|
On Waking Sleeping Giants
DAVE LINDORFF
Counterpunch
Friday, April 11, 2008
During my six-year sojourn in China, Hong Kong and Taiwan, one
of the things I came away with was a sense of how generally un-nationalistic
and non-patriotic the Chinese people were.
Caught up in the struggle first to simply survive and then, in
the mid-90s, to try and grab onto the moving train that was China's
new Great Leap into Capitalism, average mainland Chinese, whether
out in the remote farmlands of western Anhui Province or in the
rundown house lining the hutongs of Shanghai or Beijing, had no
time for patriotic displays or nationalistic concerns.
When Chinese Communist Party leaders in Beijing would beat the
drum of nationalism over Taiwanese independence efforts in the
1990s, it evoked mostly yawns among average Chinese people, and
in fact, to Beijing's embarrassment, a popular computer game featured
a war-game in which Taiwan defeated the People's Liberation Army.
(Article continues below)
That all started to change when the US, early in the first term
of President George W. Bush, taunted the Chinese by flying a spy
plane into Chinese airspace, damaging a Chinese fighter jet that
flew up to intercept it, and getting forced down itself on Hainan
Island. That incident aroused a lot of anger among ordinary Chinese
who felt that the US was pushing their country around, and who
felt pride at their country's willingness and ability to stand
tough and take the American plane hostage.
Now, the Tibet uprising, which has garnered global support, particularly
in Europe and the US, has further inflamed Chinese nationalism,
with most Chinese seeing Tibet as part of China's historic imperial
realm, and the global backing for Tibet nationalists as a throwback
to 19th Century and early 20th Century imperialist attacks on
China by the West.
In a way, the Tibetan riots have been a golden opportunity for
China's sclerotic Communist Party leadership, which has been feeling
growing pressure to open up the political system, but which can
now ride a wave of unthinking nationalism and push those democratic
pressures aside, at least for a time (much as 9-11 allowed Bush
and Cheney to do the same to democratic traditions and the rule
of law in the US).
The 2008 Olympics set for Beijing, which many Chinese democrats
had hoped would force China to open up space for them, thanks
to the wave of western tourists and journalists and all the global
media attention that they would bring to the country, will now
be held under tight police guard on the largely trumped-up excuse
of threats of Tibetan terrorism.
There is a lesson here for America, though I doubt that the policymakers
in Washington are of a mind to take it. That lesson applies to
Iran.
The neoconservatives who have dominated the Bush administration,
and who appear to be gaining the ear of Republican presidential
presumptive nominee John McCain, and whose neoliberal relatives
in the Democratic Leadership Council also seem to have Hillary
Clinton in their pocket, all talk of taking a hard line with Iran
over its alleged efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Bush and
Vice President Cheney talk openly of attacking Iran, and indeed
Cheney may have been preparing for just such a disastrous action
with his so-called "peace trip" to the Middle East last
month (a trip that was followed by a nationwide five-day mobilization
in Israel, and by calls from the Saudi government for preparations
for a possible wave of nuclear fallout to hit that country). McCain,
meanwhile, has entertained supporters by bastardizing a Beach
Boys hit and singing "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb! Bomb Iran!"
Hillary Clinton, for her part, signed on to a war-mongering piece
of legislation sponsored a few months ago by Senate warmonger-in-chief
Joe Lieberman (D-CT), which gratuitously designated the Iranian
Revolutionary Guard as a "global terrorist" organization-an
open invitation for Bush to order an attack on military bases
in Iran.
The problem with this mad strategy of attacking Iran is that
its effect would be to galvanize the Iranian people, who like
the Chinese, currently have little love for their repressive theocratic
government, and little interest in nationalist heroics, not to
mention little innate hostility towards America, and to turn them
into super-patriots ready to fight and die for their country.
Like China, Iran is an ancient and proud civilization, and one
of the oldest continuous polities in the world today. Its culture,
thousands of years old, helped to engender what we today call
Western civilization. Its writers, poets, musicians, scientists
and artists have produced ideas and creations to rival those of
any other nation on the globe.
If the US were to attack Iran-even if that attack were carefully
targeted at only government buildings, nuclear facilities and
military bases-the country's largely apolitical population would
predictably stand together as one to rally in defense of their
nation. Just as the Chinese people have rallied 'round the flag
as China is attacked-in this case from within by Tibetan separatists
and from without by supporters of a Free Tibet-Iranians would
rally 'round the flag if their country came under attack-especially
if that attack came from the same country which undermined and
overthrew their popular democratically elected government half
a century ago, installing the hated Shah.
Now talk about stupid policies!
I agree that China has no business owning Tibet-any more than
the US should own Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands, or the lands
it stole from the indigenous peoples of America. And I agree that
the mullahs who rule Iraq with an iron hand are a despicable bunch
of bigots and misogynous sociopaths who should go back to their
mosques and stay out of politics-just as bone-headed fundamentalist
church leaders should stay out of politics here. But threatening
these countries, as America did with its spy plane flights near
China in 2001 and with its current rhetoric about "regime
change" in and war against Iran, is not the way to achieve
those ends.
If China ultimately lets Tibetans have self-determination or
independence, it will be because the Tibetans demanded it and
because the Chinese people agreed to let them have it-or it will
be because central authority in China, and with it control over
its boundaries-has collapsed, as it historically has done a number
of times.
Similarly, the if Iran ultimately ousts its theocratic leadership
and returns to the democratic path so abruptly derailed by the
CIA two generations ago, it will be because its own long-suffering
people made that change, not because of the American military
and America's blustery leaders. In fact, American politicians
and generals can only delay that day by their threats and by any
actual ill-conceived military action.
|
INFOWARS:
BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND
|
|
