N.S. Venkataraman
For over seven years, civil war has been going on in Syria between the Syrian government and the rebels. Thousands of people have been killed, many more have been injured, and a large number of people have left Syria and sought asylum in Europe. In the civil war in Syria, the Syrian government has received support from Russia and Iran directly, and the US and it allies have been directly and indirectly extending support to the rebels.
Suddenly, the US and its allies have expressed deep concern about the plight of innocent citizens in Syria and said that chemical weapons had been used by the Syrian government in conducting the war against the rebels. The Syrian government has denied that chemical weapons have been used. But, US and it’s allied insist that chemical weapons have been used, and such weapons have been stockpiled in different locations in Syria, and innocent people have lost their lives or sustained enormous injuries due to a chemical attack on them.
Claiming that US and it’s allied including France and UK have the responsibility to prevent attacks on innocent citizens in Syria by the so-called chemical attacks, the three countries jointly bombed several locations in Syria where chemical weapons are supposed to be stockpiled.
After bombing of Syria, US and allies complement themselves that they have exhibited humanitarian gesture by taking steps to save the lives of innocent citizens in Syria.
The question now upper most in the mind of the discerning observers is whether these western countries are so much concerned about humanitarian issues and protecting the lives of innocent people. If they are so concerned, have they gone to the aid of many innocent people who have suffered atrocities in different parts of the world?
Are the humanitarian concern of US, and it’s allied very selective and subjective?
While viewing the claims of the US, UK and France and other countries such as Australia, Israel and Canada supporting the Syrian bombing as humanitarian act, the discerning observers wonder as to why such humanitarian act has not been carried out in the case of Tibet, which has suffered severe atrocities at the hands of China.
Around sixty years back, China occupied Tibet forcefully and mercilessly arrested, killed or driven out the protesting Tibetans against Chinese occupation of their motherland. In the last several decades, China has suppressed freedom for people in Tibet, imposed an iron curtain so that news about happenings in Tibet would not be known to the outside world except the news that Chinese government would approve and Chinese government has been slowly and systematically destroying the Tibetan culture and traditions and brainwashing the Tibetan youth.
The US and it’s allies who say that they have humanitarian considerations and sympathy for suffering people that prompted them to bomb Syria, have simply closed their eyes to the plight of Tibetans who are now living in Chinese occupied territory.
Instead of condemning China for its acts of aggression in Tibet, US and it’s allies are bending forward and backward to do business with China and are taking cautious steps to maintain friendly relations with China, totally ignoring the Chinese acts of aggression in Tibet. Naturally, US and allies adopt such approach towards China, due to China’s economic and military strength and investment and trade opportunities that China provides them.
Most of the Tibetans now wonder whether the claims of countries like US, UK, and France about their commitment to the cause of liberty and freedom should be believed.
Tibetans hoping that the free world would come to their aid now or later to get their motherland back from Chinese occupation wish that the US and it allies would help the Tibetans to get their motherland back from Chinese occupation as a humanitarian cause , just as US and it’s allied claim that they are helping the innocent Syrians .
The contrast in approach of US and it’s allies towards Syria and Tibet is conspicuous and obvious. It is obvious because it looks that US and allies would support humanitarian cause only if it would serve their geopolitical interests.