According to this Hindu article, “United States President Donald Trump has proposed zero aid in 2018 to the Tibetans, reversing the decades-old American policy of providing financial assistance to the community for safeguarding their distinct identity.” If true, this is good news. America should get off a lot of expenses, especially expenses used to destabilize and promote hate and radicalism across the world…
Trump regime proposes zero aid to Tibetans in 2018
The Hindu: WASHINGTON:, May 26, 2017 11:56 IST
In this May 10, 2017 photo, the Dalai Lama, Tibetan spiritual leader, presents Democratic leader of the US House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi with a ceremonial scarf at the Tsuglakang Temple in McLeod Ganj. Ms. Pelosi has expressed deep concern over the Trump administration’s move to scrap financial assistance to the Tibetan community. | Photo Credit: AFP
A departure from the decades-old American policy of providing monetary assistance to the community.
United States President Donald Trump has proposed zero aid in 2018 to the Tibetans, reversing the decades-old American policy of providing financial assistance to the community for safeguarding their distinct identity.
The Trump administration now wants other countries to jump in.
The State Department, which sent the detailed proposal to the Congress as part of Mr. Trump’s maiden annual budget, described it as one of the “tough choices” that it had to make as its budget itself has been slashed by more than 28 per cent.
Leaders of the Tibetan community in the U.S. refrained from making comment on the issue, saying they are still reading the budget papers. At the same time, they observed that majority of the assistance to the Tibetan people, including for Tibet, so far have been Congressionally-driven.
Nancy Pelosi ‘very concerned’
Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi has expressed concern over the move.
“Leader Pelosi is very concerned about the zeroing out of aid to the Tibetan community in the Trump budget proposal,” Drew Hammill, spokesman for Ms. Pelosi, told PTI.
Ms. Pelosi, who early this month led a high-powered Congressional delegation to Dharamshala to meet the Dalai Lama, has expressed concern over the development.
“As she has said many times, including during her visit this month to His Holiness The Dalai Lama in Dharamshala, if the US does not speak out for human rights in China, we lose all moral authority to talk about it elsewhere in the world,” Mr. Hammill told PTI.
“That includes critical funding through the State Department for important efforts, like those in support of a genuinely autonomous Tibet, that advance and protect America’s interests in the world,” Mr. Hammill said in response to a question.
The State Department, in its budgetary proposal for the fiscal year 2018 beginning October 1, have removed the decades-old Tibet Fund and has proposed zero dollars against Ngwang Choephel Fellows. Both the categories in 2017 and 2016 had accounted for more than a million dollars.
However, the State Department in its footnote of the budget, said that Special Academic Exchanges, whose budgetary allocation has been reduced from more than $14.7 million in 2017 to just $7 million for 2018, would include funding for programmes such as the Benjamin A. Gilman International Scholarship Program, Mobility (Disability) Exchanges, and the Tibet Fund.
‘We have to make tough choices’
“As we work to streamline efforts to ensure efficiency and effectiveness of US taxpayers’ dollars, we acknowledge that we have to prioritise and make some tough choices,” a State Department official told PTI.
“Focusing our efforts will allow us to advance our most important policy goals and national security interests, while ensuring that other donor countries contribute their fair share toward meeting global challenges,” the official said requesting anonymity.
However, the official did not identify the countries that it would like to help continue funding for the Tibetan cause.
“We will continue to engage diplomatically with allies and partners to advance our U.S. national interests and shared policy priorities,” the official said.
The move to abolish Tibet fund is expected to be widely opposed in the Congress. The U.S. policy towards Tibet is currently driven by the Tibetan Policy Act of 2002 which was signed by the last Republican President, George W. Bush.
Enacted into law on September 30, 2002, as part of the Foreign Relations Authorisation Act, FY2003, it lists its “purpose” as being “to support the aspirations of the Tibetan people to safeguard their distinct identity.”
The act establishes in statute the State Department position of United States Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues and states that the Special Coordinator’s “central objective” is “to promote substantive dialogue between the Government of the People’s Republic of China and the Dalai Lama or his representatives.”
Community stands to forfeit a lot
The Act, among other things, includes U.S. government assistance for non-governmental organisations to work among Tibetan communities in China; an educational and cultural exchange program with “the people of Tibet”; Voice of America and Radio Free Asia Tibetan-language broadcasting into Tibet; and assistance for Tibetan refugees in South Asia.
It also calls for a scholarship program for Tibetans living outside Tibet; and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED)human rights and democracy programmes relating to Tibet.
The Special Coordinator is also required to “vigorously promote the policy of seeking to protect the distinct religious, cultural, linguistic, and national identity of Tibet” and press for “improved respect for human rights,” according to a 2015 report on Tibet by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
It was in 2002 that the Congress began earmarking Economic Support Fund assistance to Tibetan communities in China. In addition to this, the US Agency for International Development (USAID) manages provision of this support out of its India office.
Recently Ms. Yang’s speech went viral with disapproval in China. Most felt betrayed by her fawning comparison of pollution in major Chinese cities compare with sweet and fragrant air in U.S., or the freedom of speech and political process with China’s closed system. Obvious the pollution comment was really an opening used to introduce the resulting praise of politics in West.
I have no problem if Ms. Yang is an incoming student with naiveté talking about something beyond her competence, but she is a graduating student after 4 years of study in theater and psychology, then I have a bone to pick with her. She used a one woman play by Anna Deavere Smith, “Twilight, LA”, as a point of diversity, questioning of authority, and freedom of speech. As a student of theater does she really understand what Ms. Smith is trying to say? Does she understand why did the Rodney King riot occur? The riot happened because after Rodney King was brutally beaten by police with video footages documenting it, all the policemen were acquitted in court. The people felt there was no justice and redress. The results were loss of 58 lives, over 2,000 injured, and over $1 billion property damages. Ms. Smith interviewed over 200 people of various occupations and circumstances, and distilled down to a few monologues to give viewers a sense of history as it happens. Yet beneath it all she showed the gulf and injustice prevailing over LA and U.S..
Now in 2017, 25 years after the riot, we have similar verdicts coming down. Policeman involved with shooting Tamir Rice found not guilty, shooting of Terence Crutcher in Oklahoma, found not guilty, and all with videos documenting them. The list is endless. I would think Ms. Smith would be outraged if her student gleam from her play only the praises of such an unjust system instead of outrage and protest.
Yesterday we have the Trump budget plan for the coming years, cuts in Medicaid, cuts in food stamps, cuts in cancer research. As Budget Director Mick Mulvaney said, “We must lower the debt for unborn children by taking food from children”, and of course tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. Pollution in Beijing may yet take a decade or more to solve, but solve it will be. China has lifted half a billion people out of poverty, and will soon be the beacon for nations in Africa and other underdeveloped countries. Ms. Yang’s family probably benefitted greatly from China’s development. I suspect it probably cost her family $200,00 for her education. What a waste.
This site was created to counter Western media bias – propaganda – or “Fake News” using today’s vernacular – about China. Here is another one.
Wall Street Journal recently reports that the U.S. Navy has just Conducted its First South China Sea Navigation Operation Under President Trump, and that such ‘Freedom of navigation’ patrols represent a direct challenge by the U.S. to China’s excessive maritime claims.
About 15 years ago, the term “China’s Peaceful Rise” was coined and the use of soft power was to be used by China as a way to spread its influence to other countries and eventually overcome the US as the dominant country. Many western skeptics at the time laughed at the notion but China knows better and this won’t happen in a few years but rather in a few decades.
One of the cornerstones of the “China’s Peaceful Rise” is its relationship with the US. China knows even though that the US has wronged them, they must have a favorable relations with them. And over the years, despite the switch to and from Republican and Democratic presidents, China has maintained relations with the US in a peaceful manner. Relations with Democratic presidents tend to be worse like with Clinton and Obama but relations with Republican presidents was good with Bush and especially with Trump.
Now back to Trump. I have wrote an article a few months back just a few days after Trump is elected of why Trump’s presidency is good for China.
6 months on, I was mostly correct about Trump’s policy towards China. China helped filling the pocket’s towards Trump’s family fortune, and return left the South China Seas alone, Trump willing to go along with China on talks with North Korea, and ASEAN countries going along with China instead of the US. Trump is mostly focusing on ‘terrorism’ instead the issues in Asia. The recent One Belt One Road forum is the beginning of the 2nd phase of China’s Peaceful Rise where China begins to spread its influence to other countries and its spread of its soft power. It certainly makes sense; the spends hundred of billions building military bases around the world while China spends hundred of billions building roads, railroads, bridges, and etc… Over the years the US’ failed foreign policies of bombing other countries into submission, China’s approach of spreading its influence is a welcome change.
The fall of BaiZuo?
I found this meaning online recently and it is pretty interesting. It literally means “white left” which refers to America’s Liberals. This link is an interesting read of the recent talks within China about this. Probably the best description is;
Although the emphasis varies, baizuo is used generally to describe those who “only care about topics such as immigration, minorities, LGBT and the environment” and “have no sense of real problems in the real world”; they are hypocritical humanitarians who advocate for peace and equality only to “satisfy their own feeling of moral superiority”; they are “obsessed with political correctness” to the extent that they “tolerate backwards Islamic values for the sake of multiculturalism”; they believe in the welfare state that “benefits only the idle and the free riders”; they are the “ignorant and arrogant westerners” who “pity the rest of the world and think they are saviours”.
In the past many of America’s Liberals were also progressive. However, many recent Liberals are elites who cares little about the poor and the oppressed like the Clintons, Obama, and even other leaders like German’s Chancellor Angela Merkel. Perhaps the rise of Trump is the beginning of the fall of the liberals because of his stance of isolationism. Even with the unpopularity of Trump, the Liberals don’t have an answer either because they care about maintaining the world order whereas Trump cares about profit. In the next few years the Democratic Party is trying to re-invent itself. But will be it be a party of the people like being a progressive or be a party of the liberal who will try to maintain itself as the top dog of the world?
New York Times recently was back to attacking China with articles on overfishing, Namibia uranium mining, and Ai Weiwei talking about free speech and censorship. Although per capital consumption of fish by China is slightly above U.S., the per capital consumption of meat by China is less than 1/2 of U.S.. So it’s rather disingenuous for NYT to focus on fish rather than meat. As for new colonialism as NYT claims about China’s investment in Africa is really laughable as most Africans welcome the investment in infrastructure. China pays for any mineral wealth extracted at world market prices and issue loans at below market advantageous rate. They even implied that the price of uranium dropped by half recently due to Fukushima nuclear disaster, and China is benefitting from this decline.
For opinions inside China, West is somewhat more limited in their arsenal. So they use people like Mr. Ai, since parachuting insurgents to Tibet is no longer an option. They exaggerate people like Mr. Ai of their artistic achievements, give out awards like Nobel Prizes, and use intellectual arguments to appeal to the emerging middle class. I am not a fan of Mr. Ai’s work as an artist, but I want to deal with his argument directly here since NYT doesn’t allow rebuttals in their pages, even negative comments are somewhat hidden and discarded.
Mr. Ai’s arguments consist of 2 prongs, censorship and freedom of speech, to which liberals in the West are self evident good and beyond reproach. I beg to differ here and will hold the politically incorrect position. Since the 1960s, the U.S. Supreme Court has essentially allowed sexually explicit materials without restriction with the possible exception of child pornography. Yet when the opinion was originally written, the community standard was paramount, gradually the community standard eroded until now it’s non existent. Yet the pushback against it probably caused the election of Trump, and of course if you consider the community standard of China and Chinese law, I rest my case. Given the recent cases of murders and suicides in Facebook I think many will favor some censorship even here. Next is the question of political speech which is more problematical. I do think China has the right to push her standard even in the political realm. As China enter the world community, she has her own vision of what society is striving, not individual rights, but societal rights. The alleviation of poverty, basic human dignity, health and education. As China grows richer and stronger, those political speech became less threatening and as anyone can attest, the political space is also growing. Even in the West, the freedom of speech has an exception, that of yelling fire in a crowded theater. In today’s interconnected world resembles a crowded theater, where internet posting of rumors can go viral and cause panic. So such regulation as true name posting is necessary to control sabotage. And of course any postings by terrorists which endanger society are not allowed even in U.S..
As China considers compiling a new Chinese encyclopedia competing against Wikipedia, I do advise her to giving out her narrative to the world, competing against the narrative by the West rather than suppressing it. China should not just give out blank answers to query about Tibet or 6/4, but share the lives of modern Tibet contrasting with dark history of serfs past. The reaction against corruption which triggered the original grievances of 6/4, the martyring of PLA soldiers by mobs on approach to Beijing, the confusion, and tragedies. I watched the recent TV program of the ascent of Qin Empire, in episode 1, the mother of future king told him it would be easy to be a good person, but extremely hard to be a good king. Mr. Ai can easily tot up his earnings of his artworks, for President Xi, it’s the livelihood of 1.3 billion Chinese he has to worry. History will judge the events of 6/4, but looking at history of Arab Spring contrasting with the growth of China’s economy, I think it has already rendered judgment.
