----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 30, 2000 8:50 AM Subject: [STOPNATO] Example of a succesfull CIA PsyOp... STOP NATO: NO PASARAN! - HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.COM When you get Jesse Helms, the Beastie Boys, the Dalai Lama, and a host of Hollywood actors and token "leftists" to support CIA destabilization of China, you pretty much pulled a pretty efficient PsyOp!!!! Read and be amazed... In a message dated 29/06/00 3:21:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << > * * PLEASE FORWARD TO ANYONE WHO MIGHT BE INTERESTED * * * > > RALLY! RALLY! RALLY! > > STOP THE WORLD BANK CHINA PROJECT IN TIBET > > MONDAY, AUGUST 30TH > 11:30 am - 3:30 pm > World Bank Building > 1818 H STREET, NW > WASHINGTON, DC > > Featuring: Adam Yauch of the Beastie Boys, Members of Congress, > representatives from the human rights and environmental movement, >Tibetan music and dance, & much, much > more! > > On June 24th, the World Bank Board of Directors approved a $40 >million loan to China to fund the resettlement of 58,000 Chinese >farmers into Tulan County -- a traditional Tibetan and Mongolian >area. The project promotes China's policy of colonization at the >expense of ethnic minorities, and it also violates the Bank's own >environmental and social policies. Join us on August 30th at the >World Bank and make your voice heard in opposition to > this project! > > For more information contact: > ICT in DC 202.785.1515 > Milarepa in SF 415.553.8533 > SFT in NY 212.594.5898 > USTC in NY 212.481.3569 > > Sponsored by US Tibet Committee, Students for a Free Tibet, the >Milarepa Fund, International Committee of Lawyers for Tibet, Center >for International Environmental Law, Friends of the Earth and the >International Campaign for Tibet > > BACKGROUND INFORMATION > > The following background information was written by the U.S. Tibet > Committee. > Please note that the coalition is working to create background >information that reflects the views of the entire coalition and >that the following information is being provided in lieu of >coalition materials currently being drafted. > > ***U.S. Tibet Committee*** > > The World Bank: Undermining Tibet's Future > Executive Directors Approve China's Westward Colonization > > On June 24th, 1999, the World Bank Board of Directors approved a >$160 million loan in support of China's Western Poverty Reduction >Project. The project includes a loan to finance population transfer >of 57,775 Chinese farmers onto fragile nomadic lands located within >a so called `Tibetan and Mongolian autonomous prefecture'.* Though >ostensibly designed to alleviate poverty, the project promotes >China's policy of colonization of Tibet, and violates the World >Bank's own environmental and social policies. Afraid and unwilling >to challenge China, its biggest client, the Board of Directors >overruled American and German opposition [about time!!!] and approved a flawed > project. The approval of this project sends a clear signal that the >World Bank does not respect its policies; it also means that the >Bank is providing financial and institutional support to the Chinese >government's population transfer, the greatest threat to the >survival of the Tibetan people [????], and sets a dangerous precedent to >all occupied territories [?????]: > > Environmental groups, Tibet support groups, students, bank-watching > organizations, musicians, politicians, grassroots activists and >concerned citizens have joined Tibetans to challenge this project. >The result of this alliance has been a torrent of opposition, >including an enormous fax and e-mail campaign. A week before the >vote, the International Campaign for Tibet (on behalf of local >people) filed a claim to the Inspection Panel to investigate these >policy violations and the associated harm - this claim > is still pending. > > Why are we so concerned about this project? > The Bank claims the project will help the poor by decreasing >population pressure in the "move-out" area, east of Tso-ngo-po >(Kokonor Lake), and settling them in a sparsely populated "move-in" >area, Tulan Dzong (Chinese call it Dulan county) south west of >Tso-ngo-po, both in Amdo province of Tibet [ACTUALLY THE AREA ISN"T AND NEVER WAS A TIBETAN POPULATED MAJORITY AREA!!!!!!!!!!!]. But consider the >following: > > The development plan for this project is unsustainable. The >project aims to convert high altitude, fragile grazing pastures into >intensive agricultural farmlands (similar projects within Tibet >during the 1950's and 1960's resulted in massive famines and loss of >life). This type of agriculture will rely heavily on intensive use >of pesticides, two dams and extensive irrigation, and leveling the >earth, which is likely to degenerate and erode the soil. According >to the Environmental Assessment, the goal of the project is to >completely alter the natural ecosystem. > The new settlers will vastly outnumber the Tibetan and Mongolian > communities [?????????] (Further reducing the Tibetan population from 23% to >14%; and the Mongolian population from 14% to 7% ). > People living in the project "move-in" area have stated that >they fear violent ethnic confrontation, particularly since the >project will intensify the competition over already-scarce >resources. Letters smuggled out of the region by Tibetans state >that if the project is implemented "...the World Bank will have >participated in passing a death sentence to us here." Officials >will increase police presence in the area `for the people's > protection'. This low-level militarization of the area will >primarily serve to silence dissent rather than protect people. > Bank monies will be used to build extensive infrastructure in >th e region, which will enable increased resource exploitation by >the Chinese, increased migrants workers, increased control and >assimilation of the area by China. > Furthermore, this population transfer will have little impact on > conditions in the move-out area. According to the World Bank's own > figures, the population transfer will only marginally reduce the >population density of the move-out area - - - from 114.3 to 109.3 >people per square kilometer. Bank staff failed to account for the >high immigration rate of mainland Chinese into the region and >overlook the government's political agenda in the project. > > The World Bank has policies that are supposed to minimize the >environmental and social impacts of a project. If the Board >approved the project, doesn't that mean it meets World Bank policies? > > Unfortunately, no. The project was designed and approved without >the adequate environmental and social analysis-violating several of >the Bank's most important policies, including those on Environmental >Assessment, Indigenous Peoples, Information Disclosure and >Involuntary Resettlement. The Bank management's willingness to >violate its own policies was exacerbated by intense political >pressure from China, including threats of economic reprisals against >opposing countries and withdrawal from the Bank. > The World Bank has been guaranteed by China that "Prison labor will >not be involved or benefit from this project." Why is this still an >issue of concern? > > Actions speak louder than words. The move-in area has a high > concerntration of laogai (`reform-through labor' camps). The local >economy depends heavily on prison labor, which is used extensively >in land reclaimation, road construction, and grain processing. With >the high likelihood of this project becoming entangled with the >pervasive prison labor economy, it is disturbing that the World Bank >and China have refused to publicly release two existing studies on >prison labor in the project area. > > If the World Bank refused to provide funding for this project, would >the Chinese government continue to implement the project? If so >shouldn't the Bank stay involved to try to improve the project? > > "If" is a speculative expression for an uncertain future. The Bank >will have absolutely no impact on what China will or will not do. >It is presumptuous to believe that the Bank can influence China's >behavior. The Bank should not finance a project that does not meet >its standards, that is in violation of its policies and procedures, >and that will cause irreversible harm to the Tibetan and Mongolian >nomadic and semi-nomadic peoples living in the project area. >Furthermore, financing this project provides an air of legitimacy >the Chinese government's violent occupation of Tibet, giving an >international seal-of-approval (and public monies) to China's >illegal population transfer policy. The continued population >transfer of ethnic Chinese into Tibetan territories is one of the >greatest threats to the survival of the Tibetans, and has already >made them a minority in many parts of their own land. > > What does the campaign want? > > The simple short answer is to stop the project from going forward. >The Bank's business is alleviating poverty, not destroying a people >and a culture or becomeing an agent for colonialism. > > Isn't the only reason that this project has received so much >attention because activists and Tibet sympathizers have interfered? >If it weren't for them, wouldn't this be a routine approval process? > > Yes, if Tibetans, Mongolians, and the international community hadn't >raised objections to this project, then certainly the Board would >have approved the project not knowing the management's policy >violations and threats to the local people and environment. The >Bank is unaccustomed to considering public input to their projects >though they are funded by public monies and directly affect billions >of people around the world. > >> ______________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Start Your Own FREE Email List at http://www.listbot.com/links/joinlb
> The project includes a loan to finance population transfer >of 57,775 Chinese farmers onto fragile nomadic lands located within a >so called `Tibetan and Mongolian autonomous prefecture'.* Though >ostensibly designed to alleviate poverty, the project promotes >China's policy of colonization of Tibet, and violates the World >Bank's own environmental and social policies. Afraid and unwilling >to challenge China, its biggest client, the Board of Directors >overruled American and German opposition and approved a flawed > project > > >==================================== > > * * PLEASE FORWARD TO ANYONE WHO MIGHT BE INTERESTED * * * > > RALLY! RALLY! RALLY! > > STOP THE WORLD BANK CHINA PROJECT IN TIBET > > MONDAY, AUGUST 30TH > 11:30 am - 3:30 pm > World Bank Building > 1818 H STREET, NW > WASHINGTON, DC > > Featuring: Adam Yauch of the Beastie Boys, Members of Congress, > representatives from the human rights and environmental movement, >Tibetan music and dance, & much, much > more! > > On June 24th, the World Bank Board of Directors approved a $40 >million loan to China to fund the resettlement of 58,000 Chinese >farmers into Tulan County -- a traditional Tibetan and Mongolian >area. The project promotes China's policy of colonization at the >expense of ethnic minorities, and it also violates the Bank's own >environmental and social policies. Join us on August 30th at the >World Bank and make your voice heard in opposition to > this project! > > For more information contact: > ICT in DC 202.785.1515 > Milarepa in SF 415.553.8533 > SFT in NY 212.594.5898 > USTC in NY 212.481.3569 > > Sponsored by US Tibet Committee, Students for a Free Tibet, the >Milarepa Fund, International Committee of Lawyers for Tibet, Center >for International Environmental Law, Friends of the Earth and the >International Campaign for Tibet > > BACKGROUND INFORMATION > > The following background information was written by the U.S. Tibet > Committee. > Please note that the coalition is working to create background >information that reflects the views of the entire coalition and >that the following information is being provided in lieu of >coalition materials currently being drafted. > > ***U.S. Tibet Committee*** > > The World Bank: Undermining Tibet's Future > Executive Directors Approve China's Westward Colonization > > On June 24th, 1999, the World Bank Board of Directors approved a >$160 million loan in support of China's Western Poverty Reduction >Project. The project includes a loan to finance population transfer >of 57,775 Chinese farmers onto fragile nomadic lands located within >a so called `Tibetan and Mongolian autonomous prefecture'.* Though >ostensibly designed to alleviate poverty, the project promotes >China's policy of colonization of Tibet, and violates the World >Bank's own environmental and social policies. Afraid and unwilling >to challenge China, its biggest client, the Board of Directors >overruled American and German opposition and approved a flawed > project. The approval of this project sends a clear signal that the >World Bank does not respect its policies; it also means that the >Bank is providing financial and institutional support to the Chinese >government's population transfer, the greatest threat to the >survival of the Tibetan people, and sets a dangerous precedent to >all occupied territories: > > Environmental groups, Tibet support groups, students, bank-watching > organizations, musicians, politicians, grassroots activists and >concerned citizens have joined Tibetans to challenge this project. >The result of this alliance has been a torrent of opposition, >including an enormous fax and e-mail campaign. A week before the >vote, the International Campaign for Tibet (on behalf of local >people) filed a claim to the Inspection Panel to investigate these >policy violations and the associated harm - this claim > is still pending. > > Why are we so concerned about this project? > The Bank claims the project will help the poor by decreasing >population pressure in the "move-out" area, east of Tso-ngo-po >(Kokonor Lake), and settling them in a sparsely populated "move-in" >area, Tulan Dzong (Chinese call it Dulan county) south west of >Tso-ngo-po, both in Amdo province of Tibet. But consider the >following: > > The development plan for this project is unsustainable. The >project aims to convert high altitude, fragile grazing pastures into >intensive agricultural farmlands (similar projects within Tibet >during the 1950's and 1960's resulted in massive famines and loss of >life). This type of agriculture will rely heavily on intensive use >of pesticides, two dams and extensive irrigation, and leveling the >earth, which is likely to degenerate and erode the soil. According >to the Environmental Assessment, the goal of the project is to >completely alter the natural ecosystem. > The new settlers will vastly outnumber the Tibetan and Mongolian > communities (Further reducing the Tibetan population from 23% to >14%; and the Mongolian population from 14% to 7% ). > People living in the project "move-in" area have stated that >they fear violent ethnic confrontation, particularly since the >project will intensify the competition over already-scarce >resources. Letters smuggled out of the region by Tibetans state >that if the project is implemented "...the World Bank will have >participated in passing a death sentence to us here." Officials >will increase police presence in the area `for the people's > protection'. This low-level militarization of the area will >primarily serve to silence dissent rather than protect people. > Bank monies will be used to build extensive infrastructure in >th e region, which will enable increased resource exploitation by >the Chinese, increased migrants workers, increased control and >assimilation of the area by China. > Furthermore, this population transfer will have little impact on > conditions in the move-out area. According to the World Bank's own > figures, the population transfer will only marginally reduce the >population density of the move-out area - - - from 114.3 to 109.3 >people per square kilometer. Bank staff failed to account for the >high immigration rate of mainland Chinese into the region and >overlook the government's political agenda in the project. > > The World Bank has policies that are supposed to minimize the >environmental and social impacts of a project. If the Board >approved the project, doesn't that mean it meets World Bank policies? > > Unfortunately, no. The project was designed and approved without >the adequate environmental and social analysis-violating several of >the Bank's most important policies, including those on Environmental >Assessment, Indigenous Peoples, Information Disclosure and >Involuntary Resettlement. The Bank management's willingness to >violate its own policies was exacerbated by intense political >pressure from China, including threats of economic reprisals against >opposing countries and withdrawal from the Bank. > The World Bank has been guaranteed by China that "Prison labor will >not be involved or benefit from this project." Why is this still an >issue of concern? > > Actions speak louder than words. The move-in area has a high > concerntration of laogai (`reform-through labor' camps). The local >economy depends heavily on prison labor, which is used extensively >in land reclaimation, road construction, and grain processing. With >the high likelihood of this project becoming entangled with the >pervasive prison labor economy, it is disturbing that the World Bank >and China have refused to publicly release two existing studies on >prison labor in the project area. > > If the World Bank refused to provide funding for this project, would >the Chinese government continue to implement the project? If so >shouldn't the Bank stay involved to try to improve the project? > > "If" is a speculative expression for an uncertain future. The Bank >will have absolutely no impact on what China will or will not do. >It is presumptuous to believe that the Bank can influence China's >behavior. The Bank should not finance a project that does not meet >its standards, that is in violation of its policies and procedures, >and that will cause irreversible harm to the Tibetan and Mongolian >nomadic and semi-nomadic peoples living in the project area. >Furthermore, financing this project provides an air of legitimacy >the Chinese government's violent occupation of Tibet, giving an >international seal-of-approval (and public monies) to China's >illegal population transfer policy. The continued population >transfer of ethnic Chinese into Tibetan territories is one of the >greatest threats to the survival of the Tibetans, and has already >made them a minority in many parts of their own land. > > What does the campaign want? > > The simple short answer is to stop the project from going forward. >The Bank's business is alleviating poverty, not destroying a people >and a culture or becomeing an agent for colonialism. > > Isn't the only reason that this project has received so much >attention because activists and Tibet sympathizers have interfered? >If it weren't for them, wouldn't this be a routine approval process? > > Yes, if Tibetans, Mongolians, and the international community hadn't >raised objections to this project, then certainly the Board would >have approved the project not knowing the management's policy >violations and threats to the local people and environment. The >Bank is unaccustomed to considering public input to their projects >though they are funded by public monies and directly affect billions >of people around the world. >
