China is run by a bunch of imperialist arseholes. From their own borders to large parts of Africa they use their resources, financial and military, to prosecute their self-interests around the globe. At the moment they're using overwhelming force to crush Tibetan separatists.
Now, we're all in agreement that Chinese dictatorship are bad, aren't we? The Right can look at all the Red Flags and get themselves all aquiver, and the Left can talk about what evil capitalist imperialists they are. It's a win-win surely? Well, actually, erm... not everyone seems that keen on talking shit about the Chinese.
In fact, not one developed nation declared its support for Tibet's independence. Not one called on the Chinese government to grant more autonomy. There was a lot of discussion about boycotting the Olympic Games, but then, err, no one did. In fact, everybody just sort of ummed and erred, then put out a statement asking the CCP to 'show restraint' when repressing the protests.
Funny that, isn't it? All these countries are pro-democracy. Some of them make a boast of their missionary work, spreading democracy around the world and all that. But not one of them stepped up and said "Tibet should have a right to national self-determination". Not one of even went as far as boycotting a sports tournament in protest at the PLA's brutality.
So the people's fight that everyone supports is sort of the people's fight that no one supports. But in terms of realpolitik it makes perfect sense. Why waste resources (diplomatic, military, financial) trying to destabilise a government that does pretty well by other countries, in terms of accepting inward investment and exporting cheap light industry? What on Earth are they supposed to get out of 'liberating' Tibet?
It's funny how our grand exalted masters always seem to find the time and resources to liberate countries from people who won't do business in the way they want though. Even when the stupid bastards brought it on themselves by electing their 'evil tyrant' in the first place.
As we continue to hold our breathe for 'humanitarian intervention' in Tibet, maybe we should think about how many conflicts that 'interventions' are never even discussed. Maybe, liberal interventionism would be nice, if it ever actually happened. Every time a crisis occurs and there isn't a bottom line for the powers that be, it seems to result in a giant shrugging of shoulders by all concerned.
Perhaps the trouble with Empires is this: they only get involved when they want something, and when they want something they'll stamp on anyone to get it ... and when they don't want something, they let it slide. So the (conveniently anti-Empire) reality is, they come in all guns blazing to steal, and otherwise they just let wherever it is burn. So, should we intervene in Sudan, Tibet, Rwanda becomes, of course they won't intervene, why would they?
The light getting battered by some especially idiotic moths is that self-interest always comes made-up as humanitarianism, for any oil, there is always a tyrant, for every nationalist you want to grind into the dust, there is always some national minority to save. Trouble is, when you work out the balance sheet, you find everyone except Empire loses.
