by Jerry Mazza
April 9, 2008
THE OTHER SIDE OF THINGS DEPT.
When watching the news about the conflict occurring between China
and Tibet, it might do well to reread this background piece which
tells a very different story than the one presented by the
globalist-controlled corporate mass media.
Jerry Mazza is a freelance
writer living in New York.
One of the more trendy, if not senseless, causes
of our time is the so-called oppression of China against Tibet, whose
struggle for “independence” was led by the “heroic” Dalai Lama. To all those
true believers, I would suggest a look at the Index-China.com article,
China, Tibet and Chinese Nation for the other side of the tale -- or should
I say US CIA myth to Balkanize Asia’s greatest power.
Tibet, you will find, has been part of China for more than 700 years. China
contains some 56 ethnic groups without a history of racism. The Tibetans are
one of those groups and immigrated from another part of China several
thousand years ago. Flash forward to 1951 when the Red Army entered Tibet to
recover not invade that part of China. Before that, feudal lords in Tibet
made up of the 5 percent of the population who owned 95 percent of the means
of production -- and were oppressing the people.
That’s what this is about.
Buddhism was in fact brought to Tibet from China proper before it
assumed its faux role as defender of Tibet against Chinese oppression. The
facts are that Britain and America had been working hard trying to separate
Tibet from China since the 19th Century. Britain invaded China’s Tibet
twice, in 1888 and 1903. The Tibetan army and civilians did resist but were
defeated. In a second war against Tibet, the Brits occupied Lhasa and the
13th Dalai Lama was forced to leave the city.
The invaders forced the Tibetan local government to sign the Lhasa
convention. But the ministry of external affairs of the then Qing government
believed the Lhasa convention would damage national sovereignty. And thus
its high commissioner stationed in Tibet refused to sign, leaving the
Britain, in fact, exploited the political chaos in China after the Qing
Dynasty’s collapse and the birth of the Republic of China in 1901. It
presented the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs a five-point demand, which
included the denial of China’s sovereignty over Tibet, which the Chinese
government rejected. In 1913, the British government further pushed its nose
into Chinese business, wheedling certain Tibetan authorities to declare
independence with British supervision and support.
In summer 1942, the Tibetan local government, supported by the British,
declared the creation of a “foreign affairs bureau,” and carried out
“Tibetan independence” activities.
Can you imagine the Chinese doing that in
Scotland against the Brits?
The Chinese people condemned these actions. The
national government issued a warning. Under pressure, the ersatz Tibetan
government withdrew its decision and reported so to the national government.
Nevertheless in 1949, America newspapers announced, “The United States is
ready to recognize Tibet as an independent and free country.” In 1950,
weapons were shipped into Tibet through Calcutta in order to resist the
Chinese entry into Tibet. US Secretary of Sate Dean Acheson openly
slandered what amounted to China’s liberation of its own territory, Tibet,
as an “invasion.”
The US prodded additional countries to propose
the United Nations on behalf of (China’s) Tibet.
Enter the CIA
First, enter former President George H.W. Bush, declaring that
coastal areas of China, plus Tibet, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia, would
split. Then enter the US CIA with a $245,000 investment which would entrust
the University of Hawaii to research whether the tense situations in ethnic
areas of China would lead to a split of the country. Actually, the research
results disappointed their aim.
Prior to that, in 1957, the CIA culled six young men from Tibetans living
abroad and sent them to Guam, a US territory, for training in map reading,
radio transmission, arms and parachuting. The US trained 170 “Kamba
guerrillas” in batches in Hale Camp, Colorado, later air-dropped or sneaked
into Tibet to carry out CIA plans.
In May '58, two American-trained Kambas brought
a transceiver to the headquarters set up by rebel leader Anzhugcang
Goinbo Zhaxi in Shannan to keep in contact the CIA.
The US air-dropped arms and ammunition to the rebels in the Chigu Lama Thang
plateau and, at the same time, the US clandestinely shipped large amounts of
arms and ammo overland to rebels dug in the Shannon areas. The 1959 Tibetan
rebellion was just another CIA operation on behalf of the US
If you think that’s just the Chinese talking,
The CIA’s Secret War
This information is corroborated in Kenneth Conboy and James
The CIA’s Secret War on Tibet, (March
The book's description reads:
“The CIA's Secret War in Tibet takes readers
from training camps in the Colorado Rockies to the scene of clandestine
operations in the Himalayas, chronicling the agency's help in securing
the Dalai Lama's safe passage to India and subsequent initiation of one
of the most remote covert campaigns of the Cold War.
“Conboy and Morrison provide previously
unreported details about secret missions undertaken in extraordinarily
harsh conditions. Their book greatly expands on previous memoirs by CIA
officials by putting virtually every major agency participant on record
with details of clandestine operations. It also calls as witnesses the
people who managed and fought in the program -- including Tibetan and
Nepalese agents, Indian intelligence officers, and even mission
“Conboy and Morrison take pains to tell the story from all perspectives,
particularly that of the former Tibetan guerrillas, many of whom have
gone on record here for the first time. The authors also tell how Tibet
led America and India to become secret partners over the course of
several presidential administrations and cite dozens of Indian and
Tibetan intelligence documents directly related to these covert
“As the movement for Tibetan liberation continues to attract
international support, Tibet's status remains a contentious issue in
both Washington and Beijing. This book takes readers inside a covert war
fought with Tibetan blood and U.S. sponsorship and allows us to better
understand the true nature of that controversy. . . ."
A Chinese-American’s point of
So from Beijing to Kansas, we have a very informed but different view of
events concerning “Tibet’s liberation.”
Returning to the Index-China.com article,
we can scroll past a history of
China to History According to Hollywood
by Bevin Chu, an American architect of Chinese descent registered to
practice in Texas.
As of 1998, Chu was living and working in
Taiwan, the son of a retired high-ranking diplomat with the ROC, Taiwan
In his opening paragraph Chu writes,
“Humanitarian Interventionists and
Benevolent Global Hegemonists, most of whom lack even a rudimentary
understanding of China's long and complex history, share a particularly
nasty trait. Many of these Globocops imagine because they have
downloaded a few pages of separatist propaganda from tibet.org, and shed
a tear or two while watching ‘Seven Years in Tibet,’ that qualifies them
as China experts.
They believe this qualifies them to pass
judgment about whether China ‘deserves’ to remain intact or be
forcibly Balkanized by the World's Only Remaining Superpower. Their
attitude rivals that of the most contemptible 19th century
Chu also points out in his, “Tibetan Chinese
Are Not American Chinese,” that there is 1.5 billion or a 91.5 percent
Han-Chinese majority (Han being the largest ethnic group) in contrast to
some 5.4 million Tibetan Chinese.
Nevertheless, both the large and small ethnic
...."Conquered by Genghis Khan and his
grandson Kublai Khan in the 13th century."
“A century later it was replaced by a
Han-Chinese dominated Ming Dynasty, which inherited jurisdiction over
the Mongol empire, including the Tibetan region. This is how Tibet, and
of course Mongolia, became part of China.”
So we are talking about a deep, long-standing
relationship between all of these groups to China, and not a
“victim-victimizer” point of view as offered by the West.
These points are
powerfully underscored by NZKOF’s YouTube video (See below video).
As Chu points out,
“The bottom line is that Tibet was not
‘invaded’ or ‘annexed’ by China in 1959. Because by then the Tibetan
region had been part of China for seven centuries.... One does not
‘invade’ or ‘annex’ what is already one’s own territory. Beijing
dispatched troops to prevent secession by the serf-owning elite which
objected to the abolition of slavery, not to implement annexation.
Hardly the same thing.”
Perhaps the most salient wrap-up comes in the
Chu piece, “If This Be Genocide, Make The Most of It,” in which he
points out that if the Chinese Communists had been racially motivated to
oppress the Tibetans, they could have cynically left Tibet’s ancient regime
He is referring to Tibet’s traditional
Lama et al, which imposed a policy that sucked up “enormous numbers of
hapless Tibetan boys to the priesthood.”
Here they would “remain celibate for life. This
draconian policy resulted in an alarming decline in Tibet’s population in
And, much like the Shaker sect in America, centered in the Berkshire
Mountains of Massachusetts, one I’m personally familiar with, the sect
eventually became extinct due to its ban on sex.
As Chu says,
“Beijing emerges an unlikely hero in this
respect. Yet Beijing is ritually reflexively accused by self-styled
do-gooders of ‘genocide,’ both ‘cultural’ and racial. Ironies abound.”
The CIA-attempted Balkanization of China
has already come with its own blowback of anger at the US from China.
And, whatever you think of China, remember we
owe them nearly $300 billion in loans. They lent us the money for Bush’s
recent rebate. Bottom line, it’s pointless that the US and other Western
nations keeps creating impressions that the Chinese are hitting on Tibetans,
when in fact recent the recent video from China showed just the opposite,
Tibetans in their region attacking Han Chinese who live there.
Each YouTube video underscores earmarks of a divide-and-conquer strategy,
which has gotten the US in trouble in so many places. In fact, the first
insight of this came to me from a Chinese-American friend, fluent in both
languages and cultures as Chu is.
He set me straight.
My hat is off to him once again.