Protest
3 Apr 2008
The Path of Most Resistance
Why do people have to be shot before the Western media take notice?
In September last year, a river of 30,000 orange-clad monks, marching in peaceful protest at Burma's dictatorial junta, made for a fantastic vision. Unfortunately, outside of Burma, it resulted in little more than a bit of short-term outrage.More recently, Tibetan protestors have attempted to shine a light on their plight, achieving even less international impact than the Burmese.
It seems the Burmese and Tibetan people will continue to live under violent authoritarian control, struggling to earn Western recognition and assistance despite an ongoing commitment to non-violence.
The media reports little of the "unworthy news" of peaceful protest and non-violent struggles, until someone is either killed or action flares up in a manner that is worthy of film footage or soundbites that will attract audience attention.
As a Palestinian who strongly believes in non-violence, I am often admonished for the violent actions of my brethren. So often you hear "the Palestinians have a worthy cause, a strong case against Israeli human rights abuses and for self-determination, but until Palestinians find a different response, we cannot support you."
But why would any Palestinian, living under brutal occupation for over 50 years, follow the Tibetan and Burmese non-violent example?
Many Palestinians believe that what little gains they have made have come out of legitimate military resistance to the Israeli occupation. And where non-violence has achieved results, it has not been reported by the media. For example, the ruling by the Israeli High Court in 2006 that the Separation Wall was illegal was the result of a long non-violent campaign by Palestinian villagers from Bil'in. You would be forgiven for not knowing this was the culmination of peaceful protests against Israeli occupation; as they are rarely - if ever - reported.
In fact, there are numerous Palestinian organisations and individuals that are committed to non-violence, and many actions and campaigns have been built and modelled on the US Civil Rights movement and the South African anti-apartheid protests.
Non-violent leaders such as Ghassan Andoni and George Rishmawi, of the Palestinian Centre for Rapprochement, are continually trying to reinforce a culture of civil non-violent disobedience in Palestinian society.
Unfortunately, non-violent protesters are repeatedly beaten, killed and imprisoned. The shooting of three non-violent Australian volunteers in 2002, 2003 and 2006 made little impact on the news here. And rarely is the brutal response of Israeli soldiers to peaceful protests by Jews and Arabs - marching together - reported here.
Worse still, Israel has consistently acted harshly against the threat of non-violent action, as with the deportation in 1988 of Mubarak Awad, founder of the Centre for the Study of Non-violence in Jerusalem, years before suicide bombings began.
The Palestinian struggle is mired in a cycle of violence with Israel, and the question of how can it be compared to the Tibetan and Burmese experience is a responsible and legitimate one. The answer lies in the international response to these struggles.
If the Palestinian struggle results in admonishment, then why have the peaceful struggles of the Tibetans and Burmese been ignored so blatantly? It only highlights the captious and hypocritical disinterest of Western society and the dishonest and disingenuous diplomacy of our political elites. Unfortunately, the success or failure of non-violence worldwide could be predicated on the success or failure of the non-violent Tibetan and Burmese causes.
The Burmese and Tibetans deserve our support and outrage at government inaction and ambivalence. They also deserve action before further massacres are committed and the violent response to non-violent disobedience is unleashed.
Only then will I and others be able to turn to Palestinians and say, "Look at the leadership of the Tibetans and Burmese. That is how you change world opinion."
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
Long before China was capitalist, it was imperialist, and it seems that (like all imperialisms) the ‘beneficiaries’ of Chinese imperialism, from the lowest to the highest, are going to find it incredibly difficult to give up their trappings, their illusions of superiority, and their actual economic benefits flowing from empire, from Tibet, Turkestan or Taiwan.
In fact, as we can see in Russia’s hostility to NATO and to the efforts of the Ukraine and Georgia to join it, imperialists never seem to give up on the illusion of getting all the bits back, and in fact enlarging their empire (viz. Mongolia, Afghanistan, the South Slav territories).
China’s hold on Tibet and Turkestan is about as legal as England’s was on Ireland, but unfortunately for the people there, far more secure. No Irish Sea for the Tibetans. And with oil and gas pipelines, highways, railway lines, telecommunications lines, etc. through Turkestan to Central Asia (China’s next targets in accordance with their Manifest Destiny), independence for Turkestan is not exactly on the cards any time soon. The best they can hope for is a more equitable share of their own resources. So neither violence nor non-violence are likely to get them anything at all from Beijing.
But the bravery of the Tibetan and Turkestani (and Burmese) people will still impel them to protest and suffer, to keep the attention of the world continually on their situation. So they deserve our fullest support, as all colonial subjects have done. Empires and dictators are eventually overthrown, that seems to be a lesson of history that we can hold on to, although given the lenght of human history, that might not be much consolation to the good and brave people of Tibet and Burma and Turkestan.
The Taiwanese are in a strange position, of being under the illusion that they are Chinese, the rightful rulers of all China, and therefore heirs to its eternal empire. They may think differently once they are brought back into it.
If there is any good news, it is that the rights of Palestinians are far more likely to be realised than those of China’s imperial subjects.
Joe
You are pretty much on the nail, there, Joe. But the Taiwanese, the real ones, were never Chinese, and have been almost exterminated, at least culturally, by the Nationalist Chinese take-over of their country, fleeing from Mao.
And the previous Government people, and their supporters, were not those who claim to own China, anyway. They just wanted to ‘own’ Taiwan, and not have it contested by the mainlanders.
Even the Nationalists may have changed their mind-sets a little bit by now, as the Old Guard are pretty much all dead and gone.
In relation to the Palestinians, there is no way that Israelis will allow anything like ‘peace’ to break out, as they have a deep and vested interest in keeping them shooting their little missiles across the borders, hurting practically no one,in order to keep the ‘West’ swallowing all their lies. This way, they can keep annexing Palestinian land and killing Palestinians as long as they like, or until the have the whole of ‘Ersatz Israel’. The Religious Zionist Fundamentalists will not allow peace- never!
And while the West, in particular the Yanks, keep swallowing the lies and propaganda, the Zionists will continue to do just as they like. We are ALL badly served by our Main Line Media!!!! And by the Pollies who keep accepting the Jewish dollar to shut up and follow the Israeli line, no matter what!
Dazza.
Spot on, Dazza. But the Republic of China people under Chiang Kai-Shek, and his son after him, did claim to be the government of all China, including its imperial territories to the west. Yes, the Taiwanese were never Chinese, different languages, cultures, customs, etc., and in any case have not been part of the mainland empire since the Japanese invasion of the 1890s.
Yes, as you say, the Ersatz imperialists of South-Western Asia will keep their superiority illusions as long as they have the West behind them. I hope I live long enough to see the liberation of Palestine and the democratisation and secularisation of all those lands, and the liberation of Turkestan, Taiwan and Tibet as well. But I fear that imperialism combines the worst of both capitalism and a sense of racist superiority, and is an incredibly difficult monster to bring down. Look at how some English people still think they should have some sway over ireland, and watch their responses to independence for Scotland and Wales, when it comes. Even the French still think they have some right to intrude in the affairs of their former African colonies. And let’s not even talk about the Yanks, imperialists par excellence.
Vheers,
Joe