Elaine Meinel Supkis
Even as globalization and the imperial overreach of the US/NATO empire violently impose planetary rule, the US and Europe endorse, support and protect ethnic/religious cleansing and tribal warfare. They do this for very cynical reasons: divide and conquer. Controlling thousands of ethnic enclaves that hate each other but accept a tiny minority of ruling elites to run things, is the ideal situation as far as this reincarnation of earlier European empires is concerned. But this is also backfiring. The same forces being encouraged by the ruling elites to control the 'peasants' is catching fire at the very heart in this huge imperial conglomerate. This is all connected with the concept of 'free trade' and 'international banking'. There is a cultural war brewing. And it is very explosive.
"There is evidence the Chinese people in Tibet are increasing month by month," the Tibetan spiritual leader told reporters in a Saturday news conference.
He says that in Lhasa, the region's ancient capital, there are now 100,000 Tibetans but twice as many outsiders. The vast majority of those are Han Chinese, the country's ethnic majority.
The Dalai Lama's comments come as diplomats were preparing to leave the Tibetan capital after a quick overnight visit, the latest move by China to show it is in control of the region after deadly anti-government protests more than two weeks ago.
At last, the Dalai Lama admits the riots were not about the Chinese government oppressing the Tibetans. It was all about ethnic cleansing. For many centuries, the Tibetan people lived in this backwater that was no longer part of world trade or commerce with other cultures. In 1200 AD, the Mongolian hordes swept into Tibet and killed virtually everyone. They then established headquarters there, they like isolated postings that are at the intersection of major trade routes. The Silk Road was very important back when sailing was dangerous and uncertain. The movement of silks and fine wares from China to Europe enriched the rulers of Tibet. But then it all fell totally apart, quite suddenly.
Once ships could sail around Africa, they established a direct route to the eastern shores of China which is where all the industry was. Within a few generations, the more expensive Silk Road commerce collapsed. The Han Chinese could do direct trade with their European customers. From 1500 AD onwards, Tibet fell into tremendous poverty. The only profits to be made, for the most part, was from exploiting the peasants and enslaving them. Vicious internecine religious battles raged. Time flew past Tibet that stayed frozen in the past. The kingdom turned violently inwards just like the Japanese did during the same time. Both ran cruel social systems that brutalized the peasants who lived in terrible poverty. These various 'hermit kingdoms' that were now cut out of world commerce, all stagnated. And then the doors were pried open by the European Powers.
Japan reacted the swiftest: embracing the entire system of technology, learning and combat, the Japanese surged forwards at astonishing speed. Tibet, on the other hand, continued the habit of driving out or killing any travelers who stumbled across their prison community.
Over the years, outsiders managed to come in. Sniffing around the edges, the players of the Great Game scoped out Tibet to see if it had any value. The Manchu rulers let the Europeans know that Tibet was part of the Chinese Empire. But the European powers were out to destroy the Chinese Empire so they nibbled at the edges as well as directly attacking the heart of the empire. After the looting of Beijing, they turned their energy towards finding some use for Tibet. The difficulties of transportation held this process back.
It wasn't until modern trucks could move things swiftly, that anyone could conquer Tibet. The Chinese learned difficult road building skills fighting the Japanese and each other during the first half of the 20th Century. Using this, they built roads into Tibet. My parents were operating often on the borders of Tibet during the 1950s and onwards. They talked about the dizzy switchback roads and driving in a jeep 'held together by bubble gum plugging leaks in the gas tank and chicken wire'. Communications systems were virtually nonexistent back then. They used short wave radios. And when they entered Sikkim, it was one of the first times Westerners were allowed as guests into the kingdom.
The terrible conditions they found in the Himalayans was stark. Simple first aid was virtually unknown. The rulers of these kingdoms lived in palaces with many slaves and servants but had virtually no social systems. And the length of life for the peasants was short and brutal.
Today, we see the media pushing this story about the monks of Tibet fighting for freedom. But they are no more fighting for freedom than the monks of Japan when they did suicide rushes at armies as they tried to stop political change there. Like in all religious dictatorships, they have their economic needs. Like the Vatican, once trying to rule all Christians, they use the sword to gain economic rights. The Chinese government, under Mao, did attack all religions just like in Russia, the communists tried to break the power of the Orthodox Church. But as time passed, the state recognized the utility of working with religious leaders.
There is a great deal of tension at the top of the communist hierarchy over the topic of religion. The Chinese have a longer tradition of religious liberalism and skepticism than the west. The leaders are nervous about religious divisions tearing apart the empire. So they vacillate between encouraging and suppressing religious leaders. The Dalai Lama was removed from Tibet when the Chinese invaded. My parents knew him since he was a young man, of course. Since he went into exile into northern India and Nepal, he brought with himself a large community which are, of course, colonialists. Who were protected instantly by the CIA. Ahem. And given funds and assistance from the CIA. The CIA loves to play religious/ethnic politics. They picked this up from the British.
So the Dalai Lama became a political tool of the West. The West wishes to take over Tibet and use it to control the raging warrior tribes to the west of Tibet and also constrain the Chinese Empire and threaten it by probably parking missiles and other military things deep inside Tibet. Of course, the Chinese cannot allow this. It would be insane. So the pretense that we are merely 'freeing' Tibet is cover for the long-running CIA game of MILITARIZING Tibet.
Most, if not all, of the protesters were ethnic Tibetans. More than 20,000 ethnic Tibetans live in Nepal, where many have sought refuge after fleeing their Himalayan homeland following a failed uprising against Chinese rule in 1959.
Nepal considers Tibet a part of China and does not allow exiled Tibetans to organise anti-China protests.
I will note here that the media has used pictures and films of Nepalese police actions and used them to show 'Chinese' suppressions. But the fact is, the Tibetans are destabilizing Nepal just as they claim the Han are destabilizing Tibet. They presume, like so many other ethnic cleansers, THEY may settle in the US, England or India or wherever they wish but NO ONE may do likewise in their own home base. This concept seems nearly universal with all ethnic cleansers. It is their hallmark, I might add. If the Dalai Lama wishes to have more Tibetans, he should encourage the exiles to return. Only they are quite comfortable where they now are. Indeed, the flow of people from China and Tibet is greater than the flow of Han into Tibet, I dare say. Being sensible, most people tend to want to go where there is economic opportunity. Within the Buddhist community, the leaders know where the gold is: in the West, not in Asia.
Three blasts hit the mosque in Biratnagar, 220 kilometres (137 miles) south-east of Kathmandu, heightening tensions in the volatile region ahead of key elections next month.
"Three small bombs went off inside the mosque killing two people," senior police officer Bidhyananda Majhi told AFP by telephone.
"Muslim people started to come into the street and attacked vehicles so we have imposed a curfew to avoid communal violence," he added.
At least 200 people have been killed in Nepal's southern plains in ethnic and communal unrest that began after the country's former rebel Maoists and government made a landmark peace deal in late 2006.
In February, political parties representing the residents of the southern region -- known as Mahadhesis -- imposed a crippling two-week general strike that saw the landlocked country's capital starved of essential supplies.
Residents of impoverished Nepal's southern belt say they have long been excluded from Kathmandu's corridors of power and want increased representation in the government and army.
Of course, the solution we always propose in these cases is break up of a nation. A minority is unhappy? Then they should disunite. The US fought its bloodiest war to prevent disunion. But we ignore this. Encouraged by US CIA support of all ethnic cleansing and breaking up of nations, many religious or tribal groups are pushing increasingly for just that. But this policy of ours has a bad side effect: the US itself sits on an ethnic/religious volcano! Many religions here hate each other and itch to tear this nation apart and have 'ethnics only' sub-empires. The collapse of liberal thought is part of this. The denunciation of people who support a-religious social systems continues here in America. People running for President must placate, help and justify various religious prejudices and powers.
A US warplane strafed a house in Basra killing eight civilians, including two women and a child, Iraqi police said yesterday. The house was in the city's Hananiyah district, which is a stronghold of the Mehdi Army militia of the Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
British forces became directly involved in the battle yesterday after artillery in the British headquarters at Basra airport fired on a mortar crew in the city. Previously, the British Army had limited itself to providing logistical and air support for the assault on the militia.
Last night, an indefinite round-the-clock curfew was imposed by Baghdad's military command in response to the latest skirmishes. "To defeat the terrorist groups, the outlaws and the criminal gangs, and to preserve the souls of our citizens, we extended the curfew in Baghdad indefinitely for people, cars and motorcycles," said a statement from the Iraqi security forces.
The internal battles ripping up Iraq continue. The US encouraged this when Iraq was ruled by Saddam. Then, when we took over just like we intend to take over Tibet, we wanted it to stop. But just like in the Himalayan communities, they can't and won't stop. Just as the end of British rule of India led to the deaths of millions in religious/race/ethnic strife, so it is in the Middle East. The US is unable to be an disinterested cop patrolling hostile communities. We take sides. And then switch sides. And this whipsawing makes things worse.
Sadr's game here is an attempt at being both a nationalist as well as a religious leader. He is not being allowed the first role due to the US empire refusing to allow Iraq to be a nation and he is in conflict with other religious leaders who are cooperating with the US imperialists. This is very much like Tibet, incidentally. Only much more violently.
"We want the Iraqi people to stop this bloodshed and maintain Iraq's independence and stability," al-Sadr said in a statement released on Sunday.
"For that we have decided to withdraw [al-Sadr's Mahdi Army] from the streets of Basra and all other provinces."
At least 270 people have reportedly died since an Iraqi military crackdown in Basra sparked fighting across the country.
In an exclusive interview with Al Jazeera on Saturday, al-Sadr called on the Arab League, the Organisation of the Islamic Conference and the United Nations to recognise "the Iraqi resistance".
"I appeal to these parties to add legitimacy to the resistance and to stand by, not against, the Iraqi people because the Iraqi people need Arabs as much as they need any other person," he said.
"The occupation is trying to divide Sunnis and Shias. It is trying to drive a wedge between Sadris and the Sunnis. I love the Sunnis. I am a Shia, but we are all Iraqis.
"Iraq is still under occupation and the United States' popularity is reducing every day and every minute in Iraq.
"I call, through Al Jazeera, for the departure of the occupying troops from Iraq as soon as possible."
His nationalist call for sovereignty will be ignored by the other players. They all want to see if they can manipulate the US into supporting a dictatorship just as England and the US supported previous dictators. Using the US troops as the boogey man is most useful, too. They can claim they are victims of the cruel invaders while at the same time, looting their own country which isn't a country at all. Various ethnic groups will vie for favors from the empire and consolidate power at the expense of the American invaders. Sadr's home-grown self support system is endangering this looting operation.
Mr Sadr told al-Jazeera TV yesterday that Arab leaders meeting in Damascus should support the "resistance" to US occupation. The leader of the most powerful political movement in Iraq draws his support from the Shia poor, while his rival, the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC), is supported by Shia clerics, merchants and property owners. The Sadrists-SIIC rivalry is behind the timing of Mr Maliki's Basra assault. Though he said it was aimed at all militias and illegal armed movements, the attack has only been against the Mehdi Army and not against the Fadhila party and the SIIC, which both control parts of the city. The SIIC is now the main support behind Mr Maliki.
The timing of this week's attack may also be explained by the decision this month, at the prompting of US Vice-President Dick Cheney, on a visit to Baghdad, to hold provincial elections. The US aim was to allow the Sunnis, who boycotted the last polls in January 2005, to win control of their provinces. But elections also threatened the SIIC's grip on councils in southern Iraq because the party has become increasingly unpopular and the Sadrists were expected to win at the polls.
Sadr will be suppressed like all popular leaders in the Muslim world. The US supports the suppression of peasants all over the planet...except in China and Russia! There, they support popular uprisings. This pick and choose technique is classic imperialism and is taught in our highest universities where the people who intend to run this empire are educated. Oddly enough, China is the main supporter of state sovereignty. Or rather, this is the sane thing for them to do. The US supports dissolving states and replacing them with shattered, hostile enclaves that need US military power to communicate with the outside world.
The hermit kingdom of Saudi Arabia has withdrawn from interfacing with fellow Muslims at this summit that isn't a summit. They fear open borders and democracy. They are quite content living under the wing of the Empire which enforces and protects their tribal/ethnic cleansed kingdom. They are troubled by all the aliens they have brought in as semi-slaves or conduits with the outside world. But they can spend all their energy on controlling these people since the US empire protects THEM. They fear, above all, the peasants and other natives who teem below in the slums and streets of Arab nations. They do not want sovereignty, they want to rule as despots, not lead nations. In this, they have signed their death warrants. They will eventually be dragged down as soon as the US empire goes bankrupt.
I have no idea anymore, what the rulers of Saudi Arabia are thinking. If they think at all at this point! Certainly, by giving up leadership, they have simply put themselves into deeper jeopardy. For this is exactly what Osama Bin Laden predicted they would do! And as they withdraw, they lose legitimacy. Hamas has picked up the mantle of legitimacy and is gaining ground by the day just as Sadr's popularity is growing.
"Israel is continuing its aggression, its occupation, the construction of settlements and the Judaisation of Jersualem," Abbas told the opening session of the Arab summit in Damascus.
"The solution which Israel is designing consists of a group of cantons on a land separated by settlements, the separation wall and roadblocks," he said.
"This type of solution only reinforces the occupation and colonisation and is aimed at preventing the creation of a independent Palestinian state," Abbas added.
The Zionists go to great lengths to insure gridlock. This is because gridlock gives them time to 'make facts on the ground' which is fancy talk for 'steal everything they want and then some.' The desire to do the sort of ethnic cleansing the Han are being accused of is very great. The Jews want to flood Palestine with Jews and thus, drive out the natives. Unfortunately, this scheme has a flaw: the Palestinians retaliated by having many children. The Irish did this to the British colonizers of Ireland, for example. They multiplied. The British fixed this by eliminating a third of the population by forcing them to emigrate or starve to death. And I know that the invaders of Palestine know their history very well. The Nazis had to be openly vicious about this sort of ethnic cleansing. But the British did it in a more passive way. When the potato harvest failed, they let everyone die. Simple as that.
Anyway, if there is some way of preventing the Palestinians getting anything, the Isreali Jewish negotiators will latch onto this. Note how the land seizures and barriers are being increased and strengthened. If any are reduced, they pop up double in number, elsewhere. This game looks cute to the negotiators who are not honest. But it is very bad for the Jewish people who are being viewed as cruel and manipulative. A stereotype of anti-semitism. But fixing this stereotype by acting exactly like it isn't going to end anti-semitism. And anyone talking about all this is instantly accused of anti-semitism! But I will say it anyway.
The first, U.S.-backed talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority aimed at creating a Palestinian state, have been knocked off course by violence in Gaza City and mutual accusations of broken promises.
The second, negotiations mediated by Egypt between Israel and Hamas that are geared toward ending the Gaza attacks, began in earnest only this month but is already eliciting deep skepticism from both sides.
And the third, efforts to reconcile Hamas with the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority, could jeopardize the other two if they succeed, although that appears unlikely.
The closest thing to progress in any of the talks came in the past week when representatives of Fatah and Hamas announced in the Yemeni capital, Sanaa, that they had negotiated terms for holding more negotiations. The next day, however, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas disavowed the agreement, and his representative in Sanaa acknowledged that he had signed the deal by mistake.
The very fact that Abbas and his allies are considering a compromise with Hamas reflects their disenchantment with the offers they are getting from Israel, according to Menachem Klein, a political science professor at Israel's Bar-Ilan University.
As part of the peace process, Israel was supposed to take down the obstructions, eliminate illegal settler outposts and stop construction of new settlements. None of that has happened, a fact that rankles Palestinian Authority officials who are looking for goodwill gestures that will help convince a disenchanted Palestinian public that talk -- not violence -- pays off.
"The model in the West Bank is not working. If it is, somebody please tell me, because I need to tell the people," Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian Authority prime minister, said in an interview in his Ramallah office. "It's critical that there's progress to take us out of the corner we're in."
Abbas is already viewed as a clown. Signing a contract and then disavowing it probably brought many a bitter snark in Palestine today. The fact that he has gained virtually nothing in all the time he has ruled Palestine [except for Gaza] as a dictator placed there by the US and Israel cements his place in history next to Quisling. In Arab lands, I'm sure that people doing this sort of betrayal will be called 'Abbas'. Fayyad is a failure. The Palestinian people know that there is no other road but violence. They are at war. Just as the Tibetans feel they are at war and violence is the only answer. The West agrees! Natives being invaded by alien colonialists have a right to revolt! And we should boycott nations supporting the invasion of native lands...hahaha. And of course, the good old business of total hypocrisy raises its ugly horned head. The PLO is in a corner. Not Hamas. Hamas ranges about in the streets. As the Israeli Jews try to kill them off, their ranks swell and their strength grows. For they are warriors doing battle, not Quislings destroying their own people. They, like the Sadrists in Iraq, offer sovereignty and hope, not slavery and poverty.
The US should NEVER endorse ethnic/religious cleansing. The fact that all our major politicians support this on behalf of the Jewish voters here is most dangerous. For there are many people in America who seek ethnic and religious cleansing here!
The entire idea of 'one religion/one state' is tremendously destructive. Yet the US has many military units set up to support the Saudi religious dictatorship as well as monetarily and diplomatically supporting ethnic cleansing in the Middle East by Zionists.
And we now are supporting ethnic cleansing in Tibet. The Tibet riots are actually race riots aimed at eliminating the Han who now live there. We support colonialists entering Palestine and pushing out the natives but we are outraged by Chinese Han moving into Tibet which is part of China!
This craziness is totally counter to the foundation of the USA: we are the MELTING POT. Not the 'do not enter' land.