Communist China To Screen BBC Whitewash of Tibet
Image:xinhua
Not since Leni Riefenstahl lovingly fashioned her propaganda celebrations of Nazi-Germany http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_of_the_Will or the film board of apartheid South Africa encouraged documentaries of the supposedly content black populations of the townships, have we witnessed such a shameful betrayal of the facts, in which the violent suppression of a people’s legitimate rights are callously ignored in order to appease an authoritarian regime. Yet, the BBC Four documentary ‘A Year in Tibet’ surely merits inclusion in the academy of infamy.
It has troubling echoes of a film made long ago about the Apartheid Regime in South Africa. The Prime Minister, (of then named Rhodesia) Ian Smith, had just declared independence from Britain, in order to safeguard white rule. But even so much unease existed in that country about the appalling government so close to its borders. Accordingly the South Africans ‘invited’ a ‘Rhodesian’ film crew in, to give a “fair and balanced picture of South Africa”. The crew were accorded free access and did indeed spend much time filming, documenting and researching. The result was most agreeable to the two countries. While ’blacks’ were being beaten and tortured and existing in rotting townships, black people were shown happily going about their everyday business, laughing, chatting and living in comfortable conditions. However, even this massacre of the facts did not feature black people’s homes with pictures of Doctor Verwoerd (then South African Prime Minister) on their walls. Viewers of ‘A Year in Tibet’ were no doubt gratified to note images of Mao Tse Tung in Tibetan homes, a similar film might have shown Jewish houses with pictures of Hitler adorning their walls after the Holocaust.
The BBC claimed that its film was an ‘observational documentary’, following a year in the life of Gyantse, Tibet’s third largest town, portraying a seemingly contented and thriving culture, untainted by the odious excesses of Communist Chinese occupation. Unfortunately the systematic erosion of Tibetan culture was not embraced by the film, whose makers somehow managed to document daily-living in such circumstances, yet singularly failed to feature the cultural and political suppression, which has operated inside Tibet since China’s invasion in 1950. Choosing to gloss-over the facts, through what appeared to be highly-staged propaganda, which carefully avoided issues of sensitivity by constructing a stereotypical and idyllic image of life inside Tibet. In cynically excluding important factual information, the film misrepresents the oppressive realities experienced by Tibetans.
Although featuring an exotic and colourful, albeit limited, glimpse of Tibet, it lacks any critical material. For example, Gyaltsen Norbu, an innocent stooge selected by Communist China as Tibet’s new ‘Panchen Lama’ was given considerable exposure, whilst the candidate formally recognised by the Dalai Lama, was virtually absent, with no reference to the fact that he remains in ‘protective custody’ at an unknown location. This resulted in a selective and biased presentation, of an issue of immense cultural importance to the people of Tibet, and one which would have attracted the interest and concern of viewers world-wide.
This, and other distortions, was orchestrated in part by the film’s locational Director, Ms Shun Shuyun, an individual who seems to have some affinity with the Communist Chinese authorities, raising the question if it was ever possible to realise even the mildest criticism or balanced assessment. It may well be that Ms Shuyun is a card-carrying member of the Chinese Communist Party, whatever the facts, it is difficult to understand why she was chosen for such a critical post, where independent objectivity would be vital. Imagine producing a similar project on the lives of Palestinians, and appointing a non Arab-speaking, orthodox and right-wing Israeli as Director. Under such a circumstance could one ever expect a film that would meaningfully examine, challenge or question some of Israel’s less honourable actions? Furthermore, in promoting a warped image of life in Gyantse, which included no reference to the notorious Gyantse Detention centre (from which has emerged a number of reports documenting systematic torture and abuse of Tibetans), the film is affirming a deceit of equal stature to the assertion that ‘Hitler did not gas Gypsies or Jews’.
In producing this obsequious propaganda, we can observe a dishonourable policy operating within the BBC, one that avoids areas of particular concern or embarrassment to China, and given the totalitarian nature of China’s government, which approved this film, it is extremely difficult not to view this project as anything but a politically motivated sanitisation. The issue of Tibet has suffered from years of Chinese propaganda distorting and obscuring the tragic condition of the Tibetan people, ‘A Year in Tibet’ has done nothing to redress this imbalance, indeed it has endorsed the official Chinese viewpoint by failing to present a balanced and factual perspective.
As demonstrated by the announcement http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-07/19/content_11731595.htm that this propaganda-piece is to be screened across China, this film has greatly pleased the communist government of China (and the British Foreign Office whose policy of appeasing China at all costs, callously ignores the political aspirations of Tibetans for independence and human rights abuses, such as the brutal realities of forced sterilisation of Tibetan women).
Sign The Petitition: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/bbc-whitewashes-tibet/signatures.html
No Comments Yet
No comments yet.
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
Leave a comment
