Join our Mailing List

"We Tibetans are looking for a legitimate and meaningful autonomy, an arrangement that would enable Tibetans to live within the framework of the People’s Republic of China."

Opinion: Running-Dog Propagandists

July 17, 2008

Jamyang Norbu
July 14, 2008

In response to my recent piece Barefoot Experts some readers wrote in
to say that Tibetans should not fritter away their energy picking on
experts and journalists in the West but should focus on countering
propaganda from China. A reasonable request, on the face of it, but
perhaps not too cued to the actual process by which propaganda from
Communist China influences the outside world. Consider the most
recent Chinese epithets hurled at the Dalai Lama: "a wolf in monk's
robes," "a monster with a human face and animal's heart" among
others. No one in the West could possibly take such Cultural
Revolution style denunciations seriously. So much of Beijing's
propaganda is so unrelentingly extreme that without considerable
re-working and expurgation, even bowdlerization of sorts, by outside
agencies, it would have absolutely no impact on public thinking in
the West. In fact the effect would probably be negative.

The Chinese Communist Party has recognized this problem from its
earliest days and cultivated left leaning journalists and writers in
the West as Edgar Snow, Rewi Alley and others to present its version
of things to the world. Quite often, as in the case of Snow and his
bestselling book, Red Star over China, this method has proved very effective.

I am not going to discuss Western propagandists of the past who wrote
on Tibet. A newly released book, China's Tibet? Autonomy or
Assimilation, by Warren Smith, (author of the masterful Tibetan
Nation) provides extensive analysis of the works of China's
propagandists on Tibet as Anna Louise Strong, and Israel Epstein. He
also provides, on the book's website, detailed critiques of Stuart
and Roma Gelder's The Timely Rain, Han Suyin's Lhasa, The Open City,
and also the Chinese government's version of Tibetan history, The
Historical Status of China's Tibet. I intend to post a review of
Warren Smith's new book in a few weeks.

Smith also tackles China's propaganda efforts within Tibetan society,
and the impact that such misinformation had, especially on the
younger generation. He provides detailed information of such
propaganda institutions as the Museum of the Tibetan Revolution and
it's most infamous and exhaustively invented exhibition of the
"evils" of old Tibetan society, The Wrath of the Serfs. Warren Smith
devotes a chapter to propaganda films, especially the feature film,
Serf, made by a PLA film company in 1963. This unapologetically
racist, debasing and viciously false representation of old Tibetan
society and culture was enormously significant for Chinese audiences
in the formation of their chauvinistic views about Tibet and China's
role there. The movie was shown all over China and Tibet

China's propagandists on Tibet weren't restricted to the Western
world. The sub-continent produced its share. From Sri Lanka we had
Ratne Deshpriya Senanayake, a leftist lawyer who was given a guided
tour of Tibet in the mid- 60's and wrote, Inside Story of Tibet. The
chapter on Tibetan Buddhism is typical of the mind-bogglingly bogus
scholarship that China's propagandists get away with all the time.
Take for instance his made-up-of-whole-cloth account of the origins
of the bodhisattva Avalokites'vara (Chenrezig): "One of the mythical
rishis of Kailasa who commanded the reverence of pre-Buddhist nomad
tribes of Tibet was known as Chen Rishi. 'Chen' in Tibetan language
means 'great' (it absolutely does not! JN). 'Rishi' is a Sanskrit
term meaning 'sage'. So, Chen Rishi mean the great sage." Senanayake
visited the propaganda exhibition in Lhasa attacking the Panchen
Lama, and he enthusiastically retails the vilifications depicting the
Panchen Lama as a cross-dressing child-molester without even a
fleeting consideration that the charges could be entirely false.

Then we had the right-wing Hindu politician and friend of China,
Subramaniam Swamy, author of Hindus under Seige (released by the RSS
Sarsanghchalak Sri K S Sudarshan in 2006) who also visited Tibet and
who made it his personal crusade to see that the government of India
sent the Dalai Lama and Tibetan refugees back to Tibet. In a number
of articles in the eighties and nineties, Swamy attempted to persuade
the Indian leadership and the public that Tibet was politically and
culturally (in fact throughout its entire history) an inalienable
part of China, and that even Buddhism had actually made its way to
Tibet not from India but through China.

N. Ram

A more recent Indian propagandist for China has been N. Ram, editor
of the very influential paper The Hindu, who the Chinese gave the
full Tibet tour a couple of years ago and who in 2007 published two
detailed articles where he compared the Dalai Lama to Ayatolah
Khomeini, maintained that Chinese Communist rule in Tibet was
benevolent and progressive, and prophesied that in twenty-five years
(possibly even earlier) China would remake Tibet into a fully
developed society. The Tibetan film-maker, Tenzin Sonam, in his sharp
rebuttal, China's India PR Guy, effectively demonstrated that Ram was
just another propagandist for Communist China and a "useful-idiot"; a
label Lenin had memorably attached to "starry-eyed Western
sympathizers who made a beeline for Moscow to report on the glories
of the 'Soviet paradise'."

This year when Chinese students in the US were bussed in by PRC
embassies and consulates and paid to oppose the anti-torch rallies in
San Francisco and demonstrations in New York and elsewhere, the
Chinese counter-demonstrators handed out leaflets "proving" that
Tibet had always been a part of China, and that before the Communist
invasion it had been a brutal and inhuman "slave society." The one
Western authority consistently cited in these documents to prove
their claims was the American political scientist, Michael Parenti.

Michael Parenti

Parenti is a residual American radical leftist, a throwback to the
sixties. He characteristically describes himself as a "progressive,"
the word being for leftists as sought-after a designation as
"compassionate" is for Tibetan Buddhists. From Parenti's website:
"one of the nation's leading progressive political analysts --
unrivaled among fellow progressive activists and thinkers" etc etc."
His subscribes to the Leninist dictum that Western democracies are
"bourgeois democracies," a charade to mislead the people into
thinking that they were free and self-governing. Since the late 80s
though, he is said to have noticeably modified his position. He also
strongly argues that western accounts of Stalins's great purges are
exaggerated, and like the former Trotskyist, Christopher Hitchens,
has attacked mother Theresa as a fraud and "fast-track saint." On a
more bizarre level he has attacked US intervention in Yugoslavia, and
now heads the United States chapter of the International Committee to
Defend Slobodan Milosevic'.

His main anti-Tibet screed is "Frendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth,"
which he last expanded and updated in 2007. Starting off with this
dramatic line "Along with the blood-drenched landscape of religious
conflict" Parenti embarks on a general smear of Buddhist societies
throughout history and then settles on Tibet in particular, where he
essentially regurgitates official Chinese propaganda, received
through the writings of Anna Louise Strong, and Stuart and Roma
Gelder, to which he provides a cover of scholarship by citing Tom
Grunfeld and Melvin Goldstein.

He is so unbelievably ill-informed on Tibet that it would be
laughable, if a generation of Chinese students in the US did not seem
to regard him as the leading authority on Tibet. He writes that
Kublai Khan (1215-1294) created the first "Grand Lama" or Dalai Lama
(1391-1474) and a century later the third in line gave himself the
title "Dalai" and then decided to "retroactively" recognize his two
predecessors as Dalai Lamas. This would be on the level of
nonsensical drivel as someone claiming that Napoleon Bonaparte
appointed George Washington president of the United States, but that
only till John Adams was elected did the title become official -- or
any claptrap along those lines. A more in-depth critique of Parenti,
A Lie Repeated - The Far Left's Flawed History of Tibet by Joshua
Michael Schrei, appeared some years ago, and is well recommended.

Tom Grunfeld

Another propagandists for China with pretensions regarding Tibetan
history is Tom Grunfeld of Empire State College NY, author of "The
Making of Modern Tibet." I have written a fairly long review essay,
Acme of Obscenity on his anti- Tibet "history," where I have also
provided detailed information of his Maoist background and his lack
of qualifications (no knowledge of spoken or written Tibetan or
Chinese language -- for starters). If a similar book appeared today
about Blacks or Jews there would, without doubt, be universal public
outcry. Tom Grunfeld writes that Tibetan mothers licked their babies
as they emerged from the womb -- like animals. He goes on to specify
that Tibetan were cruel, dirty, ignorant, syphilitic (90% of the
population suffering from venereal diseases according to TG) sexual
degenerates who were observed making love on rooftops in full public
view. Clearly this is intended to portray Tibetans as barbaric,
subhuman, even bestial, thereby justifying Communist Chinese rule in
Tibet as necessary and civilizing.

I have tried to find a suitable description or label for these
anti-Tibet propagandists but Tibetan is a poor language for
constructing political epithets. English, as Orwell has noted, is
similarly inadequate when compared to the political language of the
left in Europe, especially in Soviet Russia. Americans are also not
very good at this sort of thing. During the cold war they came up
with the weak "commie" and the pathetic "chicom" for Chinese
Communist. At present the worst insult the right-wing in the USA can
manage about China's apologists and supporters is "panda hugger";
which only makes me think of my little daughter in bed with her toy

The Chinese have a rich vocabulary of words and phrases specifically
to humiliate and insult, some of which were in use before the advent
of Communist rule in China. For instance the word "running dog" or
zougou meaning an unprincipled person who helps of flatters other,
more powerful and often evil people, was in use in this sense since
the Qing dynasty. Anyone who has gone through the pages of Communist
Chinese newspapers (I have done so only in translation) will have
noted its extensive use in official propaganda, so in the spirit of
quid pro quo it might be fitting to confer on Parenti, Grunfeld and
others the title of "running-dog propagandists." An abbreviation
"dog-prop" is offered, in the style of the Soviet "agit-prop"
(meaning a person or organization engaged in disseminating official
propaganda) but the contraction doesn't appear to "take" all that well.

A distinction should perhaps be made between running dog
propagandists and the barefoot experts discussed in an earlier piece.
Though we might strongly disagree with the some of the writings and
viewpoints of the latter, we should not regard them as propagandists
for Communist China. In fact a case could perhaps be made that many
such experts started off as supporters of the Tibetan cause, but
drifted astray for various reasons, a crucial one possibly being the
intellectual confusion and cynicism generated by the suicidal
appeasement policies of the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile.

Barry Sautman

The main running-dog propagandist to comment on events in Tibet this
March has been Barry Sautman, Associate Professor, Division of Social
Science, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. Sautman
appears to have taken on himself the task of playing down China's
repression of the people of Tibet and East Turkestan (Xinjiang). In
the case of Tibet his essential thesis is that that claims of
cultural repression against Tibetans by the Han Chinese are greatly
exaggerated by Tibetan exiles in India and by the liberal Western
press. And that even the term "cultural genocide" is a "straw man"
that is used by exile Tibetans to malign China.

He makes his argument much more effectively than Parenti and handily
dispenses a barrage of statistics and data his opponents appear
unable to respond to immediately. Careful inspection reveals the
dubious origins of many of his facts and figures, which he often
presents only partially, to suit the specifics of his argument. For
instance Sautman tells us that "Schools in Tibet promote the Tibetan
language more than Indian schools do in ethnic Tibetan areas -- in
Ladakh, India, instruction is in Urdu, with a high dropout rate from
Tibetans, but India is never accused of cultural genocide against Tibetans."

The data that Sautman cleverly fails to include is that Ladakh
(unlike Tibet) has traditionally had a mixed population of Buddhists
and Muslims, and that education in Urdu is a legacy of Moghul rule,
continued by the British, and since independence by the Muslim
majority state of Kashmir, of which Ladakh is a region. In point of
fact Tibetan language education has actually undergone a resurgence
in Ladakh in recent times, especially since 1995 with the formation
of the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council, whereby much of
the actual administration of the region including language and
education has been effectively placed in the hand of elected local leaders.

Sautman also challenges the description of Tibet as a colony of
China. He argues, "The problems of Tibetans are typical of minorities
in the era of large modern states." He holds the same for East
Turkestan (Xinjiang) disputing the view of some experts that the
region is an "internal colony" of China. He is skillful in applying
mind-numbing academic gobbledygook to gloss over flaws in his
argument. Take this sentence for instance: "Its (East Turkestan's)
relationship with the PRC centre and the political economy of
Han/minority interaction indicate, however, that none of the elements
of the internal colonialist concept are sufficiently present to
warrant characterising Xinjiang as an internal colony of China." What
on earth is the "political economy of Han/minority interaction" or
for that matter, what is an "internal colonialist concept"?

On the recent events in Tibet, Barry Sautman has been sternly
reproving. In an article "Protests in Tibet and "Separatism: The
Olympics and Beyond," he declares that the Tibet protests "differ
from the broad-based demonstrations of 'people power' movements in
several parts of the world in the last few decades. They hardly show
the overwhelming Tibetan anti-Chinese consensus portrayed in the
international media. The highest media estimate of Tibetans who
participated in protests is 20,000 -- by Steve Chao, the Beijing
Bureau Chief of Canadian Television News, i.e., one of every 300
Tibetans. Compare that to the 1986 protests against the Marcos
dictatorship by about three million -- one out of every 19 Filipinos."

Note the impressive statistics, the media estimates. The only catch
being that we know media presence throughout Tibet was near
non-existent during that period, so the best estimates become
essentially vague guesses. Steve Chao only made it to a remote
village of Bora in Amdo (Gansu province) where he witnessed an
invasion of over one thousand villagers and tribals on horseback and foot.

"They came over the mountain on horseback, and on foot. More than a
thousand ethnic Tibetans, pouring into a remote Chinese town not far
from the Tibetan border." They stormed the government building, and
though repelled by tear gas, pulled down the Chinese flag and raised
the Tibetan national flag -- These are the type of protests being
repeated throughout the country. People, mostly Tibetans, demanding
their freedom. And their own country."

Did Steve Chao write that only 20,000 Tibetans participated in the
events throughout Tibet? I don't know. I googled for the "20,000"
estimate and all I got was Sautman's article, or his Steve Chao quote
repeated in many left wing and anti-Tibet websites. Nothing directly
by Steve Chao. Anyway, such estimates are meaningless. 20,000 is as
much a guess as 100,000 or 1000,000, under the circumstances. The
only clear impression we actually have from Chao's various interviews
and reports is that he witnessed a dramatic and great uprising
against Communist China at the remote village of Bora, that Chao
realised "was being repeated throughout the country."

Sautman also makes a very apples and oranges sort of comparison here.
Tibet is an occupied country completely controlled by a foreign
military and security forces, and sealed off to the international
media and the world. Every Tibetan was fully aware that Chinese
reprisals against any sort of demonstration would be brutal and
massive. Also no one expected that the initial demonstrations in
Lhasa would trigger of uprisings and protest throughout Tibet,
including areas incorporated into Sichun, Gansu and Qinghai
provinces. Considering the massive investment in security,
intelligence and control the Chinese had made over the years in
Tibet, the spontaneity, size and extensiveness of the protests caught
Chinese authorities completely by surprise. I don't think anyone in
Beijing would go along with Sautman's contention that the events in
Tibet were small potatoes.

The Philippines, although under the authoritarian and corrupt rule of
Ferdinand Marcos was, relative to Communist China, an open society
with representatives of the world media, NGOs and US and other
government agencies present and operating relatively freely. The
protests Sautman mentions came about because democratic elections had
earlier been held for the presidency but reports of voter fraud by
Marcos soon circulated which precipitated the demonstrations. The
movement grew over the days with such religious figures as Jaime
Cardinal Sin and even the defense minister and Vice Chief of Staff of
the Armed Forces joining the protesters, which encouraged more of the
public to join – swelling the numbers. The uprising in Tibet were
entirely leaderless, spontaneous and unplanned, yet the vast extent
of territory it covered, its unified nationalist message (the
national flag and independence slogans) and its staying power -- with
protests still breaking out in Eastern Tibet -- indicate the
awakening of a powerful nationalistic and revolutionary spirit in the
Tibetan people.

Satuman also declares, with not a shred of evidence or citation, that
the Tibetan Youth Congress (TYC) and other exile entities responsible
for the demonstrations were financed by the US State Department or
the US Congress' National Endowment for Democracy. It is almost
certain that Sautman got his information from William Engdahl, well
known for his views that both the 9/11 attacks and the theory of
global warming are conspiracies. Engdahl's Tibet article appeared in
April 14th where he argued that the events in Tibet were engineered
by U.S. government-backed organizations and funded by the US State
Department, including the National Endowment for Democracy (NED),
Freedom House, as well as the Trace Foundation financed by the wealth
of George Soros.

Sautman concludes "The protests in Tibet had no progressive aspect"
There have been many movements the world over in which marginalized
people have taken a reactionary and often racist road, for example,
al-Qaeda or much of the base of the Nazis."

When Tibetans, who are conducting probably the most peaceful struggle
in the world for "national liberation" against a colossal
totalitarian regime that thinks nothing of massacring thousands of
its own students in the space of a few nights; when these Tibetans
are accused of being reactionaries and racists operating in much the
same way as Al Qaeda or the Nazis, it is imperative for Tibetans to
realize that they are not just being criticized unfairly, or that
their issue is merely being discussed, albeit unsympathetically, in a
free or neutral forum. No, they are being set up. In this day and age
being accused of anything related to Al Qaeda is highly undesirable.
Just ask the Uighur freedom fighters locked up in Guantanamo.

It is important that Tibetan activist organization as the Tibetan
Youth Congress or the Students for a Free Tibet, should not only
challenge all such accusations and innuendos but should take anyone
making them to court. I am not a legal expert but I think that
Sautman's charge that the TYC and other activist organizations took
money from the State Department or the NED is clearly actionable.

At a time when more extreme societies and organizations think nothing
of issuing death threats or pronouncing fatwa's against their
critics, and often go through the trouble of actually carrying them
out, it is important that any Tibetan response to their detractors,
critics, even proven agents of Communist China be civilized, measured
and legitimate. Yet respond Tibetans must. No one could in any way
object to a carefully considered and legal response by Tibetans to
those who would spread malicious untruths about their country and
cause. If the attacker in question were an academic or a journalist,
I feel it would be the responsible thing for Tibetans to contact the
institution the person works for, state their concerns and provide
accurate information about the person's bias, bigotry or lack of

Tibetans should bear in mind that not only their struggle for
freedom, but in fact their very history, culture -- everything that
has meaning for them -- is coming under attack from what can only be
described as propagandists and apologists for Communist China posing
as impartial, even concerned, scholars and journalists; and, in a
case or two (which will be discussed in the future) even from
self-described philanthropists and some national leaders.

Holocaust denial has become an indictable crime in thirteen, mostly
European countries. Whether one thinks such a law is too restrictive
of free speech, or whether what happened in Tibet is like the
Holocaust or not, everyone would surely agree that without the
strenuous and determined efforts of Jewish organizations and
individuals, in courts, the media, intellectual forums and academic
circles around the world, the tragic history of modern European Jewry
would most probably have been swept under the carpet in most
countries, including the USA and Europe.

Tibetans need to move in a more resolute and organized manner to
counter this assault on their cause and history. For a start a
website could perhaps be created and the Tibetan public, supporters
and friends regularly informed about the activities of running dog
propagandists, and sometimes when warranted, the comments of barefoot
experts. Some of our own politicians, lamas, scholars and others,
attempting to appease Beijing to obtain a visa, to start or maintain
a business or a project inside Tibet, have also unfortunately been
sometimes persuaded to articulate Beijing's propaganda regarding Tibet.

So much of the international impact of the tremendous revolutionary
events in Tibet this year was simply neutralized by the comments of
foreign propagandists and experts, and squandered away by the
confusing and insanely self-destructive statements and actions
originating from Dharmshala, and retailed in the West by the
International Campaign for Tibet (ICT) and others. Those who believe
in Rangzen must reclaim the debate on Tibet so that the actual
aspirations of the people inside Tibet are clearly represented to the
world. It is also vital that this discussion be vigorous -- yet open,
honest and informed -- and that it actively involves the Tibetan
people and those who have the best interests of that nation at heart.

Before concluding I think it might be useful to familiarize readers
with the "root guru" the tsawae lama, of nearly all these
propagandists and "experts" on Tibet -- especially since the late
seventies. As I had occasion to mention earlier, most of these
self-described "historians" and "scholars" writing on Tibet, nearly
always had no command of written or spoken Tibetan and only
superficial knowledge of Tibetan history or culture. If one studies
their works it will be noticed that they generally tend to quote from
each other in a sort of vicious circle, and also quote extensively
from British travelers of the imperialistic pre-Younghusband
expedition era, whose writings demonized old Tibetan society, in much
the way as Communist propaganda does now, and for much the same
reasons -- to justify the violent military invasion of an independent
nation and peaceful neighbour. No one I have noticed quotes from
later, and significantly more accomplished British scholars on Tibet
as Hugh Richardson or Alistair Lamb.

But the one academic, the Tibet expert that all running dog
propagandists and barefoot experts unfailing cite and whose
information and observations provide their work some appearance of
scholarship and legitimacy, is the anthropologist, Melvyn Goldstein
of Case Western Reserve University. Goldstein is not only fluent in
spoken and written Tibetan, but has published a number of language
books and dictionaries, that are useful, but which contain an
underlying political message that the modernization and
revitalization of Tibetan language was largely, perhaps even
exclusively the doing of Communist China. I have discussed this
contention in my five-part essay "Newspeak and New Tibet: The Myth of
China's Modernization of Tibet and the Tibetan Language." Part I,
Part II, Part III , Part IV & Part V.

Beijing appears to regard Goldstein as the premier Tibet scholar on
its side. If one goes into the Chinese government white papers on
Tibet and checks out The Historical Inevitability of Tibet's
Modernization, The first and key reference cited is Goldstein's
History of Modern Tibet: the Demise of the Lamaist State. This book
is extremely important to China's propagandists, because it is the
only extensive account of pre-invasion Tibet and its government that
is not only harshly condemnatory of Tibetans, but presents a very
convincing appearance of meticulous research and authentic
scholarship. In fact no Tibetan academic or the government in exile
has thus far attempted to challenge it. I have undertaken a fairly
long analysis of Goldstein's book that I will post in two parts
starting next week.

Goldstein has also written a major policy report on the Tibetan
question. The Dragon and the Snowlion: The Tibetan Question in the
20th Century. In this he articulates his final solution for the
Tibetan question, whereby the Chinese would retain political,
military and economic control over Tibet, but would allow Tibetans to
exist within "cultural reservations." A few Tibetans wrote indignant
letters when it first appeared in the Tibetan Review. I contributed
an analysis, Atrocity and Amnesia in 1992. I later came to understand
that Goldstein's report contributed to easing the decision of many in
Congress to go along with the Clinton administration's de-linking of
human rights and trade with China, and abandoning MFN. Tibet had then
been the main sticking point in the MFN discussions. In fact June 3rd
1994, was the administration's deadline for China to show progress on
human rights in Tibet or face losing its most favoured nation trading
status. Because of Goldstein's various roles in Tibetan affairs then,
as language expert, anthropologist, historian, and even statesman,
some Western scholars jokingly referred to him as "Melvyn of Tibet."

The report, now in pamphlet form, still has capacity to do damage and
was recently quoted by Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times as "the
best introduction to Tibet." With the help of the pamphlet Kristof
concluded that it was as much the Dalai Lama's fault as it was
China's that the situation in Tibet was so terrible; and that
Washington should not support the Tibetan issue even through
"symbolic gestures." The title of Kristof's op-ed of May 18, Fed Up
With Peace seemed to imply that Tibetans were moving towards the path
of violence. Therefore, by supporting their cause Americans might
well be encouraging, even sponsoring a potential but dangerous
extremist movement (as the Taliban in Afghanistan?). He concludes
with this alarming observation -- at this rate Shangri-La may become
a breeding ground for terrorists."

Goldstein himself made a small but direct contribution to the
discussions following the recent uprisings in Tibet with a letter to
the editor. It was in response to an op-ed, Don't Know Much About
Tibetan History in The New York Times by Professor Elliot Sperling of
Indiana University, who made it clear that although the question was
controversial, the historical evidence for Tibet as an independent
nation was more substantial than China's claims to the country.
Sperling concluded with the blunt observation that "Tibet was not
'Chinese' before Mao Zedong's armies marched in and made it so."

Goldstein immediately responded with a brief letter saying that
though Tibet may have been a de-facto independent country before
1950, the USA and Great Britain did not recognize it as such. I could
practically hear Goldstein whispered "so there" at the end of the sentence.

Goldstein has made it a point in many of the conferences and forums
he attends, to constantly attempt to establish American
non-recognition of Tibetan independence. He did it at a conference in
Harvard in 2002, The Cold War and its Legacy in Tibet, and poured
cold water on some of the romance and excitement generated by the
discussions of the CIA's secret involvement with the Khampa
resistance in Tibet. Of course Goldstein was right that the American
government had never recognized Tibetan independence, but his way of
expressing it, as a kind of put down of the Tibetan freedom struggle,
nettled me somewhat. I managed to get in a comment that Goldstein's
view was America-centric; that things did manage to happen in this
world without the blessings of the USA; and that Tibet had become an
independent country in 1912 without America's approval or recognition.

The views expressed in this piece are that of the author and the
publication of the piece on this website does not necessarily reflect
their endorsement by the website.

CTC National Office 1425 René-Lévesque Blvd West, 3rd Floor, Montréal, Québec, Canada, H3G 1T7
T: (514) 487-0665
Developed by plank