Tibet 1
Dick Nichols' article "Let the Tibetans decide their future" (Write On #748) argues that it is irrelevant that "the Tibetan resistance army up until 1959 was funded and trained by the CIA". This statement is incorrect, as he meant to write 1969 not 1959. More importantly, however, contrary to Nichols opinion, I believe that understanding the reasons why the CIA supported the Tibetans is very significant if one wants to develop a full understanding of the corporate media's ongoing fixation on Tibet's struggle for liberation.
It is critical to note that the National Endowment for Democracy — a group that in many ways continues the CIA's longstanding covert manipulation of civil society — has in recent years been funding most of the prominent Tibetan freedom groups. The importance difference being that when the NED supports such opposition groups in Venezuela there has been an international outcry in the progressive media, but when the NED provides support to similar groups that are promoting regime change, say in Tibet or Zimbabwe, the alternative media remains silent.
I agree that "the right to self-determination applies as much to the Tibetans as to any other people", but nonetheless it is not wise to downplay or ignore the NED/CIA's influence on Tibetan affairs. Moreover this problem is aggravated when progressive media outlets let their support for liberation struggles become influenced by mainstream media coverage — which is, needless to say, actively driven by corporate and political elites.
Thus while there has been a multitude of articles written about Tibetan protests in the progressive media, there has been only very limited analyses dealing with the recent successes of progressive activists based in Nepal. However, at this present critical juncture Nepal, like Venezuela, needs our solidarity. Contrary to the Tibetan cause, which is actively supported by imperial elites, the electoral successes of the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist is vehemently opposed by groups like the NED and CIA.
For further details about the NED's activities in Tibet and Zimbabwe, see <http://michaeljamesbarker.wordpress.com>.
Michael Barker
Brisbane
Tibet II
In his critique of Dick Nichols article in support of Tibetan self-determination, Ronald Barrett (Write On #749) accuses Nichols of being "bamboozled by the verbal condemnation of China by the bourgeois media". I would suggest that it not Nichols who has been bamboozled. The Western media (and politicians) frequently offer verbal condemnation of human rights abuses in Turkey, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, for example, but this does not imply a Western agenda to dismember these countries or overthrow their regimes.
While during the 1950s and 1960s there was undoubtedly a Western agenda to overturn the Chinese revolution, which included giving material support to Tibetan independence movements, China today is integrated into the global capitalist economy and is a major destination of Western investment. As an economically significant Third World power, China is frequently used as a scapegoat by the bourgeois media on issues from global warming to unemployment. What this scapegoating ignores is that Chinese industry is subordinate to Western capital.
But this means that while it may suit Western purposes to attack China over Tibet or other human rights issues, the last thing the West would like to see is China dismembered. Western economic penetration of Tibet is happening through China, a process accelerated by the opening of the railway to Lhasa in 2006.
Barrett dismisses claims that Tibetans are oppressed as "a weird delusion". However, it is no delusion to note that ethnic Tibetans have significantly lower indicators in life expectancy and education than non-Tibetan Chinese, or that discrimination has created 80% unemployment amongst urban ethnic Tibetans.
There is obvious hypocrisy in the bourgeois media showing sympathy towards Tibetans' national aspirations, while vilifying Tamils, Basques and Palestinians as terrorists for their national aspirations. However, the left must counter this hypocrisy, and not by adopting a mirror-image stance. The struggles of all oppressed people deserve support, regardless of whether the hypocritical Western media verbally supports or vilifies them.
Tony Iltis
Sydney
Nuclear power
Dr Jim Green (Write On #748), responding to David Walters (Write On #747), claims that since duplicating nuclear power stations will only curtail emissions by 5%, there is no advantage in going nuclear to abate global warming. By the same token, then, duplicating solar, wind and other renewables — which together account for approximately 1/18 of the energy currently produced by nuclear power — will only curtail emissions by 5%/18 = 0.28%. Thus, I assume Green also dismisses the development of renewable energy sources as equally inconsequential.
More interestingly, Green puts geothermal at the top of his wish list for low emissions base load energy sources. I presume Green isn't aware that between 50% and 90% of the heat in hot rocks is the result of naturally occurring nuclear decay. That is, geothermal sites, particularly in Australia, are naturally occurring nuclear power stations. Human-created nuclear reactors use mechanically/chemically concentrated uranium to produce heat in the same way it occurs in hot rocks. The nuclear decay would happen on the ground anyway, only over a larger area, should the uranium be left untouched, but the overall process is as green and natural in a reactor as in any geothermal site. The advantage is that constructed power stations can be built wherever they are needed, sized to fit, and, unlike solar and wind, require almost no space.
Carlos Caceres
Brisbane