April 14, 2008 (LPAC)-- In papers belonging to T.V. Soong, the wartime (WWII) finance minister of China, released today by the Hoover Institution and Shanghai's Fudan University, it is clear that the myth of Tibetan independence was launched during World War II by Winston Churchill. The papers contain letters from Kuomintang Party (KMT) leader Chiang Kai-shek complaining about Churchill's attempt to rewrite history and to characterize Tibet as an independent country, something which it had never been.
"In a telegram to Chiang Kai-shek, then Chinese leader and KMT chairman, dated May 21, 1943, Soong wrote:
'Churchill said that recently it has been alleged that China has concentrated troops in order to attack Tibet. I replied that I have never heard of such a message.
And meanwhile, I said that Tibet is not an independent nation, as Churchill had claimed. All previous agreements between China and Britain have recognized that China possesses sovereign rights in Tibet, and I believe this fact has already been under your careful examination.'
Chiang wrote back, saying:
'By treating Tibet as an independent country, Churchill has denied the territorial integrity and sovereignty of our country. It's a great insult. I did not expect Britain would make such a statement Tibet is part of China's territory, and Tibetan affairs are China's domestic affairs.'"
To heighten the contrast between this welcome type of patriotic hatred of the British Empire, on the one side, as expressed by President Franklin Roosevelt and his allies, with the revolting proclivity toward British butt-licking, as espoused by Cheney-protecter Nancy Pelosi or Jello-Head Al Gore, on the other, is a very easy task. Nevertheless, we will do it here, only because these butt-lickers are still romping around, today, at the expense of civilization!
Contrast Churchill's approach to China, and that of Pelosi's, with President Franklin Roosevelt's 1944 criticism of imperialism:
[Memorandum of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to Secretary of State Cordell Hull, January 24, 1944 (from Major Problems in American Foreign Policy, Vol. II: Since 1944)]:
I saw [British Ambassador to the U.S. Lord] Halifax last week and told him quite frankly that it was perfectly true that I had, for over a year, expressed the opinion that Indo-China should not go back to France but that it should be administered by an international trusteeship. France has had the country -- thirty million inhabitants -- for nearly one hundred years, and the people are worse off than they were at the beginning.
As a matter of interest, I am wholeheartedly supported in this view by Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek and by Marshal Stalin. I see no reason to play in with the British Foreign Office in this matter. The only reason they seem to oppose it is that they fear the effect it would have on their own possessions and those of the Dutch. They have never liked the idea of trusteeship because it is, in some instances, aimed at future independence. This is true in the case of Indo-China.
Each case must, of course, stand on its own feet, but the case of Indo-China is perfectly clear. France has milked it for one hundred years. The people of Indo-China are entitled to something better than that.
