 |
| Meeting between Pinochet and President Bush I (between 1990-1994) |
In a Twitter exchange with Tenzin Peljor (Diffi.Cult), I was asked by him to check the background on the Dalai-Lama's appeal to the British government to free Pinochet in 1999. So I did. Once more the format of Twitter doesn't suite what I think is necessary to answer properly.
The background
Pinochet seized power in Chile (11/09/1973) in a coup d'état, with the support of the U.S., overthrowing the democratically elected Marxist Salvador Allende. Pinochet installed a military junta that lasted until 1990.
“Pinochet persecuted leftists, socialists, and political critics, resulting in the executions of from 1,200 to 3,200 people, the internment of as many as 80,000 people, and the torture of tens of thousands.” sourceIn October 1998 Pinochet was arrested in London on "charges of genocide and terrorism that include murder".
“After having been placed under house arrest on the grounds of the Wentworth Club in Britain in October 1998 and initiating a judicial and public relations battle, the latter run by Thatcherite political operative Patrick Robertson, he was released in March 2000 on medical grounds by the Home Secretary Jack Straw without facing trial. Straw had overruled a House of Lords decision to extradite Pinochet to face trial in Spain.” source
 |
| Pinochet (under house arrest in the UK) visiting Thatcher in her home. Thatcher : "Thank you, thank you very much !" |
Pinochet received strong support from Margareth Thatcher (Speech on Pinochet at the Conservative Party Conference), who also received Pinochet and his wife in her own home (26/03/1999), in spite of Pinochet's house arrest.
"President Pinochet was this country's staunch, true friend in our time of need when Argentina seized the Falkland Islands. I know - I was Prime Minister at the time. On President Pinochet's express instructions, and at great risk, Chile provided enormously valuable assistance.""But how did the authorities, under this Labour Government, choose to repay it? I will tell you. By collaborating in Senator Pinochet's judicial kidnap." (Speech)
 |
| The Dalai-Lama and President Bush I at the White House (1991) |
Pinochet also received strong support from Former President George Bush, who wrote a letter, or had it written by someone else[1], “to former British Chancellor Lord Lamont, calling the accusation against Pinochet a travesty against justice. Britain, Bush concluded, should allow Pinochet to return to Chile.”
In April 1999, the Dalaï-lama was on a 5-day visit to Chile. He was invited there by the Tibet Foundation of Chile. The visit provoked reactions from the Chinese embassy[2].
“He insisted on the peaceful nature of Tibet’s demands for independence. “We are neighbors (with China) and it is essential not to maintain hatred. Every year I look for how to find something in the spirit of reconciliation,” he added.What can be seen as a conjoint action (Margaret Thatcher, George Bush and the Peace Nobel Prize winner the Dalaï-lama) to plead for Pinochet to be released from prosecution was successful, in spite of the House of Lords decision to extradite Pinochet to face trial in Spain, which was overruled by Home Secretary Jack Straw.
This same spirit of reconciliation was shown by the Dalai Lama regarding former dictator Pinochet, 83, arrested since October 1998 in London and who will possibly face from Thursday an extradition trial to Spain.
Tenzin Giatso, the name of the 14th Dalai Lama, said that revenge is not the right path and stressed the value of forgiveness for the human rights violations committed in Chile during the dictatorship.
“But that does not mean forgetting what happened. We must be clear about the bad things that happened and then, in a spirit of reconciliation, be ready to forgive”.
Pinochet, he continued, as “a man of advanced age, pardon can be applied to him”, but “as we are all equal before the law, we must respect any decision of justice”, he concluded.”
(Source translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version))
The polemic
I already wrote about this polemic in my blog Diffi.Cult. Guest writer Joanne Clark[3] assessed the article ‘Not The Tibetan Way’: The Dalai Lama’s Realpolitik Concerning Abusive Teachers, by Stuart Lachs & Rob Hogendoorn. Clark takes the authors to task for not having treated the Dalai-Lama in “the context of his own words, his place in history, and culture, geography (how does he police lamas who act in a different country?) and his commitments, mainly spiritual, in life”. According to the authors of Diffi.Cult, when the Dalaï-lama pleaded for Pinochet’s release, he did so merely out of compassion for an old sick man (albeit a dictator). Not out of any other motivation than compassion.
Note 120 of the assessed article gives a background for its statement “The Dalai Lama is very much a political player”, which is also applied to the Dalaï-lama’s support of Pinochet
“No doubt, much pressure was put on the Dalai Lama to get him to stand for Pinochet’s defense against extradition.” Apart from the Dalaï-lama’s declaration quoted above, the assessed article reads: ”In April 1999, the Dalai Lama appealed to the British government to free Pinochet, who was arrested while visiting England.’ Vivas, Maxime. (2012). The Untouchable. In Behind the Smile: The Hidden Side of the Dalai Lama (Kindle ed.). San Francisco: Long River Press; Sifflet, Patrice. (2006).”My take
My take on this. The context being the cold war and the opposition between communism and capitalism. When Tibet is invaded by China in 1959 (gradually from 1951 onward), the support for the Dalaï-lama and the Tibetan people in the West was before all motivated by humanitarian reasons, but anti-communism or anti-Marxism certainly played a part as well. The very traditional and then still theocratic Tibet fighting against Chinese communism was a federating factor for anti-Marxists all over the world. Liberals, conservatives, extreme right-wing politicians, dictators. At the same time the Dalaï-lama’s Neobuddhist values (peace, compassion, altruism, secular ethics, ...) spoke more to progressive people, to which he still gives nudges every now and then (“I am actually a Marxist you know”).
 |
| Pastiche on Célébration 80th anniversary with George W.Bush in Texas |
If one looks at the Dalaï-lama’s actions and at the personalities and politicians he displays himself with, then the balance is clearly on the anti-Marxist side. He probably has no choice, being most strongly supported by the likes of the Bushes, Thatcher etc. In exchange for that support, he may sometimes be ready to support one of their former strategic allies (e.g. Pinochet). Let’s look at who else the Dalaï-lama supported in similar ways? Does Julian Assange (militantly fighting for peace by denouncing war acts, currently in prison, not in house-arrest) stand a chance for the Dalaï-lama to appeal to the British government on his behalf? Or other more “Marxist” or progressive activists fighting for right Neobuddhist-compatible causes in trouble? I am not aware of it. But maybe there have been some. Probably for political or strategic reasons the Dalaï-lama and the Tibetan government in exile don’t have the choice to pick other friends than on the right-wing anti-Marxist spectrum, and can't support anti-capitalist causes and policies, because they would lose their "friendship", and so they are stuck with the friends and allies they have.
Or maybe it’s their natural tendency, coming from former theocratic rule, and having been invaded and abused as a people by Chinese communists and therefore understandably being allergic to anything Marxist. Whatever is the case, for the moment the balance of actions is clearly on the right side, for better or for worse.
Tenpel wrote on Twitter:
"It appears to me that my first impression of the article, all types of sources that put the Dalai Lama in a bad light, are used without questioning the sources or to investigate the context, is just true."I answered :
“1/2 I disagree with Tenpel’s and Joanne Clark’s assessment of the article, but on this very point what about all types of sources that put the Dalai Lama in a good light? Aren’t they often used without questioning the sources and investigating the context?”The Dalaï-lama can’t complain about the way he has been treated in the Western media ever since the West became aware of him and his cause. Have all those positive publications that put him in a good light been justified? If every now and then his more doubtful or even negative aspects, personal or in the exercise of his functions, are questioned, is that a problem? Why would you require fairness from critical publications and not from the standard praises of his wisdom? And why specifically in the case of the thoroughly researched article by Rob Hogendoorn and Stuart Lachs, where everyone can check the sources that are mentioned, and form their own opinion?
MàJ 05012022 Two Views Of The Dalai Lama: High-level Bodhisattva And Transactional Political Figure, Stuart Lachs
***
[1] “On April 26 Michael Dannenaher, Bush's chief of staff, told us that he, not Bush, had written said letter and that he would not provide a copy.” source
[2] “However, as happens in every trip of the Dalai Lama, his visit to Santiago provoked reactions from the Chinese embassy, which protested against the decision of President Eduardo Frei to receive him in a special audience in the La Moneda palace.
The Chilean Foreign Ministry clarified last week that the presidential decision does not imply a government pronouncement on the emancipation demands of Tibet, whose 100,000 refugees claim that their country is militarily occupied by China.
The Foreign Ministry also said that Frei’s interview with the Dalai Lama is not an “unfriendly gesture” toward the Beijing government, with which Chile maintains “the best relations.”
“That always happens,” the Buddhist leader commented at a press conference this Sunday, regarding Chinese diplomatic protests over his visit.” Source
[3] A disheartening article: stuart lachs & rob hogendoorn on the Dalai Lama, 04/10/2021.
Stuart Lachs and I will have more to say on this in a forthcoming article, but both Joanne Clark and Tenzin Peljor conveniently ignore the Dalai Lama's long-standing relations with Chilean neo-nazi and Augusto Pinochet supporter Miguel Serrano—mentioned several times in the selfsame footnote 120 of our article.
RépondreSupprimerEven so, in a comment on Clark's article (number 28), Peljor attempts to argue via an anonymous source that the Dalai Lama took into account 'the politics of Chile'—indeed he did!
Peljor thereby—perhaps inadvertently—corroborates our point that the Dalai Lama is 'very much a very political player.'
I thoroughly recommend reading 'Calculated Kindness: Refugees and America's Half-Open Door 1945-Present' by Gil Loescher and John Scanlan (1986). Their exhaustive contemporaneous research revealed that America's response to refugees heavily favoured those facing persecution from Communist regimes, to the detriment of refugees from right wing regimes such as Pinochet's—whether or not communist.
On this view, ironically, George Bush, Augusto Pinochet, and the Dalai Lama were all on the same side, a political concurrence that certainly would not have escaped the Tibetan leader. After all, he and the Tibetan guerilla fighters accepted financial and military support from the Central Intelligence Agency between the mid 1950s and early 1970s, and supplicate for American support against China to this day.
There's much more to be said about this matter, but I stand by our first-pass, almost perfunctory assessment that the Dalai Lama 'is very much a political player.' Why shouldn't he be?
After all, on his own view the Dalai Lama was the Tibetan head of state and chief executive of the Central Tibetan Administration, serving the interests of the Tibetan people. He did so by humouring his 'old friend' the USA, by supporting its plea on behalf of Augusto Pinochet. What's so extraordinary about that?
Thank you for your reaction Rob, and for the reference (Gil Loescher and John Scanlan). Indeed why shouldn't he be.
RépondreSupprimerTenzin Peljor, once again, expects others to spend an inordinate amount of time on an almost obligatory observation in a footnote—that the Dalai Lama 'is very much a political player': https://hridayartha.blogspot.com/2021/10/pinochet-and-dalai-lama-compassion-or.html
RépondreSupprimerHe himself, however, doesn't read, he merely ‘glances’—as he routinely admits. And, yet, somehow Peljor manages to ‘know stuff.’ How does he do it?
Peljor’s go-to technique is to ask a network of anonymous 'sources' what to think, a ‘view' he then appropriates as if it were the fruit of his own thoroughgoing research.
Internalizing these anonymous authorities' words through the force of repetition himself, learning by rote, Peljor then tries to persuade his readers that his ‘views' are on firm ground, bordering on being self-evident.
When you actually confront Peljor with the fact that he doesn’t read the texts he opines on (as I've done several times), he tells you that he doesn’t have the 'time.’ And yet, he always manages to find the time to just 'say stuff' in public—ad infinitum.
A closely related technique Peljor routinely applies, is to quote sources he thus used many years ago, as well as his own contemporaneous writings on the matter, as if they were written in stone, 'canonizing' them as the final word on the matter.
As a result, numerous oversights and misrepresentations—intentional or not, how would he ‘know’?—mar Peljor’s own writings on the Dalai Lama’s highly problematic involvement with (neo-)nazis, Shoko Asahara, and Keith Raniere, for instance: https://openbuddhism.org/knave-or-fool-the-dalai-lama-and-shoko-asahara-affair-revisited/
In effect, Peljor’s modus operandi is very similar to the sources he professes to abhor—Victor and Victoria Trimondi, Colin Goldner, Michael Parenti, for instance.
They must surely rank among his favourite foils, because their own lack of thoroughness provides him with a perfect label to smear and lump together critics of his own ‘work' without ever having to study the subject matter at hand.
In effect, Peljor's ideological codependencies result in species of intellectual and rhetorical devices such as myside bias, bothsidesing, and whataboutism. Ultimately, they are self-defeating, of course, because they diametrically oppose cultivating a sense of reality.
So, Joanne Clark took us to task for framing the fourteenth Dalai Lama’s transactional dealings with abusive or even murderous leaders as if his conduct were that of a perfectly ordinary, normally functioning priest. The substance of Joanne Clark’s critique rests on three presuppositions: the Dalai Lama’s true intentions are both spiritual and incontrovertible; these intentions are known by at least Clark; and they are indispensable in assessing the accountability for his policymaking acts. This raises a question: should the purity of the spotlessly clean and fresh intentions she imputes to the Dalai Lama inform and even override the examination of his day-to-day policy decisions and political motives?
RépondreSupprimerStuart Lachs and I respond to this question (and Joanne Clark's critique): https://openbuddhism.org/a-profession-of-faith-and-the-designation-of-a-taboo/