On March 10th, to help show our solidarity to our Tibetan friends we participated in a 50th Anniversary pro-Tibet rally in Santa Fe. More than 100 Tibetans and Westerners participated in commemorating the 50 years that Tibetans have struggled under the brutal, repressive rule of the Chinese.

We spoke to the crowd about the importance of not giving up hope that Tibet will some day be Free of China's communist rule in their once peaceful land. We shared our ideas of starting a divestment campaign, and boycotting all goods Made In China. Our ideas were well received and others agreed to do as we have done for more than a year now, to stop buying anything made in China. If we all take this oath today, follow through on it, and also tell 5 friends or family members we can put enough economic pressure on China so that they will have to make changes to avert an uprising in Beijing and surrounding areas.

To be silent and say there is nothing we can do help Tibet is to give up without a fight. But for individuals to band together and stand up as a group gives a Free Tibet hope and possibility. 

 

Charles Freeman abruptly withdrew from his appointment to the National Intelligence Council today, blaming the "pro-Israel" lobby for scuttling him. To see why this is good for Tibet check out my previous post on Freeman. There was an ugly tone of anti-Semitism in many posts about about his withdrawal, but at least Washington Post columnist David Broder got it right in pointing out that Freeman was also opposed by supporters of human rights for China and Tibet. Broder, whom I used to admire as a seasoned and objective observer, credited "pro-Tibet bloggers" with helping to keep Freeman out of the NIC. Sadly, Broder defends Freeman. He says Freeman has the ability to see things from the other side's perspective and says this is a loss for Obama -- and then incredibly adds that Freeman would have been good at explaining China's recent aggressive actions in the South China Sea against a US Navy vessel.

Do we really need any explanation for China's aggression? Whatever rationale Freeman might have provided can't gloss over the fact that the regime is militarist, nationalist, and on overt threat if left unchallenged.    

This is too much and it shows Broder has lost it. As a good friend of mine who worked undercover for the CIA for many years points out, many of the academics, commentators, China experts, and business leaders who advocate the regime's point of view do so to protect their access -- and access equals livelihood and careers. If China closes off your access, denies you a travel visa, or cuts off contact, you can't thrive as a Western "China expert." In other words, your career depends on the goodwill of Chinese officials, who have the power to cut off your access if you offend them or otherwise refuse to tow the line. Recent disclosures that Freeman has business dealings with China. if they are true, call into question his ability to objectively advise the US intelligence community. 

There are many other people with similar dual-motives scattered in academia, business, and journalism, appearing in our newspapers, television, via the Internet, and radio to "explain" China to us. 

I'm beginning to think what we need is a modification of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which requries disclosure if a foreign government pays you to produce propaganda or lobby. What we need now is a disclosure requirement for all the China experts who appear on television, or are interviewed in the media, so we can determine for ourselves whether this is a case of objective analysis -- or money talking. Every day there are new revelations about doctors paid by pharmaceutical firms to advocate drugs, thanks to aggressive investigation by Senator Grassley. Who will look into the China lobby to expose the financial ties?  

On March 11, the day after the 50th anniversary of the Tibetan uprising, Freeman was forced to withdraw. Good. We spent March 10th in Santa Fe, at the invitation of Lama Gyaltsen and the Tibetan American Community Association, marching and speaking for TIbet. The day began with a march from the Tibetan Community Center to the state legislature, lead by pallbearers bearing mock coffins representing the many Tibetans killed in last year's protests. On the outside of the coffins were pictures of some of the dead from the Phayul.com website photo archives, a bloody reminder of the real China. I would like David Broder to have seen it, and he would understand we don't need Charles Freeman to tell us what the Chinese were thinking when they ordered the use of deadly force. We've seen the results of their actions, and they speak louder than any China apologist.

At the legislature, the Dalai Lama's March 10 statement was read and various speakers addressed the crowd. I admire the resilience of the Tibetan exiles and their strong sense of duty to keep up the fight for a free Tibet. I spoke about how the current economic crisis shows China's reliance on Western consumers, and how a campaign of economic boycotts can pressure China. Another speaker read a proclamation of support from Governor Bill Richardson. From the legislature, we marched to the 400-year old Plaza that is the heart of Santa Fe, and did a circumambulation of sorts, shouting demands and with Tibetan flags waving. It was a sight that probably startled tourists, but we got lots of thumbs-up and V signs flashed by passing motorists and onlookers. We stopped at City Hall, where the mayor came out to read his proclamation of support. It was a good day. I scoured the media to see what kind of coverage the Dalai Lama and Tibetan March 10 rallies received. NBC gets the highest marks for its coverage on the Today Show, with Ann Currie's interviews and reporting from Dharamsala. Her work was also broadcast on the nightly news. Other coverage was disappointing, relegated to the inside pages in the Wall Street Journal and New York Times. The Times had a tepid editorial urging China to negotiate seriously with the Dalai Lama, It looked oddly dated, as if it should have been written in 2008, when at least the pretense of talks was still alive. The Financial Times, a British newspaper with international circulation, did a better job. But overall, my impression of the media's take on Tibet is that they are starting to cover it as though it is a lost cause. Broder's defense of Freeman may have put me in that mode of thinking, but I believe if the movement for Tibet gets some fresh momentum the press will pick up interest. I tried out some messages and lines at the rally in Santa Fee, and from the reaction, I know this will draw support. Next month we're taking the message to political audiences in Washington, D.C. Stay turned!                    

Christie's, the art auctioneers, are taking it on their jaw this week. A Chinese art dealer named Cai Mingchao stiffed the auction house for $40 million. Cai bid on two bronzes, a rabbit and a rat, and won. Now a bid with an auction house is a binding contract, recognized internationally. You can't just bid and pull out after winning. That is being a deadbeat, and exposes one to legal action. But in China, this particular deadbeat is being lionized. China Daily, a state-run newspaper, put his face on the cover and praised him as a "patriot." An online poll of some 300,000 Chinese found that 75% thought his breaking the contract was a good thing.

So why is China lauding a deadbeat? Because Cai, who is also an art dealer and who has close ties with Chinese government-funded foundations, has highlighted China's claim that artworks taken out of the country during periods of colonial occupation and civil war should be repatriated to China. Put simply, Cai says the art was looted and belongs to the Chinese people free of charge. His bogus bid was an act of social protest.

Okay. Let's accept Cai's premise that artworks taken during times of turmoil are the rightful property of the nationality from whom they were taken. (There are lots of issues about what truly constitutes ownership here, and when an artwork becomes a national possession instead of an individual possession, but let's forget all that for the time being.) What about the artworks looted from thousands of Tibetan monasteries during the Cultural Revolution and taken to China?
 
It is widely believed that many of these artworks were melted down for their metal content, but this has never been verified. How many disappeared into the private collections of Chinese connoisseurs? How many are in Chinese state-run museums? How many are, even now, stored in warehouses? Before the Cultural Revolution began in Tibet, the Chinese government had started taking an inventory of all the artworks in Tibet's monasteries. Where are those records? Surely, the government has some idea of what happened to thousands upon thousands of ancient statues, relics, scrolls, and priceless Buddhist artifacts. 

I propose an act of reciprocity. When China returns the looted Buddhist artworks to Tibet, the rest of the world should return looted Chinese artworks to Beijing.

Until then, Cai's act is just one more propaganda stunt in China's self-aggrandizing campaign of ultra-nationalism, and he should be dunned for every penny of the $40 million he stiffed Christie's over. Moreover, the episode should be cautionary to any foreign company doing business in China -- and Christie's had put millions into marketing its Asian sales over the past decade. You can't buy loyalty from the Beijing regime. They will turn on you in an instant.