Why is it that Tibet gets so much publicity and support from the bleeding hearts brigade?
Why – time and time and time again – are other areas similarly occupied by a foreign political capital ignored by these same “concerned citizens”? If “freeing Tibet” is such a noble cause, where are the “Turkestan independence” and “save Chechnya” movements?
They don’t exist, because those places don’t fall under the “cool cause” radar of the beatnicks.
The Green Party isn’t any different. First we had the 2006 Green Platform mention Tibet but ignore similarly occupied places. And now we see GPC deputy leader David Chernushenko at a recent Tibet rally.
Where’s the consistency?
Chernushenko actually made a good point in a speech at the rally that it’s better to give attention to peaceful struggles, rather than armed conflicts, as it sends out a positive message. I fully agree.
But what Chernushenko fails to understand is that he’s giving attention to popularised movements made famous by two-bit actors such as Richard Gere, and yet ignoring other places suffering alarmingly similar circumstances. Ultimately, this trivializes legitimately desperate causes into mere popularity contests.
Do we really need to have third-rate celebrities promoting the cause of areas other than Tibet before the Green Party will acknowledge such similar tales of plight? Or are we simply sheep, following whichever cause is “in” at the moment?
It’s time for the Green Party’s foreign policy to grow up.
Coherency and consistency is the craft of the capable – folksy and festooned is the fancy of the fringe. Which best defines the Green Party of Canada?