Tibet

[HisSelf]

Maybe there is another thread on Tibet. It's not on the first page.

The Globe and Mail frontpaged an article yesterday quoting the Dalai Lama saying he would resign if things do not calm down; he thinks it is important to have good relations with China. Today, the Chinese are saying that if things let up in Tibet, all might be good.

So China to Dalai Lama.... "Get this thing under control and welcome home!"

So does Tibet want to be a country or does it want to be a "distinct society" part of China

What can we say? Rene liked to smoke too. There should be another Olympic medal: The political push.

I am completely serious.

Edited March 20, 2008 by HisSelf

[August1991]

I'm wondering whether the Canadian government will recognize Tibet if the Tibetan government makes a UDI.

[HisSelf]

I'm wondering whether the Canadian government will recognize Tibet if the Tibetan government makes a UDI.

Me too!

[marcinmoka]

I'm a little shocked that there are not certain elements on this board publicly expressing her support for the Chinese government in creating a secular paradise at all costs.

[eyeball]

I was puzzled at first about the Dalai Lama's insistance that there should be no boycott of the Olympics and his more recent comments about resigning and the need for Tibetans and Chinese to figure out how to live side by side are also thought provoking. I suspect the Dalai Lama is concerned about the possibility of a real bloodbath involving thousands of Tibetans at the hands of a vengeful Chinese leadership bent on punishing anyone they perceive has embarrassed China and its government. If this occurs the IOC will also have this blood on their hands should be regarded as accomplices.

I've long been turned-off by the Olympics. Their extravagant cost is bad enough but the spectacle of apple-polishing local Olympic committees and their near desperate lobbying of the IOC's selection committee is pathetic. The IOC is ultimately responsible for selecting China and the IOC should be held accountable for much of the turmoil and controversy surrounding the Bejing Summer Olympic Games. China of course should be held accountable for its human rights abuses, especially now that its trying to lay claim to modernity and peerage in a civilized world that claims to put human rights above all else.

Its painfully clear that national governments around the world are desperate to not inflame China's feelings and are taking great pains to project the sense that the Olympics are strictly about the athletes. If the Games really are just about the athletes its because they are held up as role models and examples of what everyone should aspire too. This being the case perhaps winning athletes could provide theior country's with better examples of moral and ethical courage and leadership and carry the torch of human rights and become symbols of protest against their abuse. I have a hard time imagining there won't be at least a few athlete's willing to make a political statement in Bejing. Olympic athletes that cheat by doping bring deep shame to their host countries and are vilified for doing so. It will be interesting to see how any athletes that make a conscientous political statement by wearing a Free Tibet T-shirt to a medal ceremony for example are treated by their home countries.

[xul]

I think most of western people have overestimated Dalai Lama's power and influence in Tibet people. The population of Tibet is 2.5 million. I don't think there were a lot of them rebeled in recent event. There are thousands of temples in Tibet. If all of them rebelled, I doubt China government could control the situation in only several days especially they obviously does not seem to suppress protesters with firepower---that means they could not use one soldier against several protesters if the soldier's gun are useless.

Western people should understand there are a lot of "living buddhas" in Tibet and almost each temple have a one. Lamas and believers's loyalty depend on their living buddhas' loyalty. It is not every temple loyal to Dalai Lama even before the time when communists ruled Tibet. The imperor was not fool. When he established Dalai Lama's power he also established another "living buddha" named Panchen Lama for diversion. When Dalai Lama was out in 1958, communists let the Panchen Lama's system to charge Tibet religional affair. This means some ever very powerful temples' power, this temples belongs to Dalai Lama's system, falled since 1958. This is why Lama's rioting always come from these temple.

Dalai Lama obviously even could not control those mobs who lives in western countries to smash China embassies. I don't think he wants things going so far unless he is a political idiot. He is just powerless as he have said.

I have no doubt he will be welcomed by China government if he gives up his political ambitions to be a pure clergy in his temple. But if he wants to regain his political power before 1958, I doubt China government will allow him to come back Tibet and I also doubt any western politicians would like a clergy to manipulate their domestic politics.

I think the better way of running political business is to let politicians not a "living buddha" to run it.

If the political business was runned by politicians, people might say:"oh, I think what he said is not good for me, I would act against him, and support the one who fit my demands."

If the political business was runned by a "living buddha", people might think:"oh, I think his proposal is not good for me....no, I shouldn't think that, it's a sin to think a buddha would wrong, I should obey he willing...."----I guess this is why those barbaric things alway happened in those clergies ruled countries.

Edited March 21, 2008 by xul

[jdobbin]

I have no doubt he will be welcomed by China government if he gives up his political ambitions to be a pure clergy in his temple. But if he wants to regain his political power before 1958, I doubt China government will allow him to come back Tibet and I also doubt any western politicians would like a clergy to manipulate their domestic politics.

Don't know about that. I'd say he'd probably be black bagged and never seen again.

[August1991]

I was puzzled at first about the Dalai Lama's insistance that there should be no boycott of the Olympics and his more recent comments about resigning and the need for Tibetans and Chinese to figure out how to live side by side are also thought provoking.

It's not surprising. He's a Buddhist monk.

----

I have been more surprised by the Chinese restraint, and wise action. They didn't immediately respond to Tibetans burning Chinese property. They wisely kicked all foreign journalists out of Tibet.

While driving in Vermont last year, if memory serves, I saw a Volvo with a bumper sticker "Impeach Bush - Free Tibet". No doubt the driver will be voting for the Obama/Clinton ticket next November, with about the same effect.

Tibet is in the news because the word Volvo also has five letters and Gere has four letters like Lama.

[HisSelf]

Given your reference to Voltaire, I'm wondering if you are just a bit tongue in cheek here.

Banning journalists and closing borders is never a good sign. The Burmese did it when their monks started acting up and the US military practised a version of it when they invaded Iraq. Nobody in their right mind would trust what comes out when the only voice is that of the government. Any government.

The demonstrations have been spreading to provinces inside of China in sympathy, which is a sure sign that life in the Middle Kingdom is not as happy as the Chinese would have us believe and that many are fed up. Tibetans are very unhappy living under a government run by another ethnic group and in which they have absolutely no say.

Anti-government protest is a basic human right. The Chinese have a lot at stake in the Olympics, or at least they think they do.

If the political business was runned by politicians, people might say:"oh, I think what he said is not good for me, I would act against him, and support the one who fit my demands."

So you agree, Xul, that the Tibetans should have a voice in government?

I thought Pelosi's visit to India was an interesting development. Looks like none of the presidential candidates are going to bite though. Who could blame them considering the mess the US is already in.

[jdobbin]

I have been more surprised by the Chinese restraint, and wise action. They didn't immediately respond to Tibetans burning Chinese property. They wisely kicked all foreign journalists out of Tibet.

While driving in Vermont last year, if memory serves, I saw a Volvo with a bumper sticker "Impeach Bush - Free Tibet". No doubt the driver will be voting for the Obama/Clinton ticket next November, with about the same effect.

Tibet is in the news because the word Volvo also has five letters and Gere has four letters like Lama.

It is all about the Olympics now.

Tibet is in the news because Bush and Harper meet with the Dalai Lama and hammer others for not supporting Tibet. The right wing should remember that.

[xul]

Given your reference to Voltaire, I'm wondering if you are just a bit tongue in cheek here.

I'm not sure I have correctly understanded these words. Would you mean I'm not the quilified people who have the rights to express opinion under your post? Or just accuse I'm a lier?

I think this web forum is a public forum for common people to express their opinion of politics and related issue, not only for scholars. That means everyone can participate discussion even if his opinion is not correct from the view point of expertise.

I'm not sure what I said were truth. I just tried to say those things that I think they are truth, according both of the knowledge and my analysis. If anyone disagreed with my state, he could enlighten me by pointing out which parts of my state wrong.

Banning journalists and closing borders is never a good sign. The Burmese did it when their monks started acting up and the US military practised a version of it when they invaded Iraq. Nobody in their right mind would trust what comes out when the only voice is that of the government. Any government.

Your hypothesis seems reasonable. But I don't think reading newspapers and watch TVs are the only way of western leaders to know what happened in Tibet. Communists could not dispel all CIA secret agents in Tibet. If there had anything you worried happened, Bush would know and I don't think he would still have the mood to refuse changing his trip to Beijing for watching Olympics.

I don't know why Burmese banned journalists, but I guess the reason of banning journalists into Tibet is as same as America banning foreign journalists companying their troops when they invaded Iraq. They just don't want rioters and their leader or instructor who lives in foreign countries know where their troops have arrived from western media.

The demonstrations have been spreading to provinces inside of China in sympathy, which is a sure sign that life in the Middle Kingdom is not as happy as the Chinese would have us believe and that many are fed up. Tibetans are very unhappy living under a government run by another ethnic group and in which they have absolutely no say.

Tibetans do not only live in Tibet, there are also a lot of them lives in neighbour provinces. Even Beijing also have a Tibet Lama Temple. I doubt there exists a country or region that all of its people are happy or unhappy. China today is more capitalism in economic aspects than any western countries. So some guys may be happy because they are winners of the "system" meanwhile some guys may be unhappy because they are losers under the system. Just as Canadian in this forum, some are happy, some are unhappy.

Fig. Lama Temple in Beijing

Anti-government protest is a basic human right.

I agree, I just want anyone need to respect others rights especially life and property when they claim themselves rights.

The Chinese have a lot at stake in the Olympics, or at least they think they do.

About this, I would agree China government, the Olympics will be successfully hold, and Mr.Bush and Mr.Brown will come.

That the media moguls have the power to manipulate countries as big as China going into conflicts with other countries is a fantasy story in the Jame Bound's film named Tomorrow Never Die not reality.

In this Tibet event, the witnesses of western tourists supplied vital restrictions to those anti-China fantasy "writers" and their medias. I guess this is what those Olympic blockers feared. They just want people to stay at home reading their books, not come to China to see the reality by their eyes.

Ironically, it is China government who wants people to come. They want people come to see painted grass, human kidney bazaars, poisonous rivers, smothering smoke air....and people riots, then go back home to tell their friends how China are worse.

So you agree, Xul, that the Tibetans should have a voice in government?

They did have a lot of voice in government. They have a Tibetan in parliament of central government as vice chairman---though China parliament have no power to kick cpc down like Canada , but it is a good place for local governments collect funds for their people from central government. The premier of Tibet is a Tibetan communist (the secretary of party is a Han). Most police officers and riot polices soldiers(those who likes soldiers with glass shield) in Tibet are Tibetan ---people could not suppose a policeman might fulfil his duty without speak local language.

I thought Pelosi's visit to India was an interesting development. Looks like none of the presidential candidates are going to bite though. Who could blame them considering the mess the US is already in.

I don't think so. But we can wait to see what would happen.

[Rue]

XUL I totally disagree with your opinions on Tibet and will debate you very strongly on them, but you are not a liar. You are honest and argue your opinions as honestly as you can. I disagree with you but I respect you. You are not a liar. You say exactly what you think.

[bush_cheney2004]

...I thought Pelosi's visit to India was an interesting development. Looks like none of the presidential candidates are going to bite though. Who could blame them considering the mess the US is already in.

Well, it's not like Canada even did that much. Canada just got around to recognizing Kosovo! Pretty lame for the world's "human rights" leader, eh?

[HisSelf]

I'm not sure I have correctly understanded these words. Would you mean I'm not the quilified people who have the rights to express opinion under your post? Or just accuse I'm a lier?

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I was referring to August1991, who uses the byline "Voltaire's Offspring". I'm certainly not calling you a liar.

Your hypothesis seems reasonable. But I don't think reading newspapers and watch TVs are the only way of western leaders to know what happened in Tibet. Communists could not dispel all CIA secret agents in Tibet. If there had anything you worried happened, Bush would know and I don't think he would still have the mood to refuse changing his trip to Beijing for watching Olympics.

If there are CIA agents in Tibet, it will be a long time before any of us hears what they might have to say. The Globe and Mail reporter Geoffrey York, an old China hand, is reporting from Delhi and says that pictures of Tibetans with bullet holes in them are showing up with great regularity while even the Chinese are not claiming that the Tibetan protestors are using guns. Guess who is doing the shooting?

I don't know why Burmese banned journalists, but I guess the reason of banning journalists into Tibet is as same as America banning foreign journalists companying their troops when they invaded Iraq. They just don't want rioters and their leader or instructor who lives in foreign countries know where their troops have arrived from western media.

Yes Bush did control the press during his invasion of Iraq. He completely controlled the media message around the entire Iraq invasion and the press let him get away with it. Most famously, CBS reporter Dan Rather said publicly that when it came to a choice between being a reporter and being an American, he was an American first. Dan forgot what makes an American, I suppose. If you were to take a poll of the present American sentiment towards this, I doubt you would find much support. There has to be an independent source of information that can either confirm or provide counterpoint to whatever the government might be saying. Not only in Tibet but everywhere. The press isn't perfect but I believe that we need to hear what they have to say and that anybody who tries to exclude them should be viewed with great suspicion.

Tibetans do not only live in Tibet, there are also a lot of them lives in neighbour provinces. Even Beijing also have a Tibet Lama Temple. I doubt there exists a country or region that all of its people are happy or unhappy. China today is more capitalism in economic aspects than any western countries. So some guys may be happy because they are winners of the "system" meanwhile some guys may be unhappy because they are losers under the system. Just as Canadian in this forum, some are happy, some are unhappy.

Well maybe but I don't see a lot of shooting.

That the media moguls have the power to manipulate countries as big as China going into conflicts with other countries is a fantasy story in the Jame Bound's film named Tomorrow Never Die not reality.

No argument there. The behaviour of CNN, CBS, etc. during the Iraq invasion are a case in point. The Hearst newspaper chain was founded on this kind of yellow journalism and produced its own shre of wars (Teddy Roosevelt etc..). When PBS tried to get more objective, there funding was attacked.

In this Tibet event, the witnesses of western tourists supplied vital restrictions to those anti-China fantasy "writers" and their medias. I guess this is what those Olympic blockers feared. They just want people to stay at home reading their books, not come to China to see the reality by their eyes.

Attitudes towards China in the west are better than they have been for many decades. I don't think there is a ground-swell in the west to block the Oolympics. Most people are generally up for a good Olympics games, but I have no doubt Tibet will have some effect. However, the Tibetans mis-timed it. They should have started when Olympics tickets first started to go on sale.

[HisSelf]

Well, it's not like Canada even did that much. Canada just got around to recognizing Kosovo! Pretty lame for the world's "human rights" leader, eh?

I thought the US was the world's champion of Human Rights.

As a Canadian citizen, I am very happy that the government took its time on this issue. It tells me that there was consultation. I like that.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Attitudes towards China in the west are better than they have been for many decades. I don't think there is a ground-swell in the west to block the Oolympics. Most people are generally up for a good Olympics games, but I have no doubt Tibet will have some effect. However, the Tibetans mis-timed it. They should have started when Olympics tickets first started to go on sale.

Correct...Tibetans messing with the bull shall get the horns. Others can get Olympics tickets and hotel rooms on eBay.

[HisSelf]

Correct...Tibetans messing with the bull shall get the horns. Others can get Olympics tickets and hotel rooms on eBay.

I'm curious why you seem to have an axe to grind against the Tibetans.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm curious why you seem to have an axe to grind against the Tibetans.

I'm curious wh you think I have an axe to grind against Tibetans. Protesting is not a "human right", and certainly not in China.

[HisSelf]

If you think protesting is not a human right, then clearly you've never been married and had children. Protest is fundamental to the human condition. It is probably one of the most basic reasons that our species developed speech. Even chimpanzees are capable of expressing protest.

Edited March 22, 2008 by HisSelf

[bush_cheney2004]

.... Even chimpanzees are capable of expressing protest.

Then why don't they have "chimpanzee rights"?

[HisSelf]

Then why don't they have "chimpanzee rights"?

What? Have you never heard of PETA?

[bush_cheney2004]

What? Have you never heard of PETA?

Yes...People Eating Tasty Animals.

[August1991]

Banning journalists and closing borders is never a good sign. The Burmese did it when their monks started acting up and the US military practised a version of it when they invaded Iraq. Nobody in their right mind would trust what comes out when the only voice is that of the government. Any government.

The demonstrations have been spreading to provinces inside of China in sympathy, which is a sure sign that life in the Middle Kingdom is not as happy as the Chinese would have us believe and that many are fed up. Tibetans are very unhappy living under a government run by another ethnic group and in which they have absolutely no say.

Anti-government protest is a basic human right. The Chinese have a lot at stake in the Olympics, or at least they think they do.

So you agree, Xul, that the Tibetans should have a voice in government?

China is a one-party state and the Communist Party cannot accept any kind of dissent nor can it accept any kind of breakaway rule or autonomy. If it did so, it would lose its impregnable reputation.

The first thing it willdo is to seal off Tibet and throw out any journalists or foreigners. Then, it will arrest and detain anyone it considers to be a troublemaker. The comparison with Burma is apt and if you think about it, you'll realize that the Burmese regime has been effective. No one talks of Burma anymore.

The Chinese have been restrained compared to what they could have done. I suspect that the Olympic games have encouraged this restraint.

As to my comments about cars and Richard Gere, the people who put "Free Tibet - Impeach Bush" bumper stickers on their Volvos are singularly ineffective in acheiving either. We didn't defeat the Soviets by protesting or putting bumper stickers on cars.

----

There is a world of difference between George W. Bush and the regime in Beijing. It's pathetic that I even have to make this point - to anyone who has spent anytime in a one-party state, the difference is galringly obvious.

[xul]

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I was referring to August1991, who uses the byline "Voltaire's Offspring". I'm certainly not calling you a liar.

I think I'm the fit man to say sorry to you for my misunderstanding of your words.

If there are CIA agents in Tibet, it will be a long time before any of us hears what they might have to say.

I doubt a CIA agent don't have a satellite cell phone or something to communicate to his boss in time. But even if they haven't, the world will finally know what happened in Tibet. I don't care what kind of guys that you think those communists are, but obviously they are far more policital clever than those tribe mobs. That means they know it is good to them if they can control the situation by a less bloodsheding way. I almost have no doubt they will adopt this way.

The Globe and Mail reporter Geoffrey York, an old China hand, is reporting from Delhi and says that pictures of Tibetans with bullet holes in them are showing up with great regularity while even the Chinese are not claiming that the Tibetan protestors are using guns. Guess who is doing the shooting?

I don't know who is Geoffrey York. I guess to be an "old China hand" repoter, he would have wright a lot of "stories" about how these tribe people are civilized, peaceful and merry guys, I have seen a lot of similar stories in western media before the event happened, how they are different from other uncivilized tribe people around world. So now those mobs' action might make him little embarrassing and let him felt he had to do something to make up what he told his reader earlier even if he needed to use "evidence" coming from Delhi, everyone know Dalai Lama's headquarter is in India. And I doubt even if a pathologist could be sure the cause of the death of a guy only depending on a photo of corpse.

I'm sure you will not agree with my hypothesis. Then let us adopt that the picture is truth, and the guy was shotted by Tibet police not mobs. But why police have not right to shoot him? Perhaps he was grabing a patrol policeman's hand gun or killing innocents when he got shot. Even if China government have ordered police hold their fire, that don't means any policeman would not use his gun to defence himself from being killed or protecting innocent being killed when he faced on a lot of mobs.

Yes Bush did control the press during his invasion of Iraq. He completely controlled the media message around the entire Iraq invasion and the press let him get away with it. Most famously, CBS reporter Dan Rather said publicly that when it came to a choice between being a reporter and being an American, he was an American first. Dan forgot what makes an American, I suppose. If you were to take a poll of the present American sentiment towards this, I doubt you would find much support. There has to be an independent source of information that can either confirm or provide counterpoint to whatever the government might be saying. Not only in Tibet but everywhere. The press isn't perfect but I believe that we need to hear what they have to say and that anybody who tries to exclude them should be viewed with great suspicion.

I don't believe Bush have ever had the power to control the press. If there were any American reporters who supported the invasion not according his willing, he might be following his readers' willing not Bush's. I have no doubt that most of Americans knew Saddam's scientists lacking the ability to build a atomic bomb before the invasion happened. They just ignored the truth and let the invasion happen because they thought the war would benefit their country and themselves interests.

Well maybe but I don't see a lot of shooting.

I think the important thing is not how many shootings have happened or whether they have happened, but which guys got shots from police or troops according to China government's decree. If there is a peaceful protestor got shot, western media condemned China government are reasonable. If the police shot mobs in the circumstance of there are a lot of mobs and only few policemen so the policemen could not arrest them by other way, the police's action would be reasonable.

[xul]

XUL I totally disagree with your opinions on Tibet and will debate you very strongly on them, but you are not a liar. You are honest and argue your opinions as honestly as you can. I disagree with you but I respect you. You are not a liar. You say exactly what you think.

Thank you for your trust.