
It doesn't matter whether or not you believe the Dalai Lama's message about the nature or theology of the divine - that is irrelevant. What matters, in the case of the recent "unrest" in Tibet - such an adorable, innocent little word these foreign beat reporters use, as if China was turning restlessly in its sleep - is that the freedom to worship in this case has not just been torn from an entire people. It is their right to exist, to direct their own paths in any meaningful way.
Read on . . .
No wonder they are willing to risk disappearing forever into the oblivion of imprisonment, willing to dare the edge of the Communist knife, to speak out, to show the world what a mockery of "peace" the Olympic torch represents as it enters Beijing.
They have few avenues for support, and fewer still for information. Only one international journalist, from The Economist, is even in Lhasa. His reports are tragic and sad, but there is an aura of inevitability to them. We all knew this had to come someday.
Given enough time, everyone tires of praying in secret.
Someone explain it all to me. Someone, please, explain why we conservatives should not advocate forcefully for a free Tibet against the People's Republic of China. Someone explain why, as conservatives, we should not strongly support those who wish only to claim the freedoms we believe are the birthright of all people.
(And no, it can't just be that all those trend-chasing ex-hippies want a free Tibet, too. For once, they're right, even if it's just another excuse for a hippie jam festival, so just be happy about it.)
Listen to the few conservatives who do recognize the significance of this issue. Listen to Rep. Dana Rohrabacher. Listen to Rep. Frank Wolf, who's been doing this for years. They've called for a boycott of the games, for a ban on diplomats using taxpayer money to travel to this Olympics, and forcefully disagreed with the recent administration decision to remove China from the human rights watchlist.
Conservatives should stand up for human rights in Tibet. We should stand up against the despot nouveau who attempt to sweep this ongoing clash under the rug. We should lead, or be prepared to make the case why the rights we have always claimed belong to all mankind are, in this case, irrelevant.
remind China and the world that this is an illegal occupation. That's all we should do. That actually goes for every where else in the world. After our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan winds down we need to reassess just what is in our strategic interest, and just exactly what things we will and will not do.
I, for one, am sick and tired of feeding, fortifying, and policing the entire world with no real help to speak of. Things are going to have to change and some nations will be asked to step up to the plate and do more.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
There are two opposing viewpoints in foreign policy, "realism" and "idealism". Ben's an idealist. GWB is an idealist. A lot of Republicans are realists.
Your idea is realist: we can't make the world be like us, and so we shouldn't try. We should only make for ourselves a nice life.
The idea that we should intervene to defend "our interests" presupposes that we know what our interests are. Ben says our interests are human, and not just economic.
There is a false dichotomy, however, between going to war with China on their turf and pretending that nothing is wrong. There are many diplomatic and economic steps we could take, most of which would hurt us more than they would hurt China.
The question is, do we believe in freedom or in building our own cozy life?
--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.
What would their motto be? "I've upped my standard of living. Now up Yours!"
"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.
We can protest any sort of bad thing we see, we can raise it up in the United Nations, but none of that makes much difference.
To think that it is somehow in our best interests to go around using force to right the worlds wrongs is self destructive and asinine.
If we really want to do that the first place we should invade is Zimbabwe, in fact we would probably have to invade and occupy all of Africa, yes the entire continent, and it would be a perpetual occupation. Otherwise we are just picking and choosing who to help and that is hardly fair is it?
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Tibet is an occupied country, invaded by China and held at gunpoint by the Chinese. Africa is occupied by themselves.
I would prefer that we took some leadership in Tibet. I don't much care what happens in Africa.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
for longer than the US has existed. The problem is not that Tibet is occupied by China. The problem is that Tibet is occupied by communist China. But that is the problem with China as a whole.
The US lost its chance of doing anything about it after WWII because we had communist sympathizers riddled throughout our government. The best we can do now is keep political pressure on China to stop being so oppressive.
China has more claim to Tibet than the US has to California or Texas. Maybe we should give them an option to swap. We take Tibet and give them California. California is much more idealogically aligned with China than the US anyway.
One can accept a form of neoclassical realism from the analytical perspective, concerning the behavior of states, without necessarily accepting it as a positive good for humanity.
In truth, I subscribe to most of what Randall Schweller has to say about state behavior. But that doesn't mean I believe we ought to ignore our principles in cases where the challenge is as clear cut as this. That does make me an idealist, yes ... but I don't believe states behave that way as a rule.
I don't subscribe to the point of view, almost a world view, that one must see foreign policy solely in idealistic terms to be an idealist. That is, I wasn't calling you a theoretician who could only see idealism in the world. Rather, one can understand realism and idealism and be an idealist, as I would in fact describe myself. In labeling you an idealist, I was considering your advocacy of our direct nasal insertion in matters which don't concern us directly, but which open us to the twins hypocrisy and tu quoque if we fail at least to notice.
Nor do I believe that (the advocacy of) realism is evil or wrong, merely that it fails to encompass our highest potential, unless our interests are defined in terms of all of our ideals, rather than merely our ideal of prosperity and our desire for stability, as is typically the case.
--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.
Students for a Free Tibet. I wasn't political at the time, but looking back it was mostly lefties. Happy to see this post.
I remember being quite saddened when I watched the Olympics announce they would go to China despite their repressive record in Tibet and elsewhere. At least this is getting Tibet more coverage than it seen in a while.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
column back in 2000.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NGE3NWMwYjVkMmYxMWRjZGY3OWZmYmEyNzF...
I think there are many more conservatives who share your feelings than there are liberals.
Americans may be reluctant to use force except for our own essential interests, but we also do not like to sit by idly while other peoples invent new forms of barbarism.
As written above, the United States should remind China that as an occupier, it has Geneva Convention obligations in Tibet, but nothing more than that. It is not in our national interest to boycott Olympic Games or do anything else that would lead to long term conflict with another Great Power. What we should do is prudently build up our naval and air power in the Pacific Theater to face all possible contingencies that China could throw at us and Japan.
We have gone into the world in an attempt to set things right and improve our national security. We have put 30 billion dollars into solving the AIDs crisis in Africa and revamped the whole Foreign Aid apparatus to make it more responsive to people. We have forgiven loan after loan. All this has gotten us is a pat on the back from Bono and Bob Geldof. We continue to remain a part of a NATO alliance that serves to support European welfare states and populations who share two characteristics: casual anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism.
However, serious Great Powers finish what they have begun and we must finish what he have started in Iraq before we bring our forces home from the Middle East. Then we must come home, and pursue a balance of power strategy in that part of the world.
Once we are done with Iraq, it will be long past time to return to the wisdom of General Washington's Farewell Address. Less attention paid to the affairs of others, more attention paid at home. I think more and more Republicans actually get that in their bones, because we actually have the Neutrality Gene in our party. The Democrats never will, because their party gave birth to Wilsonianism, and Barack will never actually let this go.
We have received nothing but opprobrium for all of our efforts to try to do good in the world. It is long past time that we pursued a foreign policy of strict national interest, backed up by our atomic arsenal and a strong navy and air force. Morality has no place here. Neither does Richard Gere.
Tibet is none of our business. Let it go.
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill
You made some really good points. I do not agree with the Africa stuff, we have saved a lot of lives and have gained a lot of goodwill. I think Kenya is now more pro American than Britain.
I agree we can't go off half cocked with China at this point. The world economy and the ours is pretty fragile lately. I don't think boycotting the Olympics will help Tibet too much. Of course we should pressure China and support freedom, but losing our minds and cutting off our nose to spite our face would not be prudent.
I do think we need to think more about how much we want to spend abroad. We should be very careful about getting into more conflicts. OTOH, realpolitik says we can not shutter the country up. There are threats to trade, threats to oil supply, and on and on that we MUST protect, George Washington or not.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
economic pressure, in the same way that Reagan used the moral force of the United States in condemning the Soviet Union as an "evil empire."
We don't necessarily need to be as direct as Reagan was. We're not in that kind of contest. But we would be disarming ourselves to a certain extent if we relied solely on building up our military (which I absolutely favor) without speaking strongly against Chinese oppression.
Speaking in this way can help unite Americans, encourage Chinese dissenters and reformists, and rally other nations who oppose Chinese expansionism.
Above all, it helps clarify what is at stake so we can all think about China properly rather than ignoring China's true nature because it's easier in the short-term.
the US was so very, very hostile to the USSR and so very, very servile to China.
One was an evil empire to be crushed at every opportunity. The other has been coddled and persuaded to join the great capitalist adventure but not persuaded to abate it's similarities to the original evil empire.
The answer lies, I believe in the very economic freedom we practice. We let the dream of profitable trade with China become the only reason for letting China be. Then, once China was firmly entrenched as a vital cog in the machine of our economic fortunes, we could no longer afford to even try to change them, by persuasion or force.
I also think we've always been just a little bit more scared of them than we ever were of the Soviets. At least the Soviets were somewhat western in their manner, but the Oriental has always been just a little bit intimidating to an
Occidental because the cultures are so divergent. Generalization, yes, but true on many levels nonetheless. Since we don't understand them, we can never be sure just what their reaction to our actions will be.
Therefore, our leaders are not going to snub the Chinese government with a boycott, as we did the Soviets. Not because it would be "political", but because we don't want to get the dragon angry with us. Who knows what it would do?
The same holds true for our stance overall on Tibet. We were comfortable in aiding Afghanistan, but that was against the USSR. Would we really want to do battle with the Chinese again?
Do I want to give up my conveniences here, manufactured for me by Chinese workers, and available cheap at Walmart?
The answer for most of the country I would guess is "No."
"Government of the people, by the people, for the people."
A. Lincoln
who has been on the right side of this one her whole career.
--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.
Did she speak up when HRC went to China for their 'women's rights conference?'
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
Well certainly a chic position, it's one of the few where she is consistently in the right.
It highlights our (conservatives) internal conflicts when dealing with China. On the one hand we know China is a communist state that doesn't have our best interests at heart. On the other hand we know they are the largest potential market for the growth of American goods and companies. Principles v. Greed. Greed is winning.
On the one hand we know they abuse human rights, particularly when it comes to religion, protests and civil liberties. On the other hand we are sort of afraid of them and don't actually want to get into a large conflict. Principles v. Fear. Fear is winning.
On the one hand we know they are a state sponsor of cyber attacks, they have a burgeoning military, they hate Japan and will most likely invade Taiwan at some point. On the other hand they own Billions of dollars in American investments. Principles v. Pragmatism (realism) - Pragmatism is winning.
Thus we are American conservatives. Home of the Greedy, the Fearful and the Realistic.
*sigh*
I'll tell you the one reason the right doesn't do anything about Tibet: There's nothing we CAN do about Tibet.
Economic sanctions would only tax Americans, cutting off our own noses without actually achieving freedom for the Tibetans.
I'm sure if you could point to effective measures to fight for freedom for Tibet, we'd back it, the same way we bacck freedom for Iraqis.
The difference between us and the left is that we don't go for that symbolic garbage. It has nothing to do with "greedy," so on that you're completely wrong.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
and that taking a stand on principles when you have no chance to win is "symbolism" -- The Alamo was symbolism, Thermopylae was symbolism, The cross of Christ was symbolism.
I argue that symbolism has value. If we make pragmatism our core value then we have already lost our principles.
Our symbolic acts won't achieve anything.
If we want to keep China in check, I say we need to keep a carrier fleet near the straits as much as possible. That's substance I can back.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
I don't think that symbolism is necessarily without value.
In fact you exactly prove the point of my post. You state: "Economic sanctions would only tax Americans, cutting off our own noses without actually achieving freedom for the Tibetans" -- you choose pragmatism over principle. I don't fault you for it. We all have to balance the two. However it would be my view that in some instances we must choose the inverse; principle over pragmatism and this is one of those instances.
At some point economics has to be weighed against human value (principles) if we consistently choose economic gain then I merely state the facts that in a contest of Greed v. Principles. = greed wins.
You claim I balance against principle here, but I deny that there would be any principle at stake in the matter of choosing to tax Americans who buy Chinese-made goods. How is there any principle involved?
If we had a way of taxing the Chinese specially, I'd be all for that. But tariffs and embargoes only harm the freedoms of Americans, ironically limiting American freedom in the name of enhancing Tibetan freedom. I reject the notion that such acts are principled.
They remind me more of a diary we had h ere recently, which claimed that a resolution in the US Congress passed in favor of Israel was a great victory for Israelis the day it was passed. It's pure wishful thinking that our shuffling papers beings freedom to others.
No, trade doesn't influence freedom in any way. There's no evidence either way. Embargoes haven't saved Cuba from tyranny, nor has trade saved China from tyranny. Neither way matters at all.
Only guns secure freedom, and I'm all in favor of that. So cut the socialist talking points.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
between two extremes: Either on the one hand do nothing. On the other hand use our "guns" to go over and knock some sense into the bad guys. I reject your desire to cast the question as a choice between these two poles.
To continue your use of Cuba as an example. In your view we should have either attacked them. Or left them alone without any economic sanctions?
Doesn't it seem that sometimes there must be a middle ground?
Doesn't it seem that you may not appreciate nor understand how creating an economically weakened Cuba has benefited us rather than allowing a communist country to flourish economically?
Are you trying to say that all trade sanctions are a bad idea because they never work?
An Neil, I like you, (even if you banned me once before :P) but I'm hardly spewing socialist talking points.
in the battle against Soviet domination.
But, as we found out after the Soviet Union fell, our verbal support for the dissidents was of very great importance to them.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
We need to step up militarily if we are going to seriously put some pressure on the Chinese. Although I will say, there is no point in putting up the military pressure if we are going to keep feeding the dragon economically. We cannot do one without the other. How can we win militarily without economic pressure as well?
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.Let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."-Barry Goldwater
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
i agree that the defense budget did more - much more - and this will be the same in regard to china as well
but that's not the point
Despite my newfound libertarianism purging me of my nannystatism. We must do something about the Chinese, I think both economically and militarily. We have to reduce the dependence we have on Chinese labor and goods, because now we are in the position of sitting idly in the face of gross human rights violations because economic sanctions, as Neil says, would hurt us much more than they are going to hurt the Chinese. To me, appeasement of Chinese human rights abuses is as bad as the appeasement of Hitler, which we should have never let the Germans get away with. Now as China grows larger economically, not to mention the huge military build up and aiding and abetting our enemies(where do you think Iran is getting all of those weapons), should we simply turn the other cheek and do nothing. I say no, because I believe in American exceptionalism, and I believe in my tagline. I say war with the Chinese a pre emptive strike, instead of allowing themto continue to nip at our heels while they patiently wait to be the world's great and only superpower. Our militray might is still greater than theirs, and I think that sometimes economically you may have to suffer in the pursuit of justice against an Evil Empire.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.Let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."-Barry Goldwater
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
We have to find some way to drastically reduce our financial dependence on the Chinese. While I am not in favor of pre-emptive war with China, I would like to see us strengthen our naval and air power in the Pacific. There are certain ways we can put some pressure on them short of war.
They can be the balance against China in their own neck of the woods.
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
Japan's populace is highly favorable to pacifism yet, though, and the LDP has to be in coalition with a pacifist party to keep control of the lower house of the Diet from the Democrats.
And yeah, their Democrats are like our Democrats, only they hate Japan instead of hating America.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
This is nothing new. China's human rights record in abysmal, and we have failed to deal meaningfully with it because of our economic interests. Tibet or no Tibet, Darfur or no Darfur, China's policies have long trampled on the rights of individuals who have the same claim to human rights as the rest of us. From kangaroo courts to the One Child Policy, China has made a mockery of human rights. Even so, if you really wanted to make the Olympics an issue, you should've done it before China was awarded the Games. Boycotting serves only to punish the athletes who have trained their whole lives to participate in them.
If you want to get serious about their human rights record, advocate a trade embargo. Ban all imports from China. It's make a much more significant difference. Now, if you're willing to take the economic hit with the rest of us, fair play, but stop advocating ways of dealing with China that only punish a select few.
your title applied specifically to that. i thought you were making a broader point about how it's too late to do anything to call out china for its oppression and human rights abuses.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
Unless you mean deprive them of taxpayer subsidies to help them create fascist propaganda, then yes.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
for either side. You're opposed to federal funding for the USOC and I can respect that. I'm not sure that I agree with it, but what I will say is that pulling out of the Olympics at this point is nothing more than grandstanding. China's abysmal record on human rights extends far beyond Tibet and was well known long before China was awarded the Games. Pulling out now is nothing more than a show and primarily punishes the athletes who have spent their lives training to compete in the Games. To be sure, I fully agree that China should never have been awarded the Games, but if those in government were serious about their record on human rights, they'd have been talking about a boycott before China was awarded the Games, not a few months before the torch is lit.
God forgive me for agreeing with the French, but if a boycott is to take place, it should be by diplomats and of the Opening Ceremonies, not of the Games themselves. Right now, the best option is for the President not to attend the OC, for the athletes to route the hosts in the medal count, and for us to explore alternative and more effective means of dealing with the oppressive Chinese government. And if you want to continue pushing for the defunding of the USOC, that's fair enough, but I think you should do so at a time when a transition to an alternative source of funding could take place. To be clear, I'm not saying you don't have the right to talk about it now, but I do think the timing is wrong.
the Olympics have never, ever NOT been totally about politics.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
I'm just saying that every effort should be made to prevent the intrusion of politics on the Games. Sadly, the Olympics will never be entirely independent of politics, but that doesn't mean that any such intrusions should simply be accepted. The Olympics should transcend politics and be at least one opportunity to show that there actually is something that people from around the world can do as one without killing each other. Yes, I know, that sounds like hippie mumbo jumbo, but what, in this case, is wrong with it? Yes, wars and threats thereof are sometimes necessary, but can't we, collectively, be better than that for a couple of weeks every two years?
When you represent a country for the honor of having your flag raised on top and your country's anthem played, that's pure geopolitics, sorry.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
Countries are about people, not about governments. It so happens that governments are instuted to secure the God-given rights of those who happen to reside within its borders, but the greatness of any country lies within its citizens, not within its government. To that extent, it's really about people, not about governments. It's supposed to be (even if it sometimes fails) social, not political.
see:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080325/ap_on_sp_ol/oly_torch_lighting
You can tell Chirac is no longer in power. Vive Sarko!
You beat me to the punch--he's handling this very well. Not saying he will or he won't but letting the Chinese know all the options are on the table. Dana Perino, take note!
Boycott the Opening Ceremony, win a ton of medals, then skedaddle prior to the Closing Ceremony.
(And make no mistake - we'll do very well medal-wise this year, I believe.)
The athletes aren't permitted to make any type of protest during the Games, nor should they be prohibitted from participating in the Ceremonies. What Sarkozy is saying is that he might not attend the Ceremonies, which would be an appropriate slap in the face to China. I would encourage President Bush to make the same decision regardless of Tibet because China's human rights record well beyond Tibet is indefensible.. The athletes, though, earned the right to be there and should participate if it does not interfere with their training.
Red China is already a hostile enemy of America. They are expansionist and imperialist; they want to purge American influence to expand their own.
They may not be a direct military threat, but that is what makes them so dangerous: instead of being an overt threat they simply undermine America and position themselves into positions of power. Americans will react against a direct attack (e.g. 9/11) but won't if the threat is indirect (e.g. with Red China). I would go so far as to say that Red China is a bigger long term threat to America then Al Queda or other such groups...in large part because the circuitous method of the Red Chinese is more effective and less likely to evoke a response from America.
The best foreign policy decision of Bush's presidency has been strengthening ties with India. That counterweight to Red China will help keep ChiCom's machinations from focusing in on the "pwnage" of America.
Red China's policy towards America reminds me of this passage from "Dune Messiah":
“Here lies a toppled god–
His fall was not a small one.
We did but build his pedestal,
A narrow and a tall one.”
My money is one the invasion of Taiwan six to nine months after the closing ceremony.
John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course
Things are back to non-separatist normal over there
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
we won't have to worry about invasion for awhile. With the KMT retaking the presidency, the government policy will be a lot more stable.
Chen gained his power base from Taiwanese dissatisfied with the KMT. After flirting with independence, most people in Taiwan realized economic stability is more important than poking at the dragon on the other side of the strait.
Taiwan is politically independent now. China has no influence on how Taiwan runs. But their economy is heavily tied to China now. Taiwan has provided China with a large number of savvy business managers that help them relate to the outside world. China has benefited from that, and so has Taiwan.
I don't think China or Taiwan have any desire to rock the boat, unless China becomes unstable, or Taiwan begins poking the dragon again.
No conservative should ever oppose freedom for Tibet. But should America forcefully advocate independence for Tibet while we are at war with Global Jihad? Americans believe in freedom and democracy, but I lean towards the view that we should intervene when those principles match our vital interests, as in Iraq, or our support will successfully defend their freedom, as in Taiwan, but we should be very cautious otherwise.
I am open to being convinced, as I am not an expert on Tibet, but I wonder why we should risk making a long-term enemy of a rising China when the freedom of people in many other parts of the world is just as valuable but we do not liberate them. In Iraq the difference is national security and terrorism. What is the difference in Tibet?