Friday, 7 November 2008

UK recognises Chinese rule over Tibet

Ha, ha! Right on the money-maker. There's me saying, "I wonder what news the government's going to bury during this time of rejoicing in the world," and here it comes.

The UK finally recognises China's sovereignty over Tibet. Yeeha! Break out the yak stew. I'm gonna party like it's 1899.

Never let it be said the Brits aren't sneaky, even if they are predictable.

Perhaps now the Tibetan people can focus on how to improve their conditions as part of the new superpower.


harpymarx said...

That really is hypnosis - the art of distraction politics. Look over there ...don't look here nothing to see. Keep concentrating over there while we slip stuff through without being observed.

ModernityBlog said...

sucking up to Super Powers is what the Brits are good at

I am remind of "Tibet, unfree will never be at peace"

Madam Miaow said...

Yes, it's a bit like the complete absence of news about Gaza when there's a major blockade of an entire tiny nation. But we'd rather pile into Ross and Brand.

A very good piece on Gaza, incidentally, from Charlie Pottins here:

ModernityBlog said...

Oh, LOOOOK over there!

great tactic :)

but back to the issue of China's occupation of Tibet.

Madam Miaow said...

Yep, celebrating with a glass of freshly drawn yak's blood even as I write, Mod.

Mao Zedong wansui.


ModernityBlog said...

Renmin wansui !

Madam Miaow said...

Absolutely, Mod.

ModernityBlog said...

I suppose it would be too much to expect internationalist agreement over:

renquan gaoyu zhuquan ?

Madam Miaow said...

Um ... without the Pinyin tones it's a bit difficult to understand, Mod.

I got renquan - human rights. Of course.

zhuquan ... well, depending on which of the four tones you are using, zhu can mean bamboo, boil or pig. Quan could be whole, persuade or dog. Or fist or punch.

Gao ... big, tall, cream or cake?

Yu ... fish, rain, jade, desire?

So ...

Fisting pigs? Boiling fish? Desirable cream cakes? It's raining pigdogs?

Human rights for whole bamboo?

Human rights versus tall dogs?

Nope, I give up. Please elucidate.

Madam Miaow said...

A Friend writes:

it means "human rights are higher than sovereignty"

which in turn means "we must bomb the fuck out of them because their government mistreats them in ways we do to johnny foreigner but won't admit it"

ModernityBlog said...

well done, you got it!

no agreement?

Madam Miaow said...

What do you think, Mod? As I already wrote:
I got renquan - human rights. Of course.

If you mean proper human rights where human beings don't own other human beings, yes. If you mean human rights where the people aren't cowed by superstition, absolutely. If you mean human rights that aren't a travesty of the concept imposed by powers who want to maintain their power and are happy to screw over other people, indubitably.

ModernityBlog said...

well we are mostly in agreement, but you'll have to ask your friend if he/she gets their information from the Socialist Worker's military correspondent?

as I can't see the West bombing China? unless there is something that he/she knows ?

Madam Miaow said...

... you'll have to ask your friend if he/she gets their information from the Socialist Worker's military correspondent?

LOL! Hardly, Mod.

NATO marches ever eastward.

ModernityBlog said...

ahh Nato, damn there is a choice expression from China, which is basically "he's an empty windbag of no account", sadly I forget the precise wording, but you get the point?

NATO can't scratch together enough troops to defeat the Taliban, they are useless, even on their own terms

the likelihood of anyone deliberately provoking a military conflict with China over Tibet is less than zero.

Carol Thatcher is more likely to be appointed National Secretary of the SWP, along with John Redwood becoming SWP's Industrial Organiser.

it is NOT going to happen.

The Western ruling classes are in lockstep with China's elite, sure they'll moan a bit but they are tied together at the hip.

JM said...

Er, friend, I thought you affirmed that way back in March of last year that even though old tibet itself was less than idealistic, China still had issues of repressing Tibet as well. Why're you blaming the country itself now? And can I say that just because the past dalai lamas have been shite doesn't mean the current one is insanely evil? Hell, if you read that Parenti essay, he doesn't put blame on the current dalai lama and mentions a few positive things the lama has said.