The media is very pleased to report about the United States' occupation of Iraq, and they never seem to tire of insinuating that it is both unpopular and illegal. However, they seem to be strangely shy of reporting on other occupations, which are both more long-standing and of a imperialistic nature. A case in point is the Associated Press story today on President Bush's meeting with the Dalai Lama, the exiled god-king of Tibet. Tibet, a historically independent kingdom, has been under a Chinese military occupation since 1951. Yet the AP chooses not to mention any of this in their report, which instead concentrates on the Chinese outrage that President Bush would meeet with the leader of an occupied state. The AP wrote in their second paragraph that,
Both Bush and members of Congress - who are presenting him with the prestigious Congressional Gold Medal on Wednesday - are stirring anger in China by honoring the Dalai Lama, the exiled spiritual leader of Tibet's Buddhists. "We solemnly demand that the U.S. cancel the extremely wrong arrangements," said Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi in Beijing. "It seriously violates the norm of international relations and seriously wounded the feelings of the Chinese people and interfered with China's internal affairs." At the White House, presidential spokesman Tony Fratto said: "We understand the concerns of the Chinese." But he also said Bush always has attended congressional award presentation ceremonies, has met with the Dalai Lama several times before and had no reason not to meet with him again.
Although was very diligent in reporting China's anger at the US agreement to receive the Dalai Lama, the AP seems much less interested in telling their readers about China's occupation of Tibet, against the wishes of many, if not most, of the Tibetans. The AP's only mention of the fact that China's military currently occupies Tibet comes in the very last paragraph, in which they write,
The Dalai Lama is immensely popular in Tibet, which China has ruled with a heavy hand since its communist-led forces invaded in 1951. He has been based in India since fleeing his Himalayan homeland in 1959 amid a failed uprising against Chinese rule.
It seems that the AP reserves its disapproval for invasions carried out by the United States in pursuit of defending itself against Islamic terror. Invasions carried out by Communist countries for purely imperialistic reassons do not merit such disapproval. On a related note, I am still waiting for the AP or any other major media organ to discuss the long-standing Syrian occupation of Lebanon in anything close to the terms of disapproval they use for talking about Iraq and/or Israel's former occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. But then to expect that wouldd be to require journalists to exercise consistency and objectivity- traits which I fear are a lost art among most current practicioners of the journalistic profession. Cross-posted on StoneHeads.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Free Tibet?
October 16, 2007 - 13:44 ET by ammo johnBut, isn't Tibet Richard Gere's thing? Is the AP not supporting a famed, intelligent, Hollywood know-it-all? That's absurd!
I always bring Tibet up to show how the liberal way works
October 16, 2007 - 14:00 ET by Dee BunkIt's been over 50 yrs and the Tibetan population has been murdered to the point of near extinction. That's how the liberal way works. Better to let ruthless dictators and terrorists to eliminate you then fight back.
And I do admire the Dalai Lama, BUT and it's a big but, it's pretty hypocritical to flee for protection under a Nuclear power while your peaceful followers get slaughtered.
Your statement makes no
October 16, 2007 - 14:39 ET by rwestYour statement makes no sense. Is the tiny nation of Tibet supposed to rise against the military superpower of China and win? The only time that's ever happened was when Afghanistan fended off the the Soviet invasion, and that was only possible with substantial American aid, and the US hasn't been too keen to send arms and train Tibetan fighters. If he went the "conservative" way (I assume that's the opposite of the "liberal way"), and fought, he and his countrymen would all be dead, and it's unlikely that anyone in the world would have even known. There is a large Tibetan diaspora in India, many of whom are not pacifists and would seek a violent resistance, but they have no international support. He's not a hypocrite, he's doing the only thing he can to keep his life and his nation. The only way he can fight is through diplomacy in exile.
rwest - no international support - right - sound familiar?
October 16, 2007 - 15:21 ET by Dee BunkLike every other case where brutal dictators squash people who use peaceful methods. There is more international support for Hammas than the Tibetan people.
Yes it is hypocritical. The non pacifists in India you speak of don't follow the Dalai Lama's teachings. It's easy to take the high road of peacemaker when you have secure protection from the thugs. Just like Rosy O'Donnell who condemns people having guns but has a bodyguard protecting her with one. The liberal elitist think they are worthy of protection, but others just need to accept their fate peacefully. It's very hypocritical.
I still don't understand
October 16, 2007 - 16:40 ET by rwestI still don't understand why he's a hypocrite because he is a pacifist and he won't go to war for his fellow Tibetans. He's not being sheltered by any military, and if China ever threatened war with India for him, they'd throw him on the next plane, train or automobile to Beijing.
Your argument is identical to the liberal nonsense: "Bush started the war, but he's not fighting in it, so he's a hypocrite". The Dalai Lama knows that if he is killed by the Chinese, the Tibetan culture and religion would be decimated, and he's doing a greater service to his people by raising awareness and campaigning for Tibetan autonomy. Bush got a lot of unjust criticism for flying all over the country on September 11th, but intelligent people knew that it was more important to preserve the American President than lose him at our lowest moment.
It's easy to take the high road of peacemaker when you have secure protection from the thugs. And it's easy to take the brave position of war president when there aren't bullets flying at your face. Both of these statements are very simplistic and misleading.
A leader that takes a path that could end in his followers' destruction that will likely not kill him is not necessarily a hypocrite.
rwest - It's not the same thing at all. Bush has never told
October 16, 2007 - 17:35 ET by Dee Bunkpeople not to defend themselves or lobbied for taking guns away from law abiding citizens. He also didn't leave the country and have us fend for ourselves. That is what all of the Dem candidates want us to do. Fend for ourselves while they have secret service protection. They have no strategy except to make concessions with the enemy at our expense.
If you are going to live by a creed that pacifism works then you shouldn't leave unless you can take your people with you and you should give up your secret service protection. He has done nothing that has worked to help the Tibetan people in over 50 years. Of course he has tried, but it's done nothing. Same with the Democrats, they have done nothing and will do nothing that will stop it. They only fuel it more and more with their concessions.
I don't want to sound like I'm real down on the Dalai Lama because I admire many of the things he has to say. I've read a couple of his books as well as some by Tibetan monks. Unlike liberals who find Bush Evil, I don't find him the least bit Evil or sinister. I just find him wrong, naive and hypocritical about the power of pacifism.
My point is that pacifism only works for the elite who can make deals for themselves. Of course leaders benefit from war, but so do their citizens if it's a free democracy trying to stop attacks. And obviously China is not going to start a nuclear war just to kill the Dahli Lama, but had he fled to a country that had no military protection they would have probably gone after him.
I know hypocrite sounds like a pretty negative and strong word and implies that I don't like him but it's not the case. I just think his philosophy is flawed in that area. China would surely do to us what they did to Tibet if we couldn't defend ourselves.
We're not 'occupying' Iraq anyway.
October 16, 2007 - 14:10 ET by mattmIs it an occupation when the duly elected government wants us to stay there to protect their fledgling democracy?
We deposed an dictator and allowed the freed people to establish their own government, which we are now allied with.
China, on the other hand, IS the dictator, conquerer and occupier. It's just too bad that the MSM can't seem to grasp the difference.
Poor monks... damn media
October 16, 2007 - 14:28 ET by Six String SpiffI have never understood why China felt it needed to occupy (violently) the very peaceful Tibet. The Chinese government is another regime that NEVER gets the scorn it deserves. The MSM saves that for it's own country. I feel really bad for the monks who have been occupied for so long. They are some of the most accepting people I know (from experience) UNLIKE these traitorous do as I say not as I do socialist scum we have in our country. The former profession known as journalism is dead in this country.
The American Revolution Continued
Spiff... It's not dead,
October 16, 2007 - 14:30 ET by Clear thinkerSpiff...
It's not dead, it's working for the enemy!
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
Why is this entry titled "AP
October 16, 2007 - 14:49 ET by rwestWhy is this entry titled "AP Ignores China's Occupation of Tibet" when it quotes two sentences from the story which discuss the occupation of Tibet? Do I need to look up ignore in the dictionary? The discussion isn't prominent, but the story isn't supposed to be a history of China-Tibetan relations, it's a update to U.S.-China relations.
I agree
October 17, 2007 - 00:51 ET by cleverpigThe fact that everyone reading this blog right now knows the general history of Chinese-Tibetan relations and the nature of the occupation means the MSM can't have completely failed to inform us. Not every story has to cover every angle of a situation in-depth.
I also object to the idea that this is a "liberal" problem. Liberals are NOT okay with the occupation of Tibet. Our government may not be willing to take the economic hit that comes from standing up to China, but the progressive community regularly organizes events to raise funds and increase awareness of Tibet's situation. It's been awhile since the last big "Free Tibet" concert, but I'm sure there are still similar events going on.
rwest and cpig no one said they didn't care
October 18, 2007 - 13:02 ET by Dee BunkIt's that they don't care as much as they do about violent dissenters and terrorists and they let themselves be lead by propagandists in other countries. There are much larger protests and harsher speaking out about America in Iraq than there ever have been about China in Tibet despite the fact that China got rid of a peaceful government and plans to occupy it forever whereas the U.S. got rid of a brutal dictator and doesn't plan on staying after democracy takes hold.
You know what the main reason for the difference in attention is? It's communist propaganda and money supporting the Iraq war protests and liberals just blindly go along and let the diversion from true enemies of freedom grab hold of them. If it were not for the communist support their protests would be just as ineffective as the Tibetan ones. Wake up.
"We solemnly demand that
October 16, 2007 - 15:22 ET by MikeB"We solemnly demand that the U.S. cancel the extremely wrong arrangements."
And, we solemnly demand the PRC p*ss off. We also demand China stop interfering with U.S. internal affairs such as whom we bestow awards upon. We also demand China stop interfering with U.S. elections and giving illegal campaign donations to the Democrat party, even though their goals are the same. We further demand that the PRC immediately withdraw from the country of Tibet.
So, there, Mr. Foreign Minister. Stuff that in your opium pipe and smoke it.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
OK, I'm having a hard time
October 16, 2007 - 17:26 ET by Col SmokeOK, I'm having a hard time following what most of the neo-cons are saying these days.
a) It's OK to piss off Red China (by the president, the head of foreign policy) over Tibet - an insignificant hell-hole in the middle of nowhere.
b) It's not OK to piss off Turkey (by a non-binding resolution of congress, nothing to do with foreign policy) over the millions of Christians they murdered in the cradle of civilization.
Neo-cons really, really need to work on their priorities. Reagan overwhelmingly supported the Armenians in their drive for recognition. Sadly Bush, and all the neo-cons, following the lead of Clinton, will always support Islamofacists over oppressed Christians. Quite sad.
a) It's OK to piss off Red
October 16, 2007 - 20:15 ET by Darune Albanea) It's OK to piss off Red China (by the president, the head of foreign
policy) over Tibet - an insignificant hell-hole in the middle of
nowhere.
-- They are already pissed at us.
b) It's not OK to piss off Turkey (by a non-binding resolution of
congress, nothing to do with foreign policy) over the millions of
Christians they murdered in the cradle of civilization.
-- We need Turkey to not go after people that have been attacking them and cause that area to fall into chaos and the dem's know that. If USA wins in Iraq then the dems are proven to be nothing more then morons who's every words are nothing more then selfserving lies.
-- Pluss congress has already done that same non-binding resolution twice befor which makes the third time a bit odd in its timing