What is a “Comrade” and Why We Use the Term

by Kevin “Rashid” Johnson

The concept of “Comrade” has a special meaning and significance in revolutionary struggle. We have often been asked to explain our use of this term, especially by our peers who are new to the struggle, instead of more familiar terms like “brother,” “homie,” “cousin,” “dog,” nigga,” etc.

Foremost, is that we aspire to build a society based upon equality and a culture of revolutionary transformation, so we need to purge ourselves of the tendency to use terms of address that connote cliques and exclusive relationships. A comrade can be a man or a woman of any color or ethnicity, but definitely a fellow fighter in the struggle against all oppression.

Terms like “mister” or “youngster” imply a difference of social status, entitlement to greater or lesser respect and built-in concepts of superiority or inferiority. Terms like “bitch,” “dog,” nigga,” “ho,” etc., are degrading and disrespectful – even when used affectionately – as some do to dull the edge of their general usage in a world that disrespects us. Continue reading

Red State Irony

by Neill Herring

The last four or five decades have seen extraordinary economic and population growth in the southern states of the United States, continuing historic developments that started during the Second World War and were later stimulated by the end of legal racial segregation. One national effect of those changes has been a continual shift in the center of economic growth for the whole country to the southern and western states, away from the Northeast and the Midwest “rust belt.”

The character of the exploitation of labor in the South has changed as investment patterns have displaced large populations from manufacturing and extractive employment. The continuing breakdown of the caste-like remnants of post-Reconstruction labor “markets” has removed hundreds of thousands of workers from home- and institution-based domestic service, as well as various manual occupations, and forced them into other employment. This new “New South” has been widely celebrated, even as regional wage rates still trail other sections of the country (and while the South shares the national upward redistribution of wealth). What is different now from the pattern in the 1950s is that realizing a return on investment by the sweating-it-out of workers is nothing like the obvious low-cost option it was then.

Marx says there are two sources of economic wealth: that produced by human labor; and the wealth that can be taken by that labor from the earth itself, from land, air, and water. As the rate of the exploitation of the former has continued to increase, exploitation of the latter has also risen, particularly in the South. Continue reading

Taser Death Toll Mounts

by Bob Briton

The death of Brazilian student Roberto Laudisio Curti a fortnight ago has thrown the spotlight back on police use of Tasers. The victim was allegedly fleeing the scene of a crime – the theft of a packet of biscuits from a convenience store. Roberto was also capsicum sprayed. Over the years, media reports have created the impression that the targets of this type of weaponry are people presenting a danger to others in their vicinity or to police.

The 21-year-old Brazilian did not fit this frequently invoked profile. He was reported to be running away from police when shot in the back. It is unclear how many times he was Tasered. A witness reported a female officer kicking the student while he was being held on the ground. Continue reading

CP of Brazil (PCdoB) – 90 years for Brazil and Socialism!! A Manifest to All Workers and the Brazilian People

National Political Commission of the Communist Party of Brazil.
São Paulo, March 15, 2012.

The Communist Party of Brazil – PCdoB – turns 90 on March 25, 2012. It has had the longest life among the political organizations in the history of Brazil, connected to the workers’ longing for the socialist ideal. It envisions Brazil as a great nation, loving peace and solidarity among peoples, rejecting war and imperialist rulings.

In nine decades generations of communists joined the party ranks. In different stages, three personalities inscribed their names in the saga of communists in Brazil: Astrojildo Pereira, Luiz Carlos Prestes and João Amazonas.

Astrojildo Pereira led the foundation in 1922 and symbolizes the generation of those first days. Prestes joined the Party in 1934, already the “Hope Knight,” and led the generation until 1960. Amazonas joined the Party in 1935 and led a generation that reorganized it and conducted it until the first election of Lula.

As Renato Rabelo was acclaimed president of the Party in 2001, shortly before the passing of Amazonas, a new generation is taking position in the communist trenches.

Today PCdoB is a well-known and prestigious force, a powerful political and moral asset, a strong presence among workers, a predominant influence among the youth, with outstanding presence in the Parliament, in local governments and in the Lula and Dilma Rousseff administrations.

Without underestimating the divergences of the past, the current board of PCdoB is aware that this party is the one founded in 1922 and reorganized in 1962, built by all those generations of communists. The anniversary that we proudly celebrate is that of all those generations.

1. The legacy of the founding generation

The first expressive contribution of the Party to our history is its own foundation. It introduced in the political stage, for the first time among us, a working class party with its own organization and specific objectives, starting with socialism.

At that time, the working class already started strikes for their rights and had active unions. But, under anarchist influence, it resisted the political struggle. However, they received news from Russia, according to which workers brought down a tyrannical regime, took power and started to build socialism. And a piece of information started to circulate: such achievement was only possible because they had a communist party.

Building a party of that kind in our country was the mission started by the nine delegates that founded the Communist Party of Brazil: Astrojildo Pereira, Cristiano Cordeiro, Abílio de Nequete, Hermogênio da Silva Fernandes, João da Costa Pimenta, Joaquim Barbosa, José Elias da Silva, Luis Peres and Manuel Cendón. Astrojildo and others, such as Octávio Brandão, led the first generation of communists.

The Old Republic was entering a crisis and the dispute that led to the Revolution of 1930 eight years after was already growing. The recently founded Party introduced a new element: it led the working class to politics. It organized the Labor and Peasant Bloc, BOC, which systematized for the first time among us a platform of social and labor rights. The Party, by means of BOC, elected in 1927 two communist councilors in the city of Rio de Janeiro: Octávio Brandão and Minervino de Oliveira. In 1929 – with the banner of a unionist coalition that it has defended since 1922 – it created the General Confederation of the Workers of Brazil, CGTB.

In the elections in 1930 Júlio Prestes was the ruling candidate and Getúlio Vargas represented the opposition. The Party proposed Luiz Carlos Prestes as its candidate, which was denied. It then launched the candidacy of Minervino de Oliveira, Secretary-General of CGTB. The campaign suffered from unusual violence and the candidate was imprisoned several times. He had few votes. But the historical fact remained: in 1930 the Communist Party of Brazil launched a unionist worker, a black man, Minervino de Oliveira, as a candidate to the Presidency of the Republic.

As the Revolution of 1930 unfolded, the Party did not support it. It judged – wrongly – that mere oligarchic contradictions were at stake.

The founding generation also left a valorous legacy in divulging the ideas of the Party. The Movimento Comunista magazine was issued in 1922; the A Classe Operária newspaper was launched in 1925; in 1927 it issued the first communist daily, A Nação.

In the theoretical front, the founding generation is also credited for launching the first Brazilian edition of the Communist Manifesto, followed by other works by Marx and Lenin. Octávio Brandão published Agrarismo e Industrialismo (1926), the first essay on the Brazilian reality under the Marxist point of view.

2. Struggle for liberty, development and culture

When the Revolution of 1930 showed its limits, the Party contributed to launch the National Liberating Alliance (ANL) in March 1935. Prestes, who joined the Party in 1934, was its president of honor. ANL rapidly spread in the national territory with its motto “Bread, Land and Liberty” and with its mobilizations against Nazi fascism and its local version, integralism. Then it was banned by the Vargas administration, leading alliance groups connected to the Party to try to form a popular government with the uprising in November 1935, which was soon asphyxiated because it was fundamentally based on the barracks of the Army.

Repression was always heavy on the Party. After the uprising in 1935, it was extensive and cruel, with more than 15 thousand imprisoned. Prestes remained nine years in jail. Olga Benário, the young German connected to the Communist International, Prestes’ companion, was handed to Hitler’s Gestapo and died in a concentration camp. The repressive wave proceeded until 1937, in the dictatorship of the Estado Novo, the New State.

In the 63 years from 1922 and 1985, the Party had only two years and fourth months of legality. The dominant classes always curbed its freedom. But in several occasions repression not only victimized communists, but also the whole of society, such as during the Estado Novo (1937-1945) and the military dictatorship (1964-1985). The most used pretext was the “communist threat.” Therefore, one of the Party’s legacies to the history of Brazil is its extensive fight for freedom.

During the Estado Novo the party leadership was disbanded, demanding a new restructuration that culminated with the Mantiqueira Conference (1943). That is when the second generation of communists appeared, headed by Luiz Carlos Prestes (imprisoned until 1945), Diógenes Arruda, Maurício Grabois, Pedro Pomar, João Amazonas, Amarílio Vasconcelos, Júlio Sérgio de Oliveira, Mário Alves and Carlos Marighella.

The Party fought to make Brazil enter Word War II to join the allied forces, among which the USSR, against the Nazi fascist Axis. It strived for the constitution of the Expeditionary Brazilian Force that fought in Europe, in which many communists enlisted.

After the defeat of Germany in World War II, the Estado Novo came to an end and the Party became legal for a short period. It launched Iedo Fiúza as its presidential candidate in 1945, obtaining 10% of the valid votes; and elected Prestes in the Senate with many votes and 14 deputies for the Constituent Assembly, among which the most voted for deputy in Rio de Janeiro, João Amazonas, as well as Maurício Grabois, Carlos Marighella, Gregório Bezzerra, Jorge Amado and Claudino José da Silva, the only black man in the Constituent Assembly.

At the Constituent Assembly, the Party stood out for its unyielding defense of democracy, the rights of workers, the agrarian reform and national sovereignty. And it highlighted the role of the Soviet Union in defeating Nazi fascism.

The Constituent Assembly became effective in the already poisonous climate of the Dutra administration and the Cold War. The Party lost its permit in 1947 and shortly after its elected Congress members were expelled. That was a rude and contemptible attack against democracy.

In clandestinity again, communists displayed another of their characteristics: the defense of development and national economy. The campaign “The oil is ours” was started at that time, leading to the creation of Petrobras in 1953.

During this period the communists organized great campaigns for peace, against sending Brazilian troops to fight in the Korean War and for the banishment of nuclear weapons.

In this generation the Party sought closer ties with the intellectual and artistic production. Among those directly connected to the Party were writers such as Jorge Amado and Graciliano Ramos; architects and artists such as Oscar Niemeyer, Cândido Portinari, Di Cavalcanti, Carlos Scliar and Tarsila do Amaral; playwrights and actors such as Gianfrancesco Guarnieri, Francisco Milani, Oduvaldo Vianna Filho, Dias Gomes and Mário Lago; musicians such as Cláudio Santoro and Guerra Peixe; directors such as Ruy Santos and Nelson Pereira dos Santos; scientists such as Mário Schenberg; sportsmen such as João Saldanha; jornalists such as Aparício Torelli, the Baron of Itararé.

3. Reorganization and the struggle in many fronts against the dictatorship in 1964

Dreadful facts affected the Communist Party of Brazil between 1956 and 1962. On the one side, the majority of the Brazilian leadership accepted opportunist trends disseminated in the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), headed by Nikita Khrushchev. On the other hand, that same majority adopted a national-reformist trend. Therefore, in 1961 a new reformist organization called Brazilian Communist Party published a new Program and Statute.

Immediately a group of experienced leaders reacted and, in February 1962, reorganized the Communist Party of Brazil, with its original name, tradition and revolutionary character, starting to use the acronym PCdoB. The Party became smaller, but revitalized. It started to think more about Brazil and defined its policies in line with the events. The organization was headed by João Amazonas, Maurício Grabois and Pedro Pomar.

After half a century, life has proven those who reorganized the Party. PCdoB has grown and stood firmly. Nobody today doubts which is the Communist Party of Brazil.

Two years after the reorganization the generals brought about the coup in 1964. The Party concluded that the dictatorship had come to stay. The doors to institutional action were closed. Therefore, it opened the way to armed resistance. In the following years, while the dictatorship became increasingly violent, PCdoB prepared and directed the Araguaia Guerilla.

The Araguaia was a heroic chapter in the history of Brazil that honors and praises PCdoB. The Guerilla resisted for almost three years. The dictatorship mobilized many troops to confront it, prohibited the press to divulge it and resorted to “dirty war.” But the alarm remained: Brazilians did not accept the dictatorship and other Araguaias could appear.

During the Guerilla, almost all of the greatest organization opposing the dictatorship, the Marxist-Leninist Popular Action (APML), joined PCdoB after a long ideological struggle: it was the most important and successful unifying process in the history of the Brazilian left.

In 1976, already in its declining stage, the dictatorship perpetrated the Lapa Massacre, in São Paulo, where three communist leaders were murdered: Pedro Pomar, Ângelo Arroyo and João Batista Drummond.

Amazonas headed a leading core recomposed with leaders from APML and young cadres, guiding a third generation of communists.

In 1975 the Party concentrated the struggle for the end of the dictatorship under three banners: broad, generalized and unrestricted amnesty; the revocation of the exceptional acts and laws; and a free and sovereign Constituent Assembly. In 1979, though distorted and incomplete, the amnesty freed political prisoners and allowed the return of exiles. The social movements started over, with strikes and other journeys such as the Movement against Destitution. And the Party took part of it. In 1984 one of the greatest mass demonstrations in the history of Brazil took place: the Diretas Já (Direct elections now) campaign. Despite its banishment, PCdoB took to the streets. But the Congress did not approve the Diretas Já.

The nation was shocked. The opposition was doubtful. Part of it attempted to form the “Direct elections only” movement. Tancredo Neves, the possible opposition candidate, would have to renounce the government of the state of Minas Gerais in order to become a candidate. Amid such confusion, would he resign?

PCdoB was not confounded. It stressed that the opposition would go to the Electoral College not to legitimate, but to put an end to the dictatorship. It also declared that if a candidate would openly make such a commitment, the Party would take to the streets to legitimize his candidacy. Amazonas went to Minas Gerais to explain that position to Tancredo Neves. He became a candidate and the great demonstrations of Diretas Já were repeated. Victory finished the College and the dictatorship.

The defeat of the Soviet experience in 1991 was another crucial moment. Capitalist proclaimed that socialist was finished. Politicians and intellectuals, even progressive ones, believed that lie. Many communist parties put their flags down, changed their names and their symbols and renounced Marxism.

PCdoB did not lower its flag, did not change its name, did not change its symbol and did not deny Marxism. It tried to learn from the defeat, studying and learning with the successes and mistakes of the Soviet experience, adjusting the struggle for socialism to the new conditions of the world. It stressed that that defeat took place when socialism was still in its infancy, taking its first steps. The Party called an Extraordinary Congress (1992) and after a substantial debate the conclusion was unanimous: “Socialism lives!”

Today it is capitalism that struggles under the claws of a systemic crisis. And its epicenter is exactly in the capitalist metropolises: in Europe and in the United States.

Much to the contrary, socialism displays its vitality. We can see that in great China – the second strongest international power – heroic Vietnam and fearless Cuba, among other experiences, including the socialist project in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador. The rebellious movements in Wall Street and Europe also stood out.

It is a new struggle for socialism that is unfolding all over the world and especially in Latin America. That is a revolutionary and renovated socialism that does not copy a single model, absorbing national particularities and opening the way with courage and an open mind. That is the socialism of PCdoB.

4. A new time, democratization, the Constituent Assembly, a Party in the government

Redemocratization after the dictatorship followed an unexpected path. Tancredo Neves passed away and his vice President, José Sarney, took the decisive steps. The Party was legal once again and took part in the new Constituent Assembly in 1987-88. Its 1,003 amendments dealt with broadening democracy; labor rights; development and national sovereignty. Such as in the Constituent Assembly in 1946, one of them guaranteed religious freedom. The Communist Party of Brazil is the only party of all active organizations today that took part in the three Constituent Assemblies in the republican period.

On January 1st 2003 Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva was inaugurated in the presidential palace. It was not a mere change of names. A new era started in the history of the country.

PCdoB is proud of its leading role in building that cycle. It is the only party, apart from the Workers Party, that fought for it since the beginning. It supported Lula since his campaign in 1989, in his three initial defeats and in the three following victories until the election of President Dilma Rousseff in 2010. It engaged in the difficult resistance to the neoliberal era, in the great popular students’ demonstrations that led to the impeachment of the President of the Republic in 1992. In the Fernando Henrique Cardoso administration it fought against the neoliberal policy, privatizations, the IMF, the Apagão (energy blackout), the diplomacy that raised its voice against Bolivia and lowered it with the USA. The Party helped to turn that tenebrous page – we hope it is forever.

The change in Brazil is part of a broader movement. It is almost all of Latin America that has rebelled in a true red, democratic, patriotic and progressive tide dyed with the Latin American blood.

Rebellion follows an original path where the main weapon is popular vote. By means of the victories of advanced candidates, backed by popular movements, the transformation progress follows its course.

To the Party, 2003 brought an unprecedented reality. It was called to take part in the government of Brazil for the first time in its history. And the offer was accepted.

PCdoB has supported and participated in the struggle and success of the democratic-popular administrations of Lula and Dilma Rousseff. It offered them some of their best cadres to work – with outstanding success and immaculate integrity – in areas such as Sports, political articulation, Oil, Culture, Science and Technology, Health and Tourism, among others. In the crucial days of the crisis of 2005, when conservative opposition thought they would “get rid of those people,” PCdoB brought the people to the streets to shout “Stay Lula!”.

At the same time, PCdoB does not mix up loyalty and support with playing second fiddle. It preserves its political independence in relation with the government. It defends the autonomy of social movements, the mobilization of the people as indispensable to change. It believes that the government needs both support and criticism in order to advance and defend itself from right-wing coup-like attempts. It believes that to criticize what is wrong is a form of support.

5. Call

The Communist Party of Brazil is a Brazilian political force engaged in pursuing objectives such as the transformation of Brazil into a prosperous, developed and free Nation, loving peace among peoples, marching towards a socialist transition. It is aware of its past of struggles that contributed – often with unprecedented sacrifices – to take Brazil to where it is today.

The world is now undergoing a great crisis of capitalism that is further aggravating growing inequalities and social crises and increasing war conflicts in the world. In such a context, the main issue is which way to follow, which alternative to choose.

That is why PCdoB, in its 90th anniversary, calls the people to embrace its Socialist Program, to apply and develop it.

The Socialist Program results from mature thinking regarding the situation of the country and the world. It went through years of elaboration and embodies a new programmatic concept.

The current Socialist Program of PCdoB takes a new step forward: it proposes a direction and a route. Socialism is the direction. Strengthening the Brazilian Nation is the route.

Strengthening the Nation is achieved by the materialization of a New National Development Project based on four principles: the struggle for sovereignty and the defense of the Nation; the democratization of society; social progress; and the solidary integration with Latin America. The Program presents a broad set of proposals that will allow directing that project.

That route could lead to a popular democracy under the hegemony of workers and the majority of the Nation, therefore creating conditions for the transition to socialism. It will represent a leap for civilization, the third in the rough but victorious history of Brazil.

It is armed with that Program and the New National Development Project that PCdoB makes this call and, certain that increasing its political representativeness will contribute to advance the achievements of the people, it will be fully committed in the elections next October, disputing city halls in many capitals and other important cities. The Party maintains its doors open and accepts in its ranks all Brazilians that are looking for an organized and transforming political activity.

Reaching 90 years of existence is a great victory of the Communist Party of Brazil. But even greater is our joy to turn 90 fully active, revitalized and confident. It remains active because it never failed to defend workers and Brazil. It is revitalized because it never had so much people in its ranks in order to face the tasks of the future. And it is confident of being in the path that will lead to a stronger Nation and socialism.

Long live March 25!

Long live PCdoB!

Long live Socialism!

Long live Brazil!

 Communist Party of Brazil

Seven Questions for the Dalai Lama

Editor’s Note: It is a universal rule that all religions and their sects should forbid murdering and telling lies, and protect the interests of the country and its people. Tibetan Buddhism is no exception.

It is also a rule of Buddhism and a common understanding that life should be cherished and truth should be respected. However, reviewing some remarks and actions of the 14th Dalai Lama in recent years, the writer cannot help raising some questions to him. (original)

Q1:Why does the Dalai Lama deliberately incite Tibetans for self-immolation?

The Dalai Lama called on Tibetans not to celebrate Losar so as to memorize “the fallen heroes of Tibet” in Dharamsala, India on Feb.22, 2012.

The writer can’t help thinking that the Dalai Lama is deliberately encouraging Tibetans to self-immolate since he appealed to all Tibetans not to celebrate Losar in memorial of self-immolators.

It’s been thousands of years for Tibetans to celebrate Tibetan New Year, which is an important carrier of Tibetan culture, customs and emotions. Tibetans are able to obtain the great soul from Losar after a year of hard work.

However, “self-immolation” is an extreme way to end one’s life. In the modern age, any group or force encouraging self-immolation for their illegal purposes in any place is bound to be condemned.

UN declaration on measures to eliminate international terrorism declared that criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular communities for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.

From “3.14 Riots” in 2008 to recent self-immolations, all those incidents were premeditated long before and happened at a price of ordinary Tibetans’ peaceful life and even lives?

There is a saying in Buddism: “Saving one life is better than build a seven-storey pagoda”. Looking back, how many young lives have been terminated due to the Dalai Lama’s bewitching. Even if the Dalai Lama build hundreds of thousands of temples, it could not offset his sin in inciting repeated self-immolations of young monks.

Q2: Who extinguishes Tibetan culture?

In November 2011, the 14th Dalai Lama acclaimed in Japan that the reason for Tibetan monks’ self-immolations was “China’s policy on extinguishing Tibetan culture”.

As to “Tibetan culture”, the Dalai Lama follows such a logic: Tibetan culture is the culture of Tibetan Buddhism, the culture of Tibetan Buddhism is the culture of the Gelug Sect (the yellow sect of Tibetan Buddhism, and the sect of the Dalai Lama) while the Dalai Lama has the final speaking in the Gelug Sect.

In other words, anything that goes against the Dalai Lama is regarded by him as “extirpation of Tibetan culture”. What a ridiculous idea! The Dalai Lama still treats himself as the serf owner, Tibet as his property and Tibetan people as his slaves.

A scholar has pointed out that the so-called “extinguished Tibetan culture” refers to the absolute privilege of the religious figures. In the Dalai Lama’s eyes, the fact that common Tibetans master the culture would violate the stiff hierarchy of theocracy.

In fact, Tibetan culture consists of not only religious culture but also folk culture, not only traditional culture but also modern culture, not only the culture of the Tibetan ethnic group but also the cultures of other ethnic groups, such as Confucius culture, Mongolian culture and Manchu culture.

The religious culture has never been the only content of Tibetan culture, let alone the “Dalai Lama’s culture” or “Gelug culture”. The 14th Dalai Lama racks his brains to cheat the world that he develops the whole Tibetan culture if he develops the Gelug culture. What he does is the worst “extirpation of Tibetan culture”!

In the writer’s opinion, the Dalai Lama’s “extirpation of Tibetan culture” exposes his ugly purpose: he attempts to meet the demand of Tibetan separatists and stir up the Western forces’ “impulse to put pressure on China” in order to realize his aim of restoring Tibet’s serfdom and dividing China.

Q3: Are the central government of China and Tibet in a “Supply and Granting” relationship?

The 14th Dalai Lama claimed in his “Reincarnation Statement” that the “Supply and Granting” relationship between the central governments of Qing Dynasty (1636-1912) and Tibet didn’t change even when the 13th Dalai Lama was conferred in 1879.

His statement implied that inland China and Tibet was historically in the so-called “Supply and Granting” relationship, and denied Tibet as an administratively subordinative region of China.

Reviewing the history of Qing, however, the author cannot help wondering why the Dalai Lama, known for his lineal memory of previous life, suddenly became “amnesiac” and denies the fact that Tibet is an inalienable part of China. The author would like to help Dalai Lama recover his memory kindly by raising some questions.

Since the Dalai Lama considered the central government and Tibet had no “Supply and Granting” relationship when he was appointed, why was he so polite towards the central government’s ministers stationed in Tibet, reporting everything and seeking for support whenever he met problems?

Did he remember that he had directly reported to the emperor but was denied for bypassing the ministers stationed in Tibet?

The author believes that his previous life didn’t forget these facts before he was reincarnated, and he should not suddenly lose memory. He cannot go so far as to deny those facts as a human being.

Here is a piece of advice for the Dalai Lama: if there were no “Supply and Granting” relationship between the central government and Tibet and no drawing lot from the golden urn, the Dalai Lama and his previous life would not have existed either, let alone the “shows” he performed today.

At present,”traveling through time” is prevalent in the films and TV series. And I think the Dalai Lama should also “travel back” and review his previous life, and then he will tell the truth.

Q4: Why did you build up a “Berlin Wall” of national antagonism?

“Since the Berlin Wall collapsed, the world has witnessed that despotism has no future…the world belongs to humanity, and every country belongs to its people, not a political party, nor a king or spiritual leaders”, said the Dalai Lama in an interview with the Voice of America (VOA) in July 2011, acting as if he is the “protector” of the world.

However, the author once noticed that the Dalai Lama stated in the “Memorandum on Genuine Autonomy for the Tibetan People” (delivered in November 2008) that “it would be vital that” the so-called future “autonomous organs of self-government have the authority to regulate the residence, settlement and employment or economic activities of persons who wish to move to Tibetan areas from other parts of the PRC”. This remark is a public declaration to expel non-Tibetan residents out of Tibet.

At the same time, the Dalai Lama and his followers advocated the “promotion of harmonious relationships between the Tibetan and Han people” with their tongues in cheeks, colluding with some shameless scholars to organize “Friendship Association between the Tibetan and Han people”. Through the contrast, it is evident that the Dalai Lama is a tricky liar skilled in double-dealing. His real intention of stirring up national hatred is obvious.

To be specific, the Dalai Lama was preying for support and sympathy with so-called slogan of “autonomy”, so that the feudal serfdom can be restored one day; and in the name of “protecting ethnic characteristics”, he was actually building up a “Berlin Wall” of ethnic segregation and confrontation.

The remarks of the Dalai Lama remind us of the uncontrolled and cruel Nazi during the Second World War.

Behind the Dalai Lama’s concepts of “Middle Way Approach” and “high-level autonomy” is actually the idea of ethnic separation.

How similar it is to the Holocaust committed by Hitler on the Jewish!

Q5: Who do you speak for?

On February 10, 2010, the Dalai Lama asserted that he had responsibilities to speak for 6 million Tibetans during his trip of U.S.

He always plays tricks under the cover of doing good for Tibetans. It is doubtable that the Dalai Lama would speak on the behalf Tibetans as he is sponsored by the US and his relatives work for Central Intelligence Agency.

Let us find out who does the Dalai Lama actually speaks for.

The Dalai Lama claimed himself “son of India” on November 22nd, 2009. To be filial to his “father”, Dalai frequently exclaimed that the Lhoka Prefecture in Tibet belongs to India. He even said that India was better qualified for claiming Tibet’s sovereignty.

The Dalai Lama is the largest serf-owner in the old Tibet. He enjoyed the obedience of officials and owned all land, livestock and serfs.

The secular Geluns who followed him fleeing to India are no exception from oppressors. Top leaders of the Dalai Clique are merely ordinary Tibetans.

As for lives of the Tibetan communities in exile, they live in poverty and misery which can not be compared with their counterparts in China. It is doubted whether the Dalai Lama could repay them.

The Dalai Lama is labeled as “American follower”, “Son of India” and the formerly “serf-owner”. He speaks for his overseas boss and the feudal serf system. Democracy and election, out of his feudal realm before, became his “slogan” now. What a fickle man.

There is no possibility that the Dalai Lama can serve as a qualified leader for his followers. Unless he had rewritten his gene mapping as a serf-owner and traitor, could he be the spokesman of the Tibetans, which we all know is impossible.

Q6: Who are you praying for?

The Dalai Lama always says that he admires the courage of those who have died in self-immolation incidents and he will pray for them. To win the chance of being prayed by the Dalai Lama who has special religious status, his followers are in no doubt required to imitate their “examples”. The Dalai Lama has pointed out the method: “self-immolation’.

Praying is a common thing in religion, but if it were used with despicable intention it would become curse. What is the 14th Dalai Lama actually praying for then?

At first glance, the Dalai Lama seems to have prayed a lot: he did pray for the accidents such as Japan earthquake, the tsunami in Indonesia, and Taiwan typhoon.

However, when it comes to the interests of the United States and his other supporters, the Dalai Lama must be tight-lipped regardless of creatures being trampled on. For example, recently the US soldiers shot a dozen Afghan women and children, but the Dalai Lama dared not speak even a word. How clever he is!

The Wenchuan earthquake on May 12, 2008 killed tens of thousands of lives instantly including many Tibetans. When some of them were not confirmed dead or alive, on May 15, the Dalai Lama visited Germany. However, he made no comment on the human catastrophe when many Tibetans were suffering physical and mental pain, nor did he express a trace of sympathy. Sources said that the Dalai Lama was in inexplicable ecstasy, showing his “real gaffe “.

What’s more, the Dalai Lama did nothing for the quake-hit Yushu Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture in northwest China’s Qinghai Province, though he murmured a few words. It was the huge investment from central government that helped the affected Tibetans to rebuild their homes quickly.

After all, the Dalai Lama’s “prayer” is just a political one. He himself should know clearly whether his title of “Nobel Peace Prize winner” is true or false. He painted camouflage of “blessing”, but the color is peeling off and the inside is being brought to light.

Q7: Why Dalai Lama is despised by Netizens?

Before each self-immolation, it was always accompanied by activities such as “religious affairs” or “assemble meeting” organized by the Dalai Clique. The Chinese netizens gave an insight into the case.

Netizens said the Dalai Lama and his followers, who were all religious figures, had intervened in politics. It should not be allowed by any civilized society.

The Dalai Lama’s motive is clear: to restore the feudal serfdom system in Tibet under the cloak of “democracy”, “election” and “peace” with helps from his foreign partners.

Neither the history nor the people would agree.

The netizens’ voices generally represent the public opinions. We wonder if the Dalai Lama is aware of the fact that he is despised by the public.

The Dalai Lama isn’t worthy of worship. He has never felt contented for his super privilege as head of the feudal serfdom society. So today it is impossible for the monk to “debase himself” and join in carrying out the “democracy”.

Here, I would like to give a piece of advice to the Dalai Lama that if he continued to place himself against the country and the people, he wouldn’t have a good end.

Don’t even think about trying to separate Tibet from China. All the 56 ethnic groups unite together here.

The following is a letter written by a netizen to the Dalai Lama and his western supporters:

I ask God, “When will Tibet be independent?”

God answers, “It is impossible until the earth comes to the end.”

I ask, “Why do some people still play tricks to split China?'”

God illustrates, “They are ignorant, boring and inhuman.”

I am confused and ask, “Why don’t you punish them?'”

God says, “I am in charge of human beings’ behaviors rather than domestic animals.”

I ask, “Who will be responsible for them?'”

God answers contemptuously, “You’d better ask ‘Miss Liberty’ in US.'”

“The white pretentious woman standing at the harbor called ‘Liberty’? ”

“Yes, it is her.'”

“Well, to be frank, I don’t believe in her.”

*note: Originally published on China Tibet OnlineMarch 23, 2012.

Syria: Heralding a Change in the International Strategic Situation?

Granma International English Edition
by Ernesto Gomez Abascal

Evidently the Cold War ended in the final decade of the 20th century with the disappearance of the Soviet Union and the European socialist countries, but the U.S. plan of domination enshrined in the Project for the New American Century, drawn up by a group of neoconservative and Zionist strategists, remains in the minds of Washington politicians.

However, Democrat and Republican priorities on the imperial agenda remain. These are: control of the Near East given its energy resources and strategic position, the elimination of governments who stand up to or interfere with its interests, and to exclude the emergence of new rival powers.

While it is a fact that things have not been going well for the U.S. government in Afghanistan and Iraq, this has not resulted in a change of plans, but merely adjustments to the new conditions. Imperialism has many years of experience in methods of regime change, as we in Latin America know very well.

In Libya, included for years on the list of seven countries whose governments had to be changed, the United States was initially successful, having taken advantage of some inconsistencies on the part of Muammar Gaddafi, and certain lack of popularity for the leader. Then came an intensive media campaign, Arab League cover and backing, which facilitated a UN Security Council resolution, and subsequently, a large part of the country’s infrastructure was bombed by NATO aircraft, thousands of Libyans were killed, and a government subordinated to its interests was installed in Tripoli. Libya’s large oil reserves are now more accessible to U.S. and European corporations, although the chaos created in the country has created an uncertain future.

While this was taking place in Libya, the CIA and its allies in the NATO special services were working on the next country listed, Syria. It has been acknowledged that hundreds of Syrians were trained and armed in Turkey and other countries ill disposed toward the Damascus government, especially those of the Gulf Cooperation Council, and in areas of the Lebanon under the control the March 14 alliance (directed by the Hariri clan, pro‑Saudi and linked to the French government). These Syrians are predominantly Sunnis and members of the illegal and extremist Muslim Brotherhood, but include mercenaries from other Arab countries, and commandos trained for special operations. These have received a large supply of modern armaments, sophisticated communications equipment and information via NATO satellite networks.

The predominantly Alawite Damascus government, a strong ally of Iran and a supporter of the Lebanese patriotic forces headed by Hezbollah, which controls power in Beirut, had genuine problems – as do all countries in the region and a large part of the world, including the most developed countries. These include repression, lack of democracy, and corruption, and this has provoked malaise within the population, leading to demonstrations initially encouraged by those in other countries of the region, and which were repressed particularly where they originated, in the southern city of Daraa, right on the border with Jordan.

The media war machine was immediately activated against Syria, as was the case with Libya. In Cuba, Venezuela and other Latin America countries we have become experts on how this operates, having suffered it for many years, and we also know how to combat it, despite disadvantageous material conditions given the enormous propaganda resources possessed by the enemy. Even with the abovementioned defects, the Syrian government was practising a non-sectarian policy in the religious context and one of relative social justice, anti‑imperialist and anti‑Zionist. It has been an ally of progressive causes in the South and an obstacle to U.S. and Israeli plans in the region. Allegations intended to discredit it, to the effect that its policy of peace serves Israeli interests, have no serious foundation.

Installing a pro‑Western government in Damascus would propitiate a change of government in Lebanon and possibly another war there to eliminate the power of Hezbollah, an ally of Iran together with Syria, and viewed as enemies by the Sunni Gulf monarchies, who submit to Western policy in return for protection from an alleged Iranian threat, even though no war has been initiated by that country for centuries.

If the plan concerning Syria is consummated, the Western powers would move against Tehran and, along the way, crush the resistance of Palestine, obliging it to accept crumbs of territory and the minimum rights which Israeli Zionists would be disposed to concede to the people. The U.S. “Grand Middle East” would be completed with its extension to Central Asia, and the siege of Russia and China would be laid.

However, Syria is not Libya. Although its leaders have made undeniable errors and have acted slowly in response to the conspiracy and plans of its powerful enemies, thus losing a lot of time and ground, it would seem to have sufficient internal support and resources to stand up to its enemies and defeat them, albeit at a heavy price in terms of death and destruction.

Apparently, a clear perception of this reality prompted Russian and Chinese representatives to use their veto in the February 4 Security Council vote on a resolution which – regardless of its text, as was the case with Libya – would open the gates to foreign intervention in order to destroy the country and impose a regime change. The highest authorities in both countries have clearly declared a red line and they are not prepared to allow a military intervention in Syria.

The firm stand of Moscow and Beijing and the cooperation they are giving the Syrian government, appears to be starting to change the situation on the ground. The Lebanese army has been mobilized to the border in an attempt to prevent the entry of mercenaries and military supplies into the neighbouring area of Homs, center of the anti‑government uprising and whose capital city was intended to become the Benghazi of Syria. Syrian government forces have recently moved onto the offensive there.

The Baghdad government, now closer to Iran’s influence than to that of the United States, is also trying to prevent Sunni Islamic extremists – possibly linked to Al Qaeda and receiving funds from Saudi Arabia and Qatar – from continuing to infiltrate into Syrian territory. Recent terrorist attacks on the Shiite population in various parts of Iraq would seem to be a message of protest from Saudi Arabia and the United States given the change in position in favour of Syria adopted by the Iraqi government.

Turkey and Jordan, two other countries to have adopted belligerent positions against the Damascus government, are beginning to make more moderate statements. There are even signs of concern in Western capitals at the possibility of extremist Islamic forces linked to Al Qaeda coming to power in Syria in the case of the current executive being defeated.

The situation is highly fluid and extremely complex, but if Syria succeeds in resisting this imperialist, and Zionist counterrevolutionary aggression, and if Russia and China remain firm, there could be a defeat of strategic magnitude. Iran would emerge strengthened and new alliances could be established to oppose imperialist plans of domination. The countries of the BRICS group, the newly independent countries of Latin America, especially the strong core members of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA), are in agreement with the principals of a foreign policy opposed to aggression, and would favour the negotiated solution to conflicts. They also defend justice, sovereignty and non‑intervention, all of which could initiate the beginnings of a newmultipolar balance in the world.

The grave economic crisis affecting the major capitalist powers and the debilitation this implies, in conjunction with the indignados movement, could significantly contribute to this potential panorama.

(Ernesto Abascal was the Cuban ambassador to Iraq.)

*note: Granma is the official newspaper of the Communist Party of Cuba. You can visit their International English website here. The original article is here.

Debating Every Last Word of Ahmadinejad’s ‘Wipe Israel Off the Map’

by Uri Friedman


Photo credit: Reuters
 
The Washington Post‘s Glenn Kessler has a fascinating article today on the six-year dispute surrounding Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s declaration that Israel must be “wiped off the map”–a line that has become shorthand for Iran’s belligerent (some would say genocidal) posture toward Israel. The quote first stirred controversy in 2005, when Nazila Fathi of The New York Times cited a report by the Iranian Students’ News Agency on Ahmadinejad’s remarks at a “World Without Zionism” conference (the Tehran-based Fathi later issued a full-text translation of Ahmadinejad’s speech, and official Iranian sources like IRIB ran with the same translation). Since then, however, some have argued that Ahmadinejad was mistranslated, and that getting the translation right is critical to decoding the meaning behind the Iranian leader’s incendiary words.

Here is the passage in question from Ahmadinejad’s 2005 speech in Persian, rough transliteration, and Times translation (we’ve taken what appears to be the full line in Persian from an archived transcript of Ahmadinejad’s address):

امام عزيز ما فرمودند كه اين رژيم اشغالگر قدس بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود

Imam ghoft een rezhim-i eshghalgar-i Qods bayad az safheh-i ruzgar mahv shaved

Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map

Let’s isolate the key phrases in the line:

  • Imam ghoft: People generally agree that these words mean “our (dear) Imam said,” and indicate that, instead of making a brazen, unprecedented proclamation, Ahmadinejad was quoting comments made by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the Islamic revolution, in the 1980s.
  • een rezhim-i eshghalgar-i Qods: Again, the literal translation here isn’t really in question. These words are translated as some variation on “the regime occupying Jerusalem.” But the meaning of the words is a matter of dispute. The liberal Middle East expert Juan Cole and the The Guardian‘s Jonathan Steele have argued that the phrasing suggests Ahmadinejad is calling for a change in the Israeli government rather than military action against Israel, especially since he was comparing regime change in Israel to regime change in Iran in 1979. But, as The Times puts it, others argue that the line “indicates the depth of the Iranian president’s rejection of a Jewish state in the Middle East because he refuses even to utter the name Israel.”
  • mahv shaved: Cole, Steele, and the Mossadegh Project’s Arash Norouzi have all disputed theTimes‘ “wiped off” translation above, arguing that these words instead mean “vanish from.” But an Iranian translator and consultant supportedThe Times‘ “wiped off” or “wiped away” rendering in 2006, asserting that the Persian verb is active and transitive (Cole says the verb construction is intransitive). At the time of Ahmadinejad’s speech, the Middle East Media Research Institute(MEMRI) translated the verb as “eliminated.”
  • safheh-i ruzgar: This is where things really get interesting. Ahmadinejad actually misquoted Khomeini, who used the phrase “sahneh-i ruzgar.” As the Times noted several years ago, “sahneh” literally means “scene” or “stage” and “ruzgar” means “time,” but translators in the 1980s interpreted Khomeini’s words as a metaphorical reference to a “map”–an interpretation that stuck when Ahmadinejad substituted “sahneh” for “safheh,” or “page.” But the Cole-Steele-Norouzi trio recommends the literal translation of “page of time” (MEMRI, for its part, went with “pages of history”). Steele claims that the “page of time” phrase, along with the rest of his translation, suggests that the Iranian president was expressing a desire for an end to Israeli occupation at some point in the future. “He was not threatening an Iranian-initiated war to remove Israeli control over Jerusalem,” Steele writes.

So there you have it. Depending on who you ask, Ahmadinejad was either endorsing Khomeini’s battle cry for Israel to be wiped off the map or invoking Khomeini’s wish that, someday, somehow, the Israeli government will collapse under its own weight. The varying translations, of course, may be inextricably linked to people’s political views on Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And some argue that the distinction is academic at this point. In a study for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Joshua Teitelbaum states that Ahmadinejad’s public statements, taken as a whole, indicate that the Iranian leader is bent on the “actual physical destruction of the State of Israel,” however one may translate his 2005 speech. Other Iranian leaders, he adds, have made even more militant comments.

And what of Ahmadinejad himself? He hasn’t exactly brought closure to the debate. In a 2006 interview with The Washington Post‘s Lally Weymouth, he evaded her question about whether he wanted to “wipe Israel off the face of the Earth,” in Weymouth’s words. “Let the Palestinian people decide their fate in a free and fair referendum, and the result, whatever it is, should be accepted,” he told Weymouth. “The people with no roots there are now ruling the land.”

More recently, Ahmadinejad has declared that a NATO missile defense system in Turkey “will not stop the fall of the Zionist regime” and that Iran’s response to any provocation by the “bankrupt, uncivilized and criminal Zionist regime” would be “crushing and regrettable.” Well, at least he said those things according to the Fars News Agency’s English translation.

*note: originally published on October 5, 2011 on The Atlantic Wire. Original here.