"Tibet: This Year's Fashionable Victim" | Thursday, 10 April 2008 | 609 words

Those on the Left suddenly outraged about the treatment of Tibet by China may now, finally, understand the Right’s longstanding problem with Communism.  Congratulations.  Above and beyond this, one struggles to learn what all the shouting is about.  Yes, Tibet remains under Chinese oppression.  But other than the small (and rightfully dedicated) Free Tibet movementeers and gatherings of college kids scattered hither and yon, no one bothers to think about Tibet except when it’s fashionable, like now; the oppression it experiences today is substantively no different than it was ten years ago, or twenty years before that.  Which in no way excuses the oppression, but does go to show that no one’s forced servitude is above exploitation in an election year.

This willingness to exploit explains Senator Clinton’s abrupt insistence that President Bush not attend the opening ceremonies of the Red Olympics.  “The violent clashes in Tibet and the failure of the Chinese government to use its full leverage with Sudan to stop the genocide in Darfur are opportunities for Presidential leadership,” Senator Clinton “wrote” on her campaign blog Tuesday.  “These events underscore why I believe the Bush administration has been wrong to downplay human rights in its policy toward China.  At this time, and in light of recent events, I believe President Bush should not plan on attending the opening ceremonies in Beijing, absent major changes by the Chinese government.” [i]

By “downplay human rights in its policy toward China,” does Senator Clinton mean to suggest the president has neglected the matter entirely (which he hasn’t), or that he hasn’t been insistent enough on the question of human rights?  Well, firstly, George W. Bush has never taken a meeting with the architect of China’s one child policy – i.e., the forced abortion policy – as First Lady Clinton did.  Secondly, it would help to know exactly how insistent she thinks the president should be, knowing not only China’s closed mindedness on the subject (only America stands still for scolding) but also the Democratic party’s general aversion to force.  This is the sort of thinking that could lead one to conclude Senator Clinton is merely hopping on the latest bandwagon, ridden for the sake of political expediency, as opposed to her taking a stance rooted in conviction.

As victims of oppression go, Tibet and Darfur are more interesting than most: China is directly responsible for misery in Tibet and peripherally responsible for misery in Darfur, in that it exercises influence over Sudan but refuses to put its foot down.  Generally speaking, China is a threat to world stability and American financial security.

But China provides no less misery for Tibet and Darfur today than Saddam Hussein did for Iraq in 2002; the difference being that virtually no one is really interested in helping them end their collective suffering.  (Or as Mark Steyn writes in America Alone: “Everyone’s for a free Tibet, but no one’s for freeing Tibet.” [ii])  Because of this, the Tibet protests are merely fashionable at the roots, despite being somewhat intellectually viable at the outside edges.  Give people four months and a hand-to-hand battle between the Obama and Clinton camps at the Democratic national convention, and they’ll go back to ignoring Tibet again.

By the way, just because Senator Clinton is exploiting Tibet doesn’t mean she’s wrong – even a broken clock is right twice a day.  Nothing is gained through appeasement of Communists except happy Communists.  When all is done, President Bush will sit through the opening ceremonies, maybe a few events, and then come home, never minding whether his attending lends legitimacy to a Games that are functionally no different than Berlin in 1936 and Moscow in 1980.