Why the Concept of Political Asylum Makes No Sense
I find that the concept of nationhood, although a human invention, is integral to the functioning of society as we know it. At the heart of the concept lies the fact that people who are born, live and die in a region must own up to what goes on around them. Nations aren't necessarily made up of people of the same ethnic, cultural or even religious origins. In fact, this is precisely what makes the concept of nations stronger than these more frivolous and abstract divisions.
When people run away from their countries to other countries because they face persecution at home, I find that they are doing something akin to a soldier running away from the battlefield. We all know what militaries around the world do to cowards, and I think that fate is well deserved indeed. While I am not advocating that we shoot all asylum seekers, what I am trying to get at is that the oppressed peoples are the ones who foster regime changing revolutions/struggles in their countries. If they were to run away and hide in other more congenial surroundings, we wouldn't have any of the great freedom struggles that history has witnessed. Frankly, I think that is simply outrageous, and that is why I don't condone political asylum or asylum seekers.
Simply hiding the harassed and the oppressed from their oppressors does not guarantee protection of human rights. In fact, it does quite the opposite because it decreases the critical mass of the population who hate the regime and delays the eventual uprising that much longer. I don't favour the approach that the United States has taken with Iraq either because I don't think freedom is something that can just be granted to a people. Freedom has to be hard won and frequently paid for in blood. Freedom too cheap is no freedom at all.
Lately, however, governments in exile and asylum seekers seem to have become acceptable to the world. The Tibetans sit in India dreaming about a country they have lost but will do nothing to regain. They run a government whose writ extends to a few people in a small hilly town which isn't even inside the country they're meant to govern. I think they are deluding themselves just like Chiang Kai-shek and the Americans did long after the communists had taken control of China. They need to realise that freedom struggles aren't won by setting up stupid proxy governments and sending diplomats of said governments to other countries who have no obvious reason for helping you. And why should they? What exactly would the United States, Britain or indeed India have to gain by making a foe out of China. There is an expression that goes "God helps those who help themselves". It would be appropriate to reword it to say "The world helps those who help themselves". If the Tibetans are committed to sitting with their collective thumbs up their arses, then they should realise that this will always be their fate.
I do accept the fact (although I'm not sure it works) that the Tibetans wish to use non-violence to further their goal of freedom. One might argue that India and South Africa took this route and emerged free, successful nations. But the point worth noting here is that the leaders of their struggles waged their struggle INSIDE their countries as opposed to watching from the sidelines and waiting for others to do their dirty work for them.
Even if someone were to invade Tibet (highly unlikely) and wrench it from the Chinese and hand it to the Tibetan government in exile, I suspect it would only end up like another Iraq. I think Iraq is a perfect example when the people of a country have someone force a certain kind of freedom upon them. We've seen it happen before in Vietnam, and today we see the story repeated in Iraq.
The problem of Tibet is also replicated in Zimbabwe, where people are just now beginning to stand up to a corrupt regime that has made the whole country bankrupt. But what we need to understand is that one or even a small group of people are not nearly enough to prop up a bad government. It takes the complacence of all the good people in the country to keep the few bad people in power. Zimbabweans who end up in other countries seeking asylum should ask themselves whether betraying their country is a fair price for keeping themselves and their families safe.
The whole point of this discussion is that the people of the world who live under oppressive regimes absolutely must learn to stand up for their homes, or they must choose to lower their heads in shame and live off the neighbour's hospitality. The choice is theirs, and theirs alone.
When people run away from their countries to other countries because they face persecution at home, I find that they are doing something akin to a soldier running away from the battlefield. We all know what militaries around the world do to cowards, and I think that fate is well deserved indeed. While I am not advocating that we shoot all asylum seekers, what I am trying to get at is that the oppressed peoples are the ones who foster regime changing revolutions/struggles in their countries. If they were to run away and hide in other more congenial surroundings, we wouldn't have any of the great freedom struggles that history has witnessed. Frankly, I think that is simply outrageous, and that is why I don't condone political asylum or asylum seekers.
Simply hiding the harassed and the oppressed from their oppressors does not guarantee protection of human rights. In fact, it does quite the opposite because it decreases the critical mass of the population who hate the regime and delays the eventual uprising that much longer. I don't favour the approach that the United States has taken with Iraq either because I don't think freedom is something that can just be granted to a people. Freedom has to be hard won and frequently paid for in blood. Freedom too cheap is no freedom at all.
Lately, however, governments in exile and asylum seekers seem to have become acceptable to the world. The Tibetans sit in India dreaming about a country they have lost but will do nothing to regain. They run a government whose writ extends to a few people in a small hilly town which isn't even inside the country they're meant to govern. I think they are deluding themselves just like Chiang Kai-shek and the Americans did long after the communists had taken control of China. They need to realise that freedom struggles aren't won by setting up stupid proxy governments and sending diplomats of said governments to other countries who have no obvious reason for helping you. And why should they? What exactly would the United States, Britain or indeed India have to gain by making a foe out of China. There is an expression that goes "God helps those who help themselves". It would be appropriate to reword it to say "The world helps those who help themselves". If the Tibetans are committed to sitting with their collective thumbs up their arses, then they should realise that this will always be their fate.
I do accept the fact (although I'm not sure it works) that the Tibetans wish to use non-violence to further their goal of freedom. One might argue that India and South Africa took this route and emerged free, successful nations. But the point worth noting here is that the leaders of their struggles waged their struggle INSIDE their countries as opposed to watching from the sidelines and waiting for others to do their dirty work for them.
Even if someone were to invade Tibet (highly unlikely) and wrench it from the Chinese and hand it to the Tibetan government in exile, I suspect it would only end up like another Iraq. I think Iraq is a perfect example when the people of a country have someone force a certain kind of freedom upon them. We've seen it happen before in Vietnam, and today we see the story repeated in Iraq.
The problem of Tibet is also replicated in Zimbabwe, where people are just now beginning to stand up to a corrupt regime that has made the whole country bankrupt. But what we need to understand is that one or even a small group of people are not nearly enough to prop up a bad government. It takes the complacence of all the good people in the country to keep the few bad people in power. Zimbabweans who end up in other countries seeking asylum should ask themselves whether betraying their country is a fair price for keeping themselves and their families safe.
The whole point of this discussion is that the people of the world who live under oppressive regimes absolutely must learn to stand up for their homes, or they must choose to lower their heads in shame and live off the neighbour's hospitality. The choice is theirs, and theirs alone.
posted by Arun at 2:54 PM
5 comments
