Vänstern i världen om Kina och Tibet

Det har i svenska tidningar förekommit ett rad artiklar som på något sätt argumenterar för att kritiken mot Kina måste balanseras och/eller det hela Tibetfrågan är en manöver från USA:s sida. Det förstnämnda är jag inte säker på att jag håller med om, men det sistnämnda är utan tvekan sant. Bland de som skrivit i svenska media märks Jan Myrdal, en man som jag tycker diskvalificerat sig från att tycka om maoistiska diktaturer eller f.d. maoistiska diktaturer efter hans obehagliga försvar av Pol Pot. Delar av det han skriver är helt klart korrekt, men det går inte att lita på Myrdal när han skriver om gamla maoistiska länder. Därför är det inte riktigt trovärdigt när han skriver om Kina och Tibet.

Så i brist på insatta och trovärdiga svenskar när det gäller Kina får man vända sig till vänsten i andra länder odå har jag med hjälp av kamrater hittat en del intressant. Exempelvis skriver en medlem i det indiska partiet CPI-ML (Liberation) så här om USA och Tibet:

The turmoil in Tibet has been greeted by die-hard anti-China hawks with demands of boycott of the Beijing Olympics. In India, BJP and the likes of George Fernandes have raised an uproar in Parliament with their shrill anti-China hate campaign over Tibet.

The US has always used the Tibet question as part of its overall strategy of containing China and in the present instance too, it is entirely possible that Washington is looking for ways to embarrass China with a disruption of the Beijing Olympics.

The US Speaker Nancy Pelosi, appearing at a public gathering with the Dalai Lama in India, has recently said that people who failed to speak out against China and “Chinese oppression’’ would”lose all moral authority to speak on human rights’’. The storming of the Chinese Embassy in Delhi by Tibetan protesters on the same day as Pelosi’s speech was surely no coincidence. For the US, in the month of March that marks five years of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq (years that have seen the public horror and shame of Abu Gharib), to claim “moral authority’’ on human rights is brazenly outrageous. Those who support the occupation of Palestine and continue to occupy Afghanistan and Iraq surely have no right to accuse other regimes of”oppression’’ or ”occupation’’! Nationality struggles are faultlines that the US has exploited time and again to further its imperialist interests, Kosovo being a glaring example. Be it Tibet or Kashmir, the US is eager to manipulate the situation in order to strengthen its strategic foothold in Asia.

och om Kina och Tibet:

The Tibet situation must be viewed in the context of the many shifts and phases in China’s Tibet policy and in the Tibetan movement’s own priorities between 1959 and 2008. Tibet has been touched by significant economic development and by the late ’70s, China had allowed for greater accommodation of Tibetan culture, language and religion. In the wake of the Soviet collapse, however, there was a change of mood. The Dalai Lama, spurning an offer to visit China, elected instead for greater closeness with the US. With descriptions by the US Congress of Tibet as an ”occupied’’ territory coinciding with renewed outbursts in Tibet, China once more tightened its grip.

The Tibetan movement, in the course of time, has come to focus mainly on issues of autonomy rather than that of secession. The protesters may raise shouts of ”Free Tibet’’, but this slogan does not seem to find wide acceptance in the Tibetan mainstream today. Even the Dalai Lama, the internationally recognised icon of Tibet, has reiterated in the wake of the current turmoil that genuine autonomy is what the Tibetan people want.

In such circumstances China would do well to address the aspirations for autonomy through political dialogue rather than by repression and martial law. The spectacle of protesting Buddhist monks being brutalised by armed forces can hardly evade comparisons with similar scenes in military-ruled Burma and the tragic stigma of Tiananmen.

Webbsajten WSWS gör en intressant och genomtränagande analys av situationen i Kina och Tibetfrågan där de bland annat konstaterar:

The Tibet situation must be viewed in the context of the many shifts and phases in China’s Tibet policy and in the Tibetan movement’s own priorities between 1959 and 2008. Tibet has been touched by significant economic development and by the late ’70s, China had allowed for greater accommodation of Tibetan culture, language and religion. In the wake of the Soviet collapse, however, there was a change of mood. The Dalai Lama, spurning an offer to visit China, elected instead for greater closeness with the US. With descriptions by the US Congress of Tibet as an ”occupied’’ territory coinciding with renewed outbursts in Tibet, China once more tightened its grip.

The Tibetan movement, in the course of time, has come to focus mainly on issues of autonomy rather than that of secession. The protesters may raise shouts of ”Free Tibet’’, but this slogan does not seem to find wide acceptance in the Tibetan mainstream today. Even the Dalai Lama, the internationally recognised icon of Tibet, has reiterated in the wake of the current turmoil that genuine autonomy is what the Tibetan people want.

In such circumstances China would do well to address the aspirations for autonomy through political dialogue rather than by repression and martial law. The spectacle of protesting Buddhist monks being brutalised by armed forces can hardly evade comparisons with similar scenes in military-ruled Burma and the tragic stigma of Tiananmen.

och om klassfrågan bland annat detta:

Resentment over social inequality has been compounded by the chauvinist attitude of Chinese authorities. Most people regard as ridiculous the claims by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its privileged bureaucrats to represent socialism or defend the interests of working people. As a result, the regime is increasingly promoting Chinese nationalism to fill the ideological vacuum and cement the support of layers of the bourgeoisie and middle classes. This reactionary ideology is centred on pride in the old “Middle Kingdom”, which was an imperial patron to so-called “barbarians”, such as the Tibetans and other national minorities, as well as other Asian peoples like the Japanese and Koreans. In making such appeals, Chinese leaders can of course invoke the long history of the country’s own subjugation by the imperialist powers during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

Intressant?
Bloggat: Björnbrum, LOKE,
Borgarmedia: SVD1, SVD2, AB1, AB2,
Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om , , , , , , ,

Advertisements