Jump to content

Obama 'snubs' Dalai Lama


Shady

Recommended Posts

Obama 'snubs' Dalai Lama

Mr Obama has said he will not meet the Dalai Lama, who is currently in the US, until after visiting China in November.

But human rights activists and some US lawmakers accused Mr Obama of putting economic issues first.

BBC

So apparently Obama's foreign policy seems to be set on treating his friends like crap, while treating his enemies better than their friends.

* Britain snubbed by Obama for whatever reasons. (sends ridiculous dvds as gifts, won't grant PM a side-by-side press conference.)

* Israel snubbed to appease Middle East. (made speech in Cairo, skipped visiting Israel.)

* Eastern European countries snubbed to appease Russia (have missle shield pulled,)

* Honduras snubbed to appease Chavez, Castro, Ortega, etc (demands Honduras install former President who tried to circumvent the constitution and supreme court to change term limits.)

* Dalai Lama snubbed to appease China. (won't meet with Dalai Lama as every President has over the last few decades.)

This amateur's record is atrocious, and makes me sick to my stomach just thinking and writing about it. :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've not been following Mr Obama's exploits as closely as many, and have been almost completely out of the political loop for some time now.

But what the hell, I'll bite......

And Lodi Gyari, the Dalai Lama's envoy, said the spiritual leader took "a broader and long-term perspective" that it was better to meet Mr Obama after his talks in China.

Evidently the Dalai Lama and his camp are not as upset about the issue as you seem to be.

"The Dalai Lama has always been supportive of American engagement with China," Lodi Gyari said in a statement.

Seemingly they have no problem waiting for a later meeting with Obama.

From what I've seen of Obama, I like the guy.

Let's face it, he is under the microscope like no previous president has ever been.

He is human, he will make mistakes. But I find his approach a bit refreshing, and I like the fact that he is not following in the exact footsteps of his predecessors. Britain will not sink into the North Atlantic just because he does not meet with their PM for a while longer.

Visits to Israel have been SOP for past presidents. They can wait a bit longer as well.

Perhaps the fact that Obama is extending a friendly hand to other countries first will make a little bit of difference in the global political landscape in years to come.

Then again, perhaps not.

Only time will tell.

I, for one, am willing to give the man the benefit of the doubt.

No way he can be any worse than the man who held office immediately before him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama 'snubs' Dalai Lama

* Dalai Lama snubbed to appease China. (won't meet with Dalai Lama as every President has over the last few decades.)

This amateur's record is atrocious, and makes me sick to my stomach just thinking and writing about it. :angry:

And in Canada...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nation...article1303369/

“[Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence] Cannon has no plans to meet the Dalai Lama during his visit,” ministry spokesman Rodney Moore confirmed .

Nor are there any announced meetings with Prime Minister Stephen Harper or other cabinet members, two of whom made a point of journeying to Vancouver in 2006 to greet the Dalai Lama and present him with honorary Canadian citizenship. A year later, Mr. Harper held a 45-minute private meeting with the Dalai Lama.

Back in 2004...

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...71026/20071028/

In 2004, former prime minister Paul Martin courted controversy by becoming the first Canadian leader to meet the Dalai Lama. The one-hour talk on human rights took place at the home of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Ottawa. Martin's predecessor, Jean Chrétien, refused such a meeting.

In 2006, Harper gave the Dalai Lama honourary citizenship. And now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TrueMetis
That is certainly China's position.

I have seen seen very historians that agree though. What is your source for your belief?

Can't find it just multiple sources saying it's not true. Maybe I'm wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the Dalai Lama a slave owner? Perhaps not at this time, however he has the potential to be one, on a national scale at that.

While the Dalia Lama and Tibet are something of cause célèbre in both North America and Europe, most people have little to no knowledge about Tibetan history, or its pre-occupation society and the role the church played.

Prior to the Chinese invasion and occupation of Tibet, it was a very closed and hierarchical society, with the Tibet Buddhist Church and the Dalai Lama at the top. Below the church came the aristocracy, then all the rest, the merchant class, the artisan class, the peasant class and finally the so-called untouchables who handled the dead, and were butchers and tanners.

It was also a very strict Confucius society that made pre-Nationalist/Communist China look like the very model of Liberalism. In Tibet, you were born into your class and into the role you take in society. If you were born the son of a baker, you were going to be a baker. If you were born a peasant, a peasant you will remain. There were next to zero ways of being able to break from your destined life path and there was little in the way of upward mobility. Nor were the average Tibetan allowed to move from one village to another without the permission of their Lord, let alone immigrate. To ensure that this societal order was maintained and no one broke ranks, there were the Warrior Monks of the church ready to come down hard on anyone who gave the merest hint of rebellion.

If you were a women, you had no say in who were to marry, indeed, your future husband was picked for you while you were still in diapers, and it was the same for boys. Women in the old order were first property of their fathers and then property of their husbands. Education and trade were denied to women in the old order because it was decided that they had no need for it. Women of the aristocracy faired little better, other then being able to live a life of relative ease and allowed to partake in the arts in a limited fashion, they to were considered to be property. The only exit a woman had or chance to better her position was to become a nun within the church, however even Tibetan Buddhist Nuns were subservient to the monks of the church.

Those born into the aristocracy faired better and were lords over the lower classes. However, even the aristocracy was subservient to the church. And because of Confucius nature of the society, you role was set at birth. The first born son would inherit his fathers title and lands, and all his younger brothers would be slated to be his vassals.

However, every family in the aristocracy was expected to "donate" at least one son and possibly a daughter to serve in the church as either a monk or a nun. Again the ones selected for this duty had no say in the matter and were chosen at birth. These children were usually removed from their families around the age of six or seven to be brought up and indoctrinated by the church. Children of the lower class were also selected for church service and it was considered to be an honour and means to escape from their class limitations. However it should be noted that once a child was taken in by the the church, all contact with his or her family was cut off and by the time they had graduated to become full fledged monks or nuns, they no longer had any family ties left, they belonged heart and soul to the church.

Even within the church the hierarchical structure of pre-occupation Tibet was evident. The children of the aristocracy the church took in were slated and trained to become leaders, bureaucrats, teachers, law makers and even generals. Those children of the lower classes who entered the church were slated to be become the foot soldiers of the church tasked with maintaining societal order.

The pre-occupation Tibetan Buddhist Church was very militant and extremely marshal. In many ways, they could of been considered to of been the Taliban of the Buddhist world. To go against the church in any way was to invite death and punishment not only to the rebels, but also to their immediate family. All education was controlled by the church, as were all governmental functions. The church held the people of Tibet in an iron grip which it was and still is loath to relax.

At the head of this very structured and hierarchical society sat the Dalia Lama. Because of his position and due to the strange nature of Tibetan Buddhism, he was and is considered to be a living god, infallible and his word was LAW.

Pre-occupation Tibet was also very xenophobic and any foreigner who entered the country without permission from very high authority invited immediate death. Nor was Tibet a peaceful nation as some would have us believe and had invaded its neighbours many times throughout its history. And behind the invading armies came the the church ready to instill it's totalitarian brand of Buddhism upon the conquered people.

The Dalai Lama of today is no different from the Dalai Lama's of the past. He is contrary to the image he portrays and the words he speaks is very political and sees himself as the head of state in exile of Tibet. If he were to regain the power and position that was traditionally held by the Dalai Lama's, Tibet would in all likelihood slide back into poverty stricken feudal state where basic civil liberties and human rights would not exist.

Now I know much of what I have written here sounds controversial and goes against popular belief, but I myself am a lay Buddhist and follow more of a Japanese style of the religion, however, I was first introduced to Buddhism by a family of expatriate Tibetans.

During our conversations, the head of the family who had no great love of Chinese and basically hated them with a passion did state that he had to give the devil his dues. That under Chinese post-occupation administration, the lot of the average Tibetan greatly improved as did their chance to better their lives through access to education and gaining the right to choice their occupation. He also credited the Chinese of finally breaking the iron grip the church once held on Tibet and allowed him and his family to immigrate to Canada, something that was unheard of back in the days of the Dalai Lama's rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
* Britain snubbed by Obama for whatever reasons. (sends ridiculous dvds as gifts, won't grant PM a side-by-side press conference.)

Seems London is pretty upset about that. Makes me rather chuckle that being "snubbed" by the POTUS would be such a big deal.

You'd think President Obama had booted the Brits out of America — again!

London newspapers are howling over a string of alleged snubs by Obama to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown during his visit to Washington last week — including a squabble over presidential gift-giving.

"President Obama has been rudeness personified towards Britain," sniffed The Daily Telegraph Friday. "His handling of the visit of the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, to Washington was appalling."

The list of complaints is longer than the Magna Carta: ....................

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2...l#ixzz0TkdAuwTe

I've read in other articles that relations between the U.S. and U.K. have been somewhat "cooler" since the release of the Lockerbie Bomber, so I would think Obama snubbing Brown would be something you approve of, Shady. But in spite of it all, Obama and Brown are apparently BFF, so that should help you sleep better at night.

Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it's a lesser of two evils thing. China sucks but it's better than the Dalai Lama. We should be working on freeing tibet and giving them a real government.

Why? Where is it written that we have either the moral responsibility or the legal right to tell others how to govern themselves? Personally I never bought into the concept of the so-called "White Mans Burden" and believe that that concept has done far more harm then good.

It will be up to both Tibet and china to figure out what to do and how to make it happen. Us meddling their affairs can only aggravate the situation. So many people shout out the battle cry "Free Tibet", but they just don't realize that the average Tibetan has more freedom under the current Chinese Administration then they have ever had under the ruling Dalai Lama's. I guess that little paradox is just too much for them to deal with and if they did try to wrap their heads around it, their minds would explode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...