Showing posts with label colonialism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label colonialism. Show all posts

Sunday, July 03, 2011

The Invasion of Australia

The City of Sydney council has voted to replace the words "European arrival" in the official record with "invasion". The deputy lord mayor, Marcelle Hoff, says it is intellectually dishonest to use any other word to describe how Aboriginal Australia was dispossessed by the British. "We were invaded," said Paul Morris, an Aboriginal adviser to the council. "It is the truth and shouldn't be watered down. We wouldn't expect Jewish people to accept a watered-down version of the Holocaust, so why should we?"

In 2008, the then prime minister Kevin Rudd formally apologised to Aborigines wrenched from their families as children under a policy inspired by the crypto-fascist theories of eugenics. White Australia was said to be coming to terms with its rapacious past, and present. Was it? The Rudd government, noted a Sydney Morning Herald editorial at the time, "has moved quickly to clear away this piece of political wreckage in a way that responds to some of its supporters' emotional needs, yet it changes nothing. It is a shrewd manoeuvre."

The City of Sydney ruling is a very different gesture – different, and admirable; for it reflects not a liberal and limited "sorry campaign", seeking feel-good "reconciliation" rather than justice, but counters a cowardly movement of historical revision in which a collection of far-right politicians, journalists and minor academics claimed there was no invasion, no genocide, no stolen generations, no racism.

The platform for these holocaust deniers is the Murdoch press, which has long run its own insidious campaign against the indigenous population, presenting them as victims of each other or as noble savages requiring firm direction: the eugenicists' view. Favoured black "leaders" who tell the white elite what it wants to hear while blaming their own people for their poverty provide a PC cover for a racism that often shocks foreign visitors. Today the first Australians have one of the shortest life expectancies in the world and are incarcerated at five times the rate of black people in apartheid South Africa. Go to the outback and see the children blinded by trachoma, a biblical disease, entirely preventable. The Aboriginal people are both Australia's secret and this otherwise derivative society's most amazing distinction.

In its landmark rejection of historical propaganda, Sydney recognises black Australia's "cultural endurance" and, without saying so directly, a growing resistance to an outrage known as "the intervention". In 2007, John Howard sent the army into Aboriginal Australia to "protect the children" who, said his minister, were being abused in "unthinkable numbers". It is striking how Australia's incestuous political and media elite so often rounds on the tiny black minority with all the fervour of the guilty, unaware perhaps that the national mythology remains culpably damaged while a nationhood, once stolen, is not returned to the original inhabitants.

Journalists accepted the Howard government's reason for "intervening" and went hunting for the lurid. One national TV programme used an "anonymous youth worker" to allege "sex slavery" rings among the Mutitjulu people. He was later exposed as a federal government official. Of 7,433 Aboriginal children examined by doctors, just four were identified as possible cases of abuse. There were no "unthinkable numbers". The rate was around that of white child abuse. The difference was that no soldiers invaded the beachside suburbs; no white parents were swept aside, their wages diminished and welfare "quarantined". It was all a mighty charade, but with serious purpose.

The Labor governments that followed Howard have reinforced the new controlling powers over black homelands, the strict Julia Gillard especially – she who lectures her compatriots on the virtues of colonial wars that "make us who we are today" and imprisons refugees from those wars indefinitely, including children, on an offshore island not deemed to be Australia, which it is.

In the Northern Territory, the Gillard government is in effect driving Aboriginal communities into apartheid areas where they will be "economically viable". The unspoken reason is that the Northern Territory is the only part of Australia where Aborigines have comprehensive land rights; and here lie some of the world's biggest deposits of uranium, and other minerals.

The most powerful political force in Australia is the multibillion-dollar mining industry. Canberra wants to mine and sell, and those bloody blackfellas are in the way again. But this time they are organised, articulate, militant. They know it is a second invasion. Having finally uttered the forbidden word, white Australians should stand with them.

by John Pilger


Saturday, April 09, 2011

Friday, July 30, 2010

Lt Gen Peter Walls (RIP)

Lieutenant General Peter Walls, who has died aged 83, may go down in history as one of the most successful of counter-insurgency commanders. Yet even he could not prevail in an unwinnable war against nationalists determined to overturn minority white rule and transform Rhodesia into Zimbabwe.

Born in what was then the self-governing British colony of Southern Rhodesia, Walls went to Britain in his teens during the second world war and entered the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst at the very end of hostilities. He then joined the Black Watch regiment and saw service in Somalia before resigning and returning home.

Walls was commissioned into the Northern Rhodesia Regiment, and in 1951, when he was just 24, he was promoted to captain and appointed second in command of a new unit of scouts raised for the British campaign against Chinese-backed communists in Malaya, an emergency that led to a unique defeat for the anti-colonialist forces.

As the unit was largely made up of Rhodesians, the British decided that it should also be led by a Rhodesian, and Walls was promoted to major. The unit was renamed C (Rhodesia) Squadron, SAS. His two years in Malaya, for which he was made MBE (military) in 1953, was invaluable experience for his later role fighting guerrillas.

The squadron was disbanded in 1953. Walls embarked on a series of staff appointments before being sent to the British army's staff college at Camberley, Surrey. In 1964, as a lieutenant colonel, he was given command of the 1st battalion, Rhodesian Light Infantry.

A year later, white resistance to the idea of black rule hardened and Ian Smith, who had ousted Winston Field as prime minister of Rhodesia in April 1964, made his unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) at the 11th minute of the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month of 1965 – a bombastic parody of the 1918 armistice and the American declaration of independence. The British publicly threw away a major bargaining chip by declaring that there would be no armed intervention, not least because Harold Wilson's Labour government feared a revolt.

Walls now knew that he would not have to fight British troops as a senior officer in the army of a pariah state unrecognised outside the white redoubt in southern Africa. He was committed to the UDI. Promoted to brigadier, he next served as commander, 2 brigade. From there he became chief of staff to the army commander as a major-general, and was appointed army commander in 1972.

Walls and his men faced a divided enemy – Robert Mugabe's Zanla (Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army), mainly from the majority Shona tribe, and Joshua Nkomo's more effective Zipra (Zimbabwe People's Revolutionary Army) guerrillas, mainly Ndebele. Rhodesian troops staged raid after raid on guerrilla bases beyond Rhodesia's borders. In 1975 Mozambique and Angola gained independence from Portugal, and pressure mounted on South Africa, the sine qua non of Smith's survival. The white redoubt was crumbling.

As the struggle came to a head in 1977, Walls was made commander of combined operations, controlling 45,000 men, not only in the army but also the air force and the police. Man for man, they were far superior in training, discipline and equipment to their foes, but their numbers were unsustainable, given a white minority totalling barely 200,000. More than 20,000 guerrillas were killed.

Smith tried to create a power-sharing government, led by Bishop Abel Muzorewa, in "Zimbabwe-Rhodesia" in June 1979, but nobody recognised it. The new British prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, called a constitutional conference in London at the end of the year. After 14 weeks a deal was done and a free election was held in March 1980, won by Mugabe.

To general amazement, Walls stayed on to integrate the victorious guerrillas into a new Zimbabwean army. But Mugabe, fearing assassination, soon accused him of treachery. The following dialogue was recorded as early as 17 March 1980. Mugabe: "Why are your men trying to kill me?" Walls: "If they were my men you would be dead." In less than six months Walls retired to the Eastern Cape province of South Africa.

His wife, Eunice, three daughters and a son survive him.



Tuesday, July 20, 2010

The Mapuche Nation

Align Centre

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Sunday, November 29, 2009

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Monday, July 06, 2009

Uighurs Are Not Chinese


The Chinese Gov prohibits the use of this flag - afraid of something?


Clearly Chinese, as you can see.



Q&A: China and the Uighurs

The latest unrest in China's western Xinjiang region follows a long history of discord between China's authorities and the Uighur minority.

Who are the Uighurs?

The Uighurs are Muslims. Their language is related to Turkish and they regard themselves as culturally and ethnically close to other Central Asian nations.

The region's economy has for centuries revolved around agriculture and trade, with towns such as Kashgar thriving as hubs along the Silk Road.

In the early part of the 20th Century, the Uighurs briefly declared independence. The region was brought under the complete control of communist China in 1949.

Officially, Xinjiang is now described by China as an autonomous region, like Tibet to its south.

What are China's concerns about the Uighurs?

Beijing says Uighur militants have been waging a violent campaign for an independent state by plotting bombings, sabotage and civic unrest.

Since the 9/11 attacks in the US, China has increasingly portrayed its Uighur separatists as auxiliaries of al-Qaeda.

It has accused them of receiving training and indoctrination from Islamist militants in neighbouring Afghanistan.

However, little public evidence has been produced in support of these claims.

More than 20 Uighurs were captured by the US military after its invasion of Afghanistan. Though imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay for six years, they were not charged with any offence. Albania accepted five in 2006, four were allowed to resettle in Bermuda in June, 2009, while the Pacific island nation of Palau has agreed to take the others.

What complaints have been made against the Chinese in Xinjiang?

Activists say the Uighurs' religious, commercial and cultural activities have been gradually curtailed by the Chinese state.

China is accused of intensifying its crackdown on the Uighurs after street protests in the 1990s - and again, in the run-up to the Beijing Olympics.

Over the past decade, many prominent Uighurs have been imprisoned or have sought asylum abroad after being accused of terrorism.

China is said to have exaggerated the threat from Uighur separatists in order to justify repression in the region.

Beijing has also been accused of seeking to dilute Uighur influence by arranging the mass immigration of Han Chinese, the country's majority ethnic group, to Xinjiang.

Han Chinese currently account for roughly 40% of Xinjiang's population, while about 45% are Uighurs.

What is the current situation in Xinjiang?

Over the past decade, major development projects have brought prosperity to Xinjiang's big cities.

The activities of local and foreign journalists in the region are closely monitored by the Chinese state and there are few independent sources of news from the region.

China has been keen to highlight improvements made to the region's economy while Uighurs interviewed by the press have avoided criticising Beijing.

However, occasional attacks on Chinese targets suggest Uighur separatism remains a potent - and potentially violent - force.

A protest in July in Urumqi, the region's capital, turned violent, with about 140 people killed and hundreds injured.

Authorities blamed Xinjiang separatists based outside China for the unrest, while Uighur exiles said police had fired indiscriminately on a peaceful protest calling for an investigation into the deaths of two Uighurs in clashes with Han Chinese at a factory in southern China.

Sunday, October 12, 2008

Sunday, October 05, 2008

SA: A Rainbow in B&W?


White flight from South Africa



Between staying and going

Violent crime and political turmoil are adding to South Africa’s brain drain

FIRST he thought it was a mouse, then a rat—and then the rat shot him in the face. That is how André Brink, one of South Africa’s most famous novelists, described the recent killing of his nephew Adri, at home at 3am in the morning. The young man was left to die on the floor, in front of his wife and daughter, while his killers ransacked the house.

Such murders are common in South Africa. According to Mr Brink’s account, published later in the Sunday Independent, 16 armed attacks had already taken place in a single month within a kilometre of the young couple’s plot north of Pretoria, South Africa’s capital. Soon afterwards—this is more unusual—the police arrested a gang of six. They recovered a laptop and two mobile phones. That was the haul for which Adri paid with his life.

A decade-and-a-half after the end of apartheid, violent crime is pushing more and more whites out of South Africa. Exactly how many are leaving is impossible to say. Few admit that they are quitting for good, and the government does not collect the necessary statistics. But large white South African diasporas, both English- and Afrikaans-speaking, have sprouted in Britain, Australia, New Zealand and many cities of North America.

The South African Institute of Race Relations, a think-tank, guesses that 800,000 or more whites have emigrated since 1995, out of the 4m-plus who were there when apartheid formally ended the year before. Robert Crawford, a research fellow at King’s College in London, reckons that around 550,000 South Africans live in Britain alone. Not all of South Africa’s émigrés are white: skilled blacks from South Africa can be found in jobs and places as various as banking in New York and nursing in the Persian Gulf. But most are white—and thanks to the legacy of apartheid the remaining whites, though only about 9% of the population, are still South Africa’s richest and best-trained people.

Talk about “white flight” does not go down well. Officials are quick to claim that there is nothing white about it. A recent survey by FutureFact, a polling organisation, found that the desire to emigrate is pretty even across races: last year, 42% of Coloured (mixed-race) South Africans, 38% of blacks and 30% of those of Indian descent were thinking of leaving, compared with 41% of whites. This is a big leap from 2000, when the numbers were 12%, 18%, 26% and 22% respectively. But it is the whites, by and large, who have the money, skills, contacts and sometimes passports they need to start a life outside—and who leave the bigger skills and tax gap behind.

Another line loyalists take is that South Africa is no different from elsewhere: in a global economy, skills are portable. “One benefit of our new democracy is that we are well integrated in the community of nations, so now more opportunities are accessible to our people,” Kgalema Motlanthe, now South Africa’s president, told The Economist. And to some extent it is true that the doctors, dentists, nurses, accountants and engineers who leave are being pulled by bigger salaries, not pushed by despair. But this is not the whole story. Nick Holland, chief executive of Gold Fields, a mining company, says that in his firm it is far commoner for skilled whites to leave than their black and Indian counterparts. “We mustn’t stick our heads in the sand,” he says. “White flight is a reality.”

Another claim is that a lot of leavers return. Martine Schaffer, a Durbanite who returned to South Africa herself in 2003 after 14 years in London, now runs the “Homecoming Revolution”, an outfit created with help from the First National Bank to tempt lost sheep back to the fold. And, yes, a significant number of émigrés do come home, seduced by memories of the easeful poolside life under the jacaranda trees, excited by work opportunities or keen—perhaps after having children themselves—to reunite with parents who stayed behind.

In some cases, idealism remains a draw. Whites who left in previous decades because they were repelled by apartheid, or who expected apartheid to end in a bloodbath, can find much to admire. Whites build tall walls around their houses and pay guards to patrol their neighbourhoods; they consider some downtown areas too dangerous to visit. But on university campuses and in the bright suburban shopping malls it is still thrilling to see blacks and whites mingling in a relaxed way that was unimaginable under apartheid.


So South Africa certainly has its white boosters. Michael Katz, chairman of Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs, a law firm in Johannesburg, hands over a book with the title “Don’t Panic!”, a collection of heartwarming reflections by disparate South Africans on why there is, even now, no better place than home. Mr Katz ticks off the pluses as he sees them: minimal racial tension (a third of his own firm’s 350 professionals are black); a model constitution that entrenches the separation of powers and is “revered” by the people; a free press and free judiciary; a healthy Parliament; a vibrant civil society; good infrastructure and a banking system untouched by the global credit crunch. The “one major negative” Mr Katz concedes is violent crime. If only this could be brought under control, he says, the leavers would return.

But would they? Violent crime is undoubtedly the biggest single driver of emigration, the one factor cited by all races and across all professions when people are asked why they want to go. Police figures put the murder rate in 2007-08 at more than 38 per 100,000 and rape at more than 75 per 100,000. This marks a big fall over the past several years, but is still astronomical by international standards (the murder rate was 5.6 per 100,000 in the United States last year). It has reached the point where most people say they have either been victims of violent crime themselves or know friends or relatives who have been victims. Typically, it is a break-in, carjacking, robbery or murder close to home that clinches a family’s long mulled-over decision to leave.

All the same, crime is far from being the only cause of white disenchantment. Some say that 2008 brought a “perfect storm”. A sequence of political and economic blows this year have buffeted people’s hope. Added together they provide reason to doubt whether the virtues ticked off by the exuberant Mr Katz—a model constitution, separation of powers, good infrastructure and so on—are quite so solid.

Good infrastructure? At the beginning of the year South Africa’s lights started to go out, plunging the thrumming shopping malls and luxury homes into darkness and stopping work in the gold and diamond mines. This entirely avoidable calamity was caused by a distracting debate about the role of the private sector in electricity supply. Eskom, the state-owned utility in which many experienced white managers had been too quickly pushed aside, is now investing again in new plant under a new chairman, Bobby Godsell, a veteran mining executive. But for the time being power will remain in short supply and rationing and blackouts will continue.

As for that model constitution and the separation of powers, Desmond Tutu, the retired Anglican archbishop of Cape Town, was moved this week to describe the sordid battle between Jacob Zuma, Thabo Mbeki, the party, government, prosecuting authority and courts as suggestive of a “banana republic”. As well as being appalled by events at home this past year, whites have watched Robert Mugabe’s pauperisation of neighbouring Zimbabwe and wonder whether South Africa will be next to descend into the same spiral.

Besides, fear of crime cannot be separated from the other factors that make South Africans consider emigration. People who do not feel safe in their homes lose their faith in government. John Perlman, who worked for the SABC, the state broadcaster, before resigning in a quarrel over political interference, does not believe that most people leave because they are afraid. “I think they leave when they lose heart,” he says. One white entrepreneur about to leave for New York says that it was not being held up twice at gunpoint that upset him most: it was the lack of interest the police showed afterwards. Tony Leon, the former leader of the opposition Democratic Alliance, claims that policing has been devastated by cronyism and that the entire criminal-justice system is dysfunctional. The head of the police, Jackie Selebi, is on leave pending a corruption investigation.

How much does the outward flow of whites matter? South Africa can ill afford the loss of its best-trained people. Iraj Abedian, an economist and chief executive of Pan-African Capital Holdings, says a pitiful shortage of skills is one of the main constraints on economic growth. He concedes that the ANC has pushed hard to give every eligible child a place in school, but argues that a “politically correct” focus on expanding access has come at the expense of quality. With virtually no state schools providing adequate teaching in science or maths, he says, the country has added to its vast problem of unemployment (every other 18-24-year-old is out of work) a no less vast problem of unemployability.


On Mr Abedian’s reckoning, about half a million posts are vacant in government service alone because too few South Africans have the skills these jobs demand. Not a single department, he says, has its full complement of professionals. Local municipalities and public hospitals are also desperately short of trained people. Dentists are “as scarce as chicken’s teeth” and young doctors demoralised by the low standards of hospital administration. Last May Azar Jammine, an independent economist, told a Johannesburg conference on the growing skills shortage that more than 25,000 teachers were leaving the profession every year and only 7,000 entering.

A blinkered immigration policy makes things worse. Nobody has a clue how many millions of unskilled Africans cross into South Africa illegally. But skilled job applicants who try to come in legally are obstructed by a barricade of regulations. Mr Abedian says that the ANC used to think that relying on foreigners would discourage local institutions from training their own people. Now at least the government earmarks sectors where skills are in short supply and for which immigration procedures are supposed to be eased. In April, however, an internal report by the Department of Home Affairs showed that fewer than 1,200 foreigners had obtained permits under this scheme, from a list of more than 35,000 critical jobs.

In fairness, South Africa has been through far worse times before. Whites streamed out during the township riots of the 1980s. It is far from clear how much of the present dinner-table talk about leaving ends with a family packing its bags. Alan Seccombe, a tax expert at PWC in Johannesburg, says that many affluent whites have moved money offshore and prepared their escape routes, but that his firm’s emigration practice is doing less business today than it did in 1995.

Perspective is necessary in politics, too. Raenette Taljaard, previously an opposition member of Parliament and now director of the Helen Suzman Foundation, a think-tank, says that events this past year have raised profound concerns about the rule of law and the durability of the constitution. But Allister Sparks, the author of several histories of South Africa (and a former writer for The Economist), maintains that the ANC has done as well as anyone had a right to expect after apartheid’s destructive legacy. Some whites even express enthusiasm about the advent of Mr Zuma. How many other African liberation movements, they ask, have been democratic enough to vote out an underperforming leader, as the ANC has Mr Mbeki?

For the average white person, South Africa continues to offer a quality of life hard to find elsewhere. And there are other compensations. Mr Brink says in the article on the murder of his nephew that people who ask when he will be emigrating are perplexed to hear that he intends to stay. There is, he says, an “urgency and immediacy” about life in South Africa that lends it a sense of involvement and relevance he cannot imagine finding elsewhere.

All the same, he is staying on bereft of some former illusions.

The myopia and greed of the country’s new regime of rats have eroded my faith in the specific future I had once believed in. I do not foresee, today, any significant decrease in crime and violence in South Africa; I have serious doubts that our rulers can even guarantee a safe and successful soccer World Cup in 2010; I do not believe that the levels of corruption and nepotism and racketeering and incompetence and injustice and unacceptable practices of “affirmative action” in the country will decrease in the near future.

The famous novelist will stay. Many other whites are making plans to leave, and will be taking their precious skills with them.

Saturday, September 20, 2008

Democratic Hero or Murdering Bastard?

It is beyond the scope of Micheál Ó Siochrú's excellent book to explore in detail the impact of Cromwell's legacy on modern Irish politics. However, he does provide a telling anecdote: in 1997 Robin Cook, the newly appointed foreign secretary, received a courtesy visit from Bertie Ahern, the Irish Taoiseach. On entering the office, the Irishman immediately walked out again, refusing to return until Cook took down from the wall a picture "of that murdering bastard" Cromwell.

God's Executioner:

Oliver Cromwell and the Conquest of Ireland

by Micheál Ó Siochrú

336 pages, Faber

Cook was unusual among New Labour grandees in that he had a genuine sense of the historical, but he probably never thought much about Cromwell in Ireland. Over the years, I have often been dismayed by my leftwing English friends' sympathy for Cromwell's cause. They tend to see him as a radical hero of the English civil war, politically flawed to be sure, especially when he sided with the propertied elite during the Putney debates, but without whose military genius and political vision the revolution of 1649 would not have been possible. His personal traumas and his constant, neurotic search for the true path can also make him seem attractively post-Freudian and modern, certainly compared to his great adversary Charles I, whose psychological outlook was so one-dimensionally rooted in the medieval theory of the divine right of kings that self-interrogation of any kind was impossible.

My friends are merely following generations of historians who have gathered to praise "the reluctant and apologetic dictator". Macaulay saw in Cromwell "the best qualities of the middle classes". To SR Gardiner he was no less than "the greatest Englishman of all time", while Churchill saluted his "place in the forward march of liberal ideas". When in the 1970s Ivan Roots edited a collection of essays on the great man, he found time for chapters on "Cromwell's Genius", "The Achievement of Oliver Cromwell" and even "Industrial Laissez-Faire and the Policy of Cromwell", but no space for an examination of what he did in Ireland. Still more recently, Cromwell's cause has been helped by the eccentric outpourings of amateur Irish historians who have absolved their hero from charges of mass murder and declared him "an honourable enemy", much to the delight of some pro-Union commentators.

By the time Cromwell landed with his troops at Ringsend outside Dublin, on August 15 1649, Ireland had been in rebellion for eight years. What began as an attempted coup by the Catholic Irish nobility descended into civil war and atrocities such as the massacre of Protestant settlers in Ulster in the winter of 1641 (at the time puritan MPs claimed 200,000 or more had died, though recent estimates put the figure at 4,000).

The deaths were used to whip up virulent anti-Catholic sentiment and certainly fed the cycle of revenge and cruelty that ensued. On Rathlin Island, Scottish Protestants wiped out the Catholic population, throwing women from the clifftops. As the rebellion continued, an uneasy alliance emerged of the native Irish, English settlers and those still loyal to the Stuart monarchy. Much of Ó Siochrú's narrative is taken up with the complex backgrounds and conflicting interests of various parties, and it is by far the best account of the confederate wars, as they came to be known, that I have read.

The outbreak of hostilities between king and parliament in the summer of 1642 diverted parliament's attention away from the rebellion. Not until after Charles I had been executed could the new republican government muster the resources to conquer Ireland. Cromwell was chosen to lead the invading force. Addressing a crowd of Irish Protestants in Dublin, Cromwell promised rewards for all those carrying on "that great work against the barbarous and bloodthirsty Irish". Promising to restore "that bleeding nation to its former happiness and tranquillity", Cromwell advanced to Drogheda, which was defended by the royalist Sir Arthur Aston.

Aston refused Cromwell's summons to surrender, and on September 11, after fierce fighting, the town was stormed. In his letters to parliament, Cromwell stated simply that he forbade his men "to spare any that were in arms". The scale of the killing was unprecedented. Cromwell's apologists have sought to excuse him on the grounds that while the sack of Drogheda was harsh, it was in accordance with the laws of war. Ó Siochrú argues that even during the thirty years war in Germany, considered by contemporaries a byword for wanton cruelty, massacres of this nature were extremely rare, and he cites the defensive tone of Cromwell's letters to parliament as suggestive of his own recognition that he had allowed something terrible to happen.

After Drogheda Cromwell turned south again and there was a rerun at Wexford, with the garrison and many civilians losing their lives. Cromwell justified his actions in part by claiming that the Irish would be terrorised into surrender, but it is more likely that it was parliament's money that secured the day for Cromwell's men: fighting men like to be paid, and his opponents had but a fraction of his resources.

I would have liked a longer discussion of the anti-Catholic and anti-Irish context in which Cromwell operated. The parliamentarian general the Earl of Essex approved the execution of "absolute Irish . . . for he would not have quarter allowed to those". As Michael Braddick says: "By the autumn of 1644 this was near to official policy." In other words, Cromwell's vicious hatred of the Irish was nothing new and it was not particular to him. But this is a quibble, for I don't see how Cromwell's reputation can survive this important book. Ó Siochrú's calm and forensic reconstruction of events at Drogheda and Wexford show "the greatest Englishman of all time" to have been a pitiless mass murderer. I will be sending it to English friends this Christmas, along with a card inviting them to join a campaign to have Cromwell's statue outside parliament pulled down, cut up and chucked into the Irish Sea.


Tuesday, April 08, 2008

The Other Tibet


Quiet death in Xingjiang

by Charles Cumming

The Dalai Lama has been called many things in his time. Rupert Murdoch once described him as "a very political old monk shuffling around in Gucci shoes", while CNN's Larry King mistakenly identified the political and spiritual leader of the Tibetan people as a prominent Muslim activist. However, until last week, nobody had ever called him a terrorist.

It was the Chinese government, inevitably, which levelled the accusation. According to Beijing, the recent violence in Tibet was orchestrated by the Dalai Lama in collusion with Uighur militants from Xinjiang, who were themselves plotting a terrorist atrocity at the Olympics. This was the second time in a fortnight that China had accused separatists from Xinjiang of posing a threat to the Games. However, with the exception of an article by Parag Khanna in these pages, the story failed to generate any further coverage in the British press.

For purely selfish reasons, I was disappointed by this. By coincidence, my new novel, Typhoon, concerns a plot by US-sponsored Uighur radicals to blow up the Beijing Games. China's suggestion that a conspiracy of this kind was actually in the pipeline was the sort of publicity most novelists dream about. However there is a more serious point to be made here. The British media's obsession with Buddhist Tibet says a great deal about western attitudes to Xinjiang and to its predominantly Turkic-Muslim population.

It may be that people remain ignorant of Xinjiang because it has no Dalai Lama, no Richard Gere, to bring its cause to the world's attention. If it did, then we would know more about the barbaric treatment meted out to Uighurs on a day-to-day basis.

So paranoid is the Chinese government about the threat of a separatist movement in Xinjiang that it will incarcerate innocent civilians on the flimsiest pretexts.

Uighurs have been jailed for reading newspapers sympathetic to the cause of independence. Others have been detained merely for listening to Radio Free Asia, an English-language station funded by the US Congress. Even to discuss separatism in public is to risk a lengthy jail sentence, with no prospect of habeas corpus, effective legal representation or a fair trial. About 100 Uighurs were arrested in Khotan recently after several hundred demonstrated in the marketplace of the town, which lies on the Silk Road.

And what happens to these innocent Uighur men and women once they land up in one of Xinjiang's notorious "black prisons"? Amnesty International has reported numerous incidents of torture, from cigarette burns on the skin to submersion in water or raw sewage. Prisoners have had toenails extracted by pliers, been attacked by dogs and burned with electric batons, even
cattle prods.

In Typhoon, I relate the terrifying true story of a prisoner in Xinjiang who had horse hair inserted into the tip of his penis. Throughout this diabolical torture, the victim was forced to wear a metal helmet on his head. Why? Because a previous inmate had been so traumatised by his treatment in the prison that he had beaten his own head against a radiator in an attempt to take his own life.

This is the reality of life in modern Xinjiang. Quite what the Chinese hope to gain from their inhumane behaviour remains unclear. According to Corinna-Barbara Francis, a researcher with Amnesty's East Asia team, "the intensified repression of Uighurs by the Chinese authorities is in danger of contributing to the very outcome that China claims it is warding against - the radicalisation of the population and the adoption of violent responses to the repression."

Uighurs have motive, at the very least, for fighting back. On January 5 this year, 18 Uighurs were killed and a further 17 arrested during a raid on what the Chinese described as a "terrorist training camp" in the Pamir mountains. However, many western observers have cast doubt on the veracity of this claim. Just as there has been no proof of the planned attacks on the Olympic Games, the Chinese authorities have yet to produce any evidence which would suggest that the men and women killed in January were terrorists linked to al-Qaida.

Rebiya Kadeer, president of the World Uighur Congress, who lives in exile in the United States, believes that the threat of "terrorism" in Xinjiang has been grossly exaggerated and is being used by Beijing "both as a justification for the continued repression and cultural assimilation of the Uighur people" and as a diversionary tactic designed to disguise China's appalling human rights record in the region. But who will hear her?

· Typhoon will be published in June charlescumming.co.uk

Wednesday, March 05, 2008

Free Tibet


Declare independence!
Don't let them do that to you!
Declare independence!
Don't let them do that to you!

Declare independence!
Don't let them do that to you!
Declare independence!
Don't let them do that to you!

Start your own currency!
Make your own stamp
Protect your language

Declare independence
Don't let them do that to you
Declare independence
Don't let them do that to you

[x4] Make your own flag!

[x6] Raise your flag!

Declare independence!
Don't let them do that to you!
Declare independence!
Don't let them do that to you!

Damn colonists
Ignore their patronizing
Tear off their blindfolds
Open their eyes

Declare independence!
Don't let them do that to you!
Declare independence!
Don't let them do that to you!

With a flag and a trumpet
Go to the top of your highest mountain!

[x6] Raise your flag!

Declare independence!
Don't let them do that to you!
Declare independence!
Don't let them do that to you!


Raise the flag!

by Bjork