 by Omar Tarek Chowdhury NEW Age's regular contributor Rahnuma Ahmed's post-editorial, 'China-US politics over exhibiting Tibet. In Dhaka' (November 23) has drawn my attention. This was published in response to my post-editorial (Samakal, November 13) on the photographic exhibition (Into Exile: Tibet 1949-2009) 'organised by the Bangladesh chapter of Students for a Free Tibet (SFT), in partnership with Drik.'
For readers' convenience she has fairly reproduced the views expressed and relevant questions raised in my post-editorial. Based on information available in public domain I have unequivocally pointed out the SFT as a CIA/NED funded network. With logical sequence and analysis, I have also clearly suggested that this exhibition was a well-choreographed media event brought to the public, both in home and abroad, by the PSYOP (psychological operation) warriors of Dharamshala. Though 'Phantom of the Opera'—SFTBD—enjoyed handsome global publicity, its face remained unseen all along this well-orchestrated propaganda gimmick. Long after Mahatma's last visit to riot-ridden Noakhali, we saw the reincarnation of Gandhian zeal of satyagraha, performed by the famous corruption-crusader to protect our 'right to know the neighbours' and 'freedom of cultural expression'. All actors reaped the benefit of publicity dividend for their impressive performance.
Personally, I won't be surprised to see the SFTBD's Bangladeshi national director (it has quite a corporate style organisational structure), the young devoted lady who 'breathes her time equally between Dharamshala … and Bangladesh' rewarded soon by some heavyweight promoter for her superb service.
Dress rehearsal of this controversial exhibition by the SFTBD, professionally synchronised mainly with Dalai Lama's Arunachal visit, can be traced back in March 2009 in front of the Chinese embassy at Gulshan. A demonstration of 8-9 wo/men, holding placards and candles in daylight and gamcha (hand-woven towel) slinging from their necks, went unnoticed locally but became useful for the Tibetan propaganda machine. However, the SFTBD's name first appeared in the United States during the campaign against the Beijing Olympics in April 2008. Its national director, jet-flown from Dharamshala, (not to be surprise if this is a paid position. The US chapter SFT's vacancy notice tells the salary range for a junior-level director position is $33-36K) was prominently fed into the BBC's World Service coverage of the demonstration against the Olympic torch march in San Francisco (BBC News, San Francisco, April 10, 2008).
Circumstantial evidences indicate that this exhibition was 'brought to you' by a front organisation founded and operated with the blessing of the National Endowment for Democracy. NED's financing for various wings of Tibetan movement is no secret. Budget allocated by US Congress for various Tibetan organisations' activities (sans covert operations) for the year 2008 indicates the trend. Moreover, this 'civilian arm' of the CIA has earned some notoriety globally as the promoter of such movement; to be precise, as the purveyor of 'colour revolution' in various countries of Latin America, East Europe, Southeast and Central Asia.
To unmask the nature of this event, covered by the rhetoric of 'cultural freedom' and 'right to know the neighbour,' I have raised some crucial questions regarding the funding and timing of this event and the identity of the SFTBD as well as its ties with the NED-sponsored global network.
To make her public response to my views and questions, Rahnuma worked extra hard; maybe, to double check the accuracy of my accusation. She found the smoking guns and realised that answer is 'blowin' in the wind.' Not only the SFT, as far as the Tibetan movement's CIA-NED connection is concerned, all are naked truth. She wrote: 'So, I asked Shahidul, what made you agree to co-hosting this exhibition?' 'I thought it would be an interesting one, he replied. … Our point is to open up the debate.' In a para-long answer, one more time we read the narrative of Drik's version and its track record of unbending struggle but no specific answers to my specific questions. Despite good intention of opening up the debate, the Q&A part seems like a well-controlled make-believe TV show, where the anchor and the guest talk but don't respond to queries of the audience; and the uncritical audience are left to believe that they got the answers.
The anchor didn't ask further questions to clear the air. My 'indecent' but critical questions remained unasked and unanswered.
Rahnuma has extensively used Michael Barker's (Griffith University, Australia) study, 'Democratic Imperialism'. She quoted Michael Barker as saying: '… activists truly concerned with promoting freedom and democracy in Tibet should first and foremost cast a critical eye over the antidemocratic funders of many of the Tibetan groups….' She has directly picked up part of different sentences from the Barker study and re-constructed her own to restate Barker's opinion. It was done quite efficiently and accurately. Nevertheless, she has missed two significant points of Barker. He suggested '… cast[ing] a critical eye over … Tibetan groups identified in this study.' Also, 'only then will they [Tibetan groups] be able to reappraise the sustainability of their work in the light of the NED's controversial background.' Interestingly, phrases in italics are missing in her typical style of paraphrasing. Identified in this study means Barker's study quoted by Rahnuma, where the SFT has also been 'identified' as the recipient of 'NED's controversial' funding.
Despite quoting Barker at length she restrained from telling us whether we 'should … cast a critical eye over' the SFTBD or whether its Bangladeshi activists and sympathisers should reappraise NED's controversial background.
'Low intensity democracy' theory of William I Robinson (credible researcher on NED's activities in Latin American countries and scholar-cum-Latin America activist) suddenly reminded her of Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mairead Corrigan Maguire. A brief and impressive dossier of Mairead activism for peace was presented to the readers; starting from 70s to up until 'Thank You Tibet' campaign, launched together with Nobel Peace Prize laureates Joddy Williams and Shirin Ebadi, in October 2009. Readers were apprised of the Nobel Peace Prize Laureates' moving and passionate campaign statement for Tibet.
Again, one relevant striking piece of information about Mairead's profile missed Rahnuma's attention. Latin maxim Caveat lector was not followed for the sake of fairness. Mairead's glorious record didn't tell the readers that her compassion for Tibet has some strings attached. Mairead's connection with the International Campaign for Tibet, parent body of the SFT, was not revealed. Neither was her role as adviser to the Points of Peace Foundation, founder of the Voice of Tibet radio station, told.
Mentioning these significant nexus would h
ave helped readers to understand the driving force of this particular activism of the Nobel Peace Prize laureates. True beauty of any actor can only be judged when the audience gets the chance to take a glance at the greenroom.
Finally, Rahnuma invoked Michael Pareni (Friendly Feudalism, 2007) to establish her point—'whether Tibet is better or worse off, under Chinese communism.' Which Chinese communism is it anyway? Is it the Chinese communism led by Mao? Or is it the latter-day 'communism' of Free Market's St Deng Xiaoping? Lack of political orientation often leads many people to regard present-day China as a socialist country. But Parenti is no commentator without political orientation. As an eloquent critic of free market and capitalism he knows the differences between the Chinese communism of the Mao and Deng era.
Rahnuma has missed Parenti's opinion and views. She has overlooked Parenti's description of changes, with limitations and flaws, (land redistribution, education reform, child services, abolition of serfdom, cruel punishment and exploitation by Tibetans lamas and nobles; reduction of unemployment and beggary, installation of water and power systems) that happened in the lives of Tibetan serfs and working class people after the Mao-led revolution. Mistakenly she has equated Parenti's strong criticism of China of 'dazzling 8 percent economic growth rate' (does this apply to pre-1978 period or when HH fled to India?) with the China which 'stood up' in October 1949 under the leadership of Mao and misled her readers grossly by misrepresenting Parenti's views.
Based on her own smoking gun we don't see Rahnuma draw any judgement about the SFT—the real 'area of contention' between us. Rather we see her abuse the smoking gun to produce smokescreen over a questionable propaganda event.
http://www.newagebd.com/2009/dec/13/oped.html
|
