Tibet: The New Palestine?

"The US House (April 9) criticized China for its
...response to protests in Tibet."
Associated Press, April 10, 2008

If a people have lived under military occupation for decades, and the occupying power is moving more and more of its own people into the occupied territory, the oppressed people are likely to seek the intervention of the "international community" on their behalf.

If the occupied people are called Palestinian Arabs, the response will be robust, including numerous UN resolutions, international conferences, and massive diplomatic pressure on the occupying power.

But if the victims of occupation are Tibetans, the world won't care much. The occupying power, the People's Republic of China (formerly Red China) will not feel much pressure to ease up on the repression, until maybe now.

After a millennium of independence, Tibet was annexed by China in the early 1700's (1). The mountain land regained its autonomy during the 1911 Chinese Revolution, but in 1950 Communist Chinese armed forces retook Tibet. Although nominally autonomous within China, all real power over the area is held firmly by Beijing. Hundreds of thousands of Chinese people have settled in Tibet during the period of Chinese occupation.

The worldwide focus on the Olympic Games in Beijing this summer has given advocates of Tibet an opportunity to publicize human rights violations by China. There have been big street demonstrations, some violent, in the cities through which the Olympic Torch as been run.

The Olympic Games are always a showcase for the regime hosting them, including some repressive regimes, such as Nazi Germany in 1936. In 1980 President Carter withdrew American participation from the Olympics in Moscow to protest the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Despite the ostensibly non-political nature of the Games, politics often intrudes. The most horrific example was the murder of eleven Israeli athletes by Black September Palestinian terrorists during the 1972 Games in Munich.

When China began to allow private enterprise to bloom about twenty years ago, pundits predicted that economic liberty would inevitably lead to political liberty. So far, this has not come true. Today's China is a far cry from Mao Zedong's Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (1966), but the only legal political party is still the Communist Party. All media are under tight state control, even the internet is censored. China has millionaires, a big middle class, plenty of Wal-Marts, and no political freedom. The regime is striving to show the world a placid ambience for the Olympic Games, but it resists making real concessions to freedom, either in Tibet or at home.

Unlike tiny Israel, China cannot be pressured successfully. It is the world's most populous nation, and one of the greatest economies. China today finances the American national debt, a development Mao would never have believed would occur. (Back in his time, I would not have believed it either!) When the Olympic Torch is finally extinguished at the end of the Summer 2008 Games, neither Tibet nor the Chinese people will be any closer to real freedom.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) World Book Encyclopedia, 1977, Volume 10, page 215.

Keep Electing Justices

In the wake of the defeat of State Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler on April 1 (despite the Glazerbeam endorsement), State Rep. Fred Kessler (D, Milwaukee) (1) has proposed an amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution. Instead of electing justices to a ten-year term, Kessler would have the Governor nominate a justice, subject to confirmation by the State Senate. Every ten years at least 13 members of the State Senate (out of 33) would have to re-confirm the justice.

Under the present system the Governor fills vacancies on all Wisconsin state courts, so many (if not most) justices were initially appointed to their current or previous judicial positions. Incumbent justices are rarely defeated for re-election; the last time was in 1967 when Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Robert W Hansen beat Justice George R Currie.

I am among the large number of Wisconsin voters who became disgusted with the plethora of attack ads during the 2008 Supreme Court campaign. The worst of them did not even urge viewers to vote against a candidate, but rather to "call him and tell him you want higher judicial standards" or the like. Since this type of ad does not urge voting one way or the other, it is not subject to state campaign finance law.

It appears that the best way to win a judicial race is to convince the voters that your opponent is "soft on crime." Suppose you are running against a " Mr Schmidt"; here are some proven ways to help you win:
1. If Schmidt was ever a defense lawyer, show that he won a case. (2)
2. If Schmidt was ever a prosecutor, show that he once reduced a charge or recommended less than the maximum sentence.
3. If he is (or was ever) a trial judge, show that he found a defendant not-guilty or sentenced him to less than the maximum.
4. If Schmidt is (or was ever) an appellate judge or justice, show that he once voted to reverse a conviction.
5. If Schmidt was never any of the above, claim that he lacks the requisite experience in criminal law to be on the bench.

Candidates who believe they have been slandered during a judicial campaign can file a complaint with the State Bar or the local district attorney, but probably no action will be taken until after the election. Even if the charge is sustained, unless the guilty party was the other candidate himself, it will have no bearing on who serves in the office.

Attack ads, as reprehensible as they may be, are still exercises of our right to criticize public officials and those who seek public office. Citizens who want to spend their money expressing their views on politics should have the right to do so, provided only that all expenditures related to elections are fully disclosed. (Even for ads that that say "call" instead of "vote.")

But then, why not just pass Rep. Kessler's bill?

Because members of the State Supreme Court are powerful public officials. Four (out of seven) of them can overturn the decision of the Legislature and the Governor by declaring a law unconstitutional. (3) Democracy requires that officials holding such power be answerable directly to the people through contested elections.

Despite the problems with the current system, it enables us to get the justices we as a people deserve. If we choose foolishly, we will live with the consequences. We are entitled to no more.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Kessler, who is a former judge himself, is the husband of Appeals Court Judge Joan Kessler, who defeated incumbent Charles Schudson in 2004 after a particularly nasty campaign.

(2)This point is particularly valuable if the defendant in this case is subsequently convicted of a vicious crime.

(2) The US Supreme Court could reverse a state supreme court decision of this type, but this is very, very unlikely.