How free is FREE?

I have been mulling over the latest political brouhaha in the US primary race. I think it's symbolic of how shallow the US's purported commitment to freedom really is.

Senators Obama and Clinton are locked in a 'fight to the death' in the democratic primaries. Into the midst of this melee springs a surprise (Obama machine) monkey wrench, the Wright Wrench. Now, suddenly, Obama turns tail and runs for cover, rebuking his overzealous ex-pastor and in the final analysis losing (in my unAmerican opinion) his perceived moral edge over his eagerly expectant rival.

The politics of the situation is rather comic. Whoever wins will be a 'historic' candidate in remarkable ways. So, I am not overly exercised by the potential outcome. Past experience has taught me never to be overly optimistic in these matters, for Americans generally seem more enamoured of the more caddish candidate and have always voted these known bad apples in for a second term and with their eyes wide open too.

What does interest me is the shallowness of the meaning of 'freedom' for Americans. One is welcome to be free, it seems, as long as that freedom does not extend to criticizing anything American. America is always good. America is always right. American foreign policy is always eminently fair... Any dissent is unAmerican. Any dissenter is a traitor. You are free only to believe and espouse one American truth.

One need not agree with a Wright, or for that matter with a Ward Churchill ("little Eichmanns" title link), or even a Farrakhan, or with anyone who refuses to wear a flag lapel pin... But, if one believes in freedom, if one really believes in freedom, one has to respect the dissenter and the dissenter's right to dissent.

At one time it was traitorous and unBritish for the erstwhile colonists to speak out against their God-appointed king. The dissent on which a potentially great democracy was founded was enshrined in the American Constitution's main text and then specifically spelled out in the very justly famous "First Amendment". It is a fundamental human right to be free to disagree!

One would think that being a member of a church where a pastor dares to speak what he sees as the truth, should be a big plus point for a presidential candidate. Here is someone who says that they admire the person and agree with some of what that person stands for and yet recognises that person's fundamental right to hold views that are unpopular.

Ask yourself: Is agreement necessary for acceptance? Does unpopular = unAmerican? I also wonder, does criticism of America mean less love for America, or even less patriotism?

If I were a psychoanalyst, I might even wonder whether such obvious displays of hypersensitivity may not be symptomatic of some under-the-surface feelings of GUILT?

India and Tibet

No one in the International community of nations seems to be ready to bell the Chinese cat on Tibet. The policy of silence is loudest in Tibet's closest neighbour India.

It seems a shame that commercial interests combined with India's real fear of confrontation with China on the disputed area of the borders in Arunachal Pradesh state, should be sufficient to cow down such an erstwhile champion of human rights as India. Still, the sad truth is that though the Dalai Lama is our guest in exile, in toto, that too is just for publicity's sake and has little other than symbolic value.

Reading through Tibet’s long and tortuous history, we must again conclude that the death blows to Tibetan independence were finally dealt by the British in the early years of the 20th century, closely followed by a botched CIA operation during the 1950s.Like any unfortunate country that is lacking great enticements (like oil or mineral wealth), no other nation is willing to stick their necks out against the Chinese behemoth for the sake of a few million poor and exploited Tibetans. Europe is happy to support the right of Kosovans to self determination but won’t even whimper at the fate of the poor Tibetans. As with Sudan and Burma, so it is too with Tibet - a mysterious cat has got every single nation’s tongue!

Meantime, the Chinese have been much more concerned with the possible effects on their precious Olympics. I think they have misread the world’s commitment to anything other than money. Our modern world’s shame is highlighted by the fact that ‘amateur’ sport has been so successfully exploited to become the biggest money spinning "event" of all time. Catch the nations of the world putting principles ahead of the chance to collectively make some really fast bucks! If only even one country would demand autonomy or at least basic human rights for Tibetans before agreeing to participate… fat chance!

Just for fun, compare the "Free Tibet" facts and figures (click on the title) with the Chinese version of 'the truth' and tell me what you think...

NeoCononialism

The tables have been turned. For those, like myself, who are citizens of nations that survived our colonisation by GREAT Britain, it's ironic to see the ridiculous and comical turnaround that has occurred over the last 5 years.

Can't really blame Tony. He had inherited a castrated nation and desperately needed to be leashed to the neocon HE-men of America in order to distract his people from their own desperate straits.

Margaret Thatcher was the much loved and therefore much reelected Prime Minister who knocked the final few nails into the coffin of British world hegemony. She has never recovered and now has to kow-tow quite shamelessly to the likes of GWB.

A globalised economy, the almighty dollar, a resurgent Euro (ever wondered where the vaunted Sterling is hiding?) and the loss of Hongkong (not to mention the Falklands war) had left Britain tottering.

From all the former colonies around the world we watch with somewhat mixed emotions as the new handler slaps his dog into complete, obsequious, submission. A former colony has in turn colonised (or is it neocononised) the once proud owners of an empire on which "the sun never set".

The Magna Carta (of 1215) says "No Freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful Judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right."

But in today's England, the neocononial tsunami that began with the secret "renderings" has washed away all traces of justice and liberty.

Those who came seeking asylum from the terror at their backs are falsely accused and imprisoned as suspected "terrorists". When finally acquitted by the highest courts are nonetheless being forcibly deported to the control of Secret Police in countries that are known for their torturous and murderous treatment of dissidents.


And the tragicomedy continues to play out...