Post 32. Why focus on Tibet and not on Zimbabwe's Mugabe?

Why Does the World Focus so Much on Tibet

rather than, for example,

on Zimbabwe and the Darfur, etc.?

Can anyone explain to me the reason why Mugabe has not yet been compelled to resign, even jailed as a criminal and a saboteur of his country, after so much evidence of mismanagement, breaches of humanitarian conventions, ethnic discriminations and so on?

Why have not our moronic 65% per cent of self-defined human rights upholders, so eager to go in the streets when their interests are threatened, perhaps by higher national priorities they do not give a damn to or are incapable to comprehend, preferring the chicken to-day rather than the egg to-morrow, gone down and marched in the streets to ask for Mugabe's resignation and suitable action against him by the UN?

Why are we westerners so eager globally to go down in the street in favour of Tibet's liberties, when Zimbabwe's majorities are being oppressed and destroyed by a criminal such as Mugabe is?

Similarly regarding other areas of Africa and of the World where life is being threatened of people and animals alike?

Tibet has been invaded and occupied by China years ago and those were the time when the world should have taken a firm action.

It is now too late as the woprld has already assented to the tibetan invasion by China.

Instead of putting all their eggs in the same basket of prayer and worship, the Dalai Lama should have created a tibetan army of well-equipped mountain troops and guerrilla fighters, capable to oppose enough resistance to stalemate a chinese invasion long enough to draw the attention of the World to the point of intervention. He did not do that therefore he does not qualify for the right to lead Tibet in the exercising of tibetan sovereignty.

In fact, a nation that cannot or is not willing to defend itself to the limits of its potential and capacity, looses the de facto right to sovereignty and self-determination.

This is a quasi-natural law.

This should be a lesson to us Australians who tend to waste too much of our national product on self-pampering, palatial housing ( go and see the thousands of Taj-Mahal-like Palaces built along the Indian Ocean Coast of Perth, Western Australia ), expensive luxurious decors, appliances etc.

Australia depends unfortunately on strong allies to defend itself in a future that is darkening.

On a lighter note, if one compares the total military strength of the West to an elephant, australian military might might be compared to the probability of the olfactory sensation of the elephant's fart reaching an observer on a hill three miles away up-wind, neither the noise of the fart nor the fact that the elephant farted becoming evident to such an observer.

Armaments and Defence should be a politically non-negotiable issue like many others, requiring a concerted bi-partisan commitment by all Political Parties, irrespective of who is governing, i.e., Not dependent on the opinions of the voters who are definitely not to be relied upon on prioritising issues such as these.

First of all, let me tell the morons among us, that Tibet is to China what Ireland used to be to Great Britain, an open door for opponents to enter China. Through Tibet runs a corridor or defile called the Kansu Corridor that controls China's communications with the western territories of Turkmenistan, Kazakistan, etc. etc. This corridor is outside russian influence and reach and is therefore of great importance and necessity to China who is still wisely avoiding confrontations with Russia. Once held, the Kansu Corridor belongs to the holder as it is impossible to dislodge its defenders.

It therefore follows that strategically speaking, Tibet is of vital importance to China.

Few of us ever remember that the USA are always maintaining in force the Monroe-Doctrine according to which no european or non-american influence, with minor exceptions, is allowed in, or close to, or around the two american continents, i.e., The Russians' attempts to move ballistic missiles to Cuba in the days of J.F. Kennedy is a classical example. And they are militarily justified to do so. So are the Chinese acting in Tibet, the population of which is ethnically not so much different from the Chinese.

Australia would act in a similar way to China if any outsider were to get too near to its present borders or if its Aborigenes had hypothetically in unanimity and through voting to claim Australia back to themselves. It is too late for them too, irrespective of the Apologies or whatever else the Australian Diplomatic approach from Canberra to the issue wishes to present to the World. In fact, in the same way that Australian Aborigenes are well advised to accept the historical, economic and political facts and to co-operate with their fellow Australians, the Tibetans are well advised to likewise co-operate with the Chinese. After all, the Tibetans are not the only ethnic group China holds within its borders, i.e., the Mohammedan Uighurs are a satisfied and succesful example.

Australia should therefore support China, although pressing for a gradual increase of human liberties, at the same time working at educating Australians about the necessity to satisfy corresponding duties as if these were a religious goal.

Yes, I agree that the issue of human-rights is of great importance, however let me observe that in Western Democracies, human-rights have become dissociated from their corresponding human-duties, and that westerners should cease from being the sef-elected, self-righteous supporters of human rights when duties are neglected and despised even totally ignored in the west by an increasing number among the members of western populations.

Let us first reform ourselves and go down in the streets to achieve this goal and then we could begin to tell others they are doing wrong.

Tibetans living among us are benefiting from our high standards of living, at present, and cannot demand that China all of the sudden reaches our levels of wastage and consumerism. It is obvious that eventually China shall achieve standards of living even higher than ours since it is obvious the West is in a Decadence that has been the result of the neglect of duties and ethical living,

i.e., self-control, self-restraint, moderation in consumerism and demands, the devotion t9o morality and moral acting and living etc.

The Chinese under Mao Tse Tung have liberated themselves from the corrupt leaches and exploiters who treated them like an inferior race, calling them the yellow people, even encouraging and enforcing the abuse of drugs, the exploitation of their beautiful and noble women, etc.

China is slowly handing back human rights and living standards to a people that has just come out of an historical stage of exploitations, suffering, sacrifices and renunciations for the sake of its national development and empowerment for self-defence, while ensuring the necessary education is spread to all, about the essentiality that without human duties there cannot be their associated human rights.

I would therefore conclude that the Dalai Lama would better take notice of this, recognise the good China has achieved and done and is doing and offer China his co-operation and support if he desires to become useful again to Tibet, and this would mean to make his multitude of useless monks learn some useful skill ( nurses, doctors, technicians, educators, etc.) and to become productive members of a modern community.

On the other hand Mugabe, Darfur, the reformation of Islam, these are the issueswhich we should focus on and demand action for.

Western Democratic masses wake up, or perish.

I am near to the end of my life and shall perhaps escape the rigors of the Darkening which is going to affect western masses.

Good luck to you all!