Print Page | Close Window

Riots in Tibet

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: Current Affairs
Forum Discription: Debates on topical, current World politics
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=23823
Printed Date: 24-Apr-2018 at 16:57
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Riots in Tibet
Posted By: ulrich von hutten
Subject: Riots in Tibet
Date Posted: 15-Mar-2008 at 06:13
The chinese repression of the tibetan people goes on.
Found a link among http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=4453454&page=1 - others. Please notice the comments ( burn chinese flags...)


-------------

http://imageshack.us">



Replies:
Posted By: tommy
Date Posted: 15-Mar-2008 at 08:24
Once Churchill said something liked that" Ithe main purposeof me to be the prime Minister is not to finish the British Empire:. Every Chinese leader has such feeling, not to finish the Chinese Empire, who can bear such dirty name, no one can, China lost much land since opium war, we cannot afford this thing to happen, even democratic government can appear in the future, still they will suppress independent movement of tibetCry

-------------
leung


Posted By: tommy
Date Posted: 15-Mar-2008 at 08:32
the main reason is the high inflation rate, the price of food and other goods rise rapidly, just like other part of China, people burned the shop and bank, then you can see why

-------------
leung


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-Mar-2008 at 10:32
Er, Ulrich, read more closely, the attacks are targeted at migrants. Hardly the behaviour of oppressive peoples. Incidentally, you ever been to Tibet?


-------------


Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 15-Mar-2008 at 13:16
Originally posted by Sparten

Er, Ulrich, read more closely, the attacks are targeted at migrants. Hardly the behaviour of oppressive peoples. Incidentally, you ever been to Tibet?
these are Han colonist with a foreign language and culture and I'm certain they don't bother earn the language of the Tibetan nation. Soon enough the Tibetans will be a minority in their own land, so how does that not make them repressed?

 its not like they have a choice in the migrations or the politics.  This is the fault of Beijing trying to force the Han culture (via migration) onto a people that don't feel Chinese nor want to. PRC disrespecting of the whole Tibetan belief system and their wishes will only cause harm to themselves.

My heart goes out to the protesters and for Tibet.








Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-Mar-2008 at 13:20
Actually , the largets number of migrants in Tibet are actually Ughur Muslims. Who seem to have been targeted especially.
 
So, Leo, tell me how many Aboriginal labguages do you speak?  How long do you have to live in an area to be a "native"?
 
All the best to the Chinese authorities in restoring order and safeguarding the lives and properties of people.


-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-Mar-2008 at 13:24

Incidentally;

http://www.sinodaily.com/2006/080314192427.nebu3lml.html - http://www.sinodaily.com/2006/080314192427.nebu3lml.html
 
Burnt a mosque down. My my, attacking the symbols of Han domination are'nt they.  What next burn the Koran and the bible since they were symbols of Chairman Mao. And Confucius.


-------------


Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 15-Mar-2008 at 13:31


Anti-China protests erupt in Tibet


Violence erupted Friday in a busy market area of the Tibetan capital, Lhasa, as Buddhist monks and other ethnic Tibetans clashed with Chinese security forces. Witnesses say angry Tibetan crowds burned shops, cars, military vehicles and at least one tourist bus.

The chaotic scene was the latest, and most violent, confrontation in a series of protests that began Monday and now represent a major challenge to the ruling Communist Party as it prepares to play host to the Olympics in August.

Beijing is facing the most serious and prolonged demonstrations in the remote Himalayan region since the late 1980s, when it suppressed a rebellion there with lethal force that left scores and possibly hundreds of ethnic Tibetans dead.

The Dalai Lama, the exiled spiritual leader of Tibet, and his supporters around the world have embraced the protesters in Lhasa, and thousands of Buddhists in neighboring India and Nepal took to the streets Friday in sympathy.

Beijing is clearly alarmed that the wave of negative publicity could disrupt its elaborate plans for the Olympics and its hopes that the Games will showcase its rising influence and prosperity rather than domestic turmoil. Residents in Lhasa, reached by telephone, said the authorities had placed much of the city under a curfew by Friday night while military police were blocking many city streets. One resident reported seeing tanks in the center of the city.

he U.S. Embassy in Beijing warned American citizens on Friday not to travel to Lhasa. The embassy said it had "received firsthand reports from American citizens in the city who report gunfire and other indications of violence."

Xinhua, China's official news agency, issued a short statement in English confirming that shops in Lhasa had been set on fire and that other stores had closed because of the violence. But the protests otherwise received no coverage in the Chinese press.

The Dalai Lama released a statement on Friday calling on both sides to avoid violence and appealing to the Chinese leadership to "address the long simmering resentment of the Tibetan people through dialogue with the Tibetan people."

The situation in Lhasa represents a complicated predicament for the Communist Party, which is now holding its annual meeting of the National People's Congress in Beijing. Party leaders are grappling with growing criticism of China's domestic rights record and its ties to Sudan, which the United States has accused of waging a genocidal campaign in its Darfur region.

Just as Beijing sees the Olympics as a chance to strut confidently on the world stage, so its opponents see the international publicity ahead of the Games as a chance to press deep grievances against the one-party state.

In the past, China has not hesitated to crush major protests in Tibet or jail disobedient monks. President Hu Jintao, who is also general secretary of the Communist Party, served as party boss in Tibet during a violent crackdown against protests in 1989. His support for the bloody suppression of unrest that year earned him the good will of Deng Xiaoping, then the paramount leader, and led directly to his elevation to the Politburo Standing Committee and eventually to China's top leadership posts.

But Chinese leaders may be more reluctant to order such heavy-handed tactics as Beijing prepares to host the Olympics. On Friday, different accounts emerged about how Chinese military police in Lhasa handled the demonstrations.

Radio Free Asia, a nonprofit news agency financed by the U.S. government, quoted Tibetan witnesses who described Chinese police officers firing into crowds of protesters and killing at least two people in the city's ancient Barkhor area. Other accounts from Tibetans suggested that the police had also attacked Buddhist monks.

But a Chinese resident, reached by telephone, said stories were spreading among Chinese residents that soldiers had been injured and had not been allowed to fight back against Tibetans throwing rocks. Another Chinese man living near the Barkhor area said family members told him that two soldiers died and that Tibetans were beating Chinese residents with iron rods.

The sharp escalation in violence Friday, and the sense of dread described by several residents, came a day after the Chinese Foreign Ministry said that the situation in Lhasa had stabilized. The protest started Monday when Buddhist monks began peaceful demonstrations against religious restrictions by the Chinese authorities. The police arrested 50 or 60 monks, but other protests followed on Tuesday and Wednesday as monks in two different monasteries took to the streets.

The apparent epicenter of protests Friday was the Tromsikhang Market, a massive, concrete structure built in the Barkhor area of Lhasa by the Chinese authorities in the early 1990s.

"It's chaos in the streets," said a person who answered the telephone at a bread shop near the market.

What actually sparked the violence is unclear, as accounts differed between Chinese and Tibetan residents. Monks from the Ramoche Temple, located a short walk from the market, reportedly began to march in the Barkhor area.

The Ramoche monks intended to protest the rough treatment of monks who had marched earlier in the week, according to a Tibetan activist in the United States who has communicated with people in Lhasa.

When police officers began beating the monks, ordinary Tibetans rioted in the Barkhor area, the activist said. Angry mobs set fire to a police car and a store owned by a Chinese shopkeeper, the activist said.

But a Chinese travel agent in Lhasa, reached by telephone, said Tibetans had instigated the violence and set fire to an empty tour bus parked outside the Ramoche Temple. Another Chinese resident described 50 or 60 young Tibetans burning stores owned by Chinese merchants as well as two fire trucks and two police cars.

"I saw someone who was dead and covered in a sheet," the Chinese resident said in a telephone interview. "The Tromsikhang market was destroyed, except for the shops owned by Tibetans. I heard a soldier shouting, 'Please go home and stop fighting!' "

News agencies also reported clashes between monks from Ramoche Temple and military police. "The monks are still protesting," a witness told The Associated Press. "Police and army cars were burned. There are people crying. Hundreds of people, including monks and civilians are in the protests."

Radio Free Asia reported that Tibetan protesters were waving traditional white scarves and shouting, "Free Tibet." The agency said the riots began about 10 a.m. and had largely quieted down by 3:30 p.m. after paramilitary police were mobilized.

Meanwhile, anxious tourists stranded in Lhasa posted worried comments on online forums for travelers. "The situation seems to be very nervous and paranoid up here," wrote one person in broken English in a chat room sponsored by the Lonely Planet tour guide. "There is police and military everwhere. Suddenly you would see some policeman running and rushig (sic) somewhere."

The ethnic friction evident in the violence Friday has long simmered just below the surface in Lhasa. For more than two decades, a steady influx of Chinese migrants has transformed and stratified the city.

The protests in Lhasa coincided with the anniversary of a failed 1959 Tibetan uprising against Chinese rule that forced the Dalai Lama to flee to India.

Huang Yuanxi, Zhang Jing and Jake Hooker contributed research from Beijing, and Steven Lee Myers and Graham Bowley contributed reporting from New York. Somini Sengupta contributed reporting from India.


http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/14/asia/tibet.php?page=1 -


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/7297228.stm - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/7297228.stm






http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2008/03/14/world/20080314-TIBET_index.html - www.nytimes.com



Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 15-Mar-2008 at 13:48
Originally posted by Sparten

Actually , the largets number of migrants in Tibet are actually Ughur Muslims. Who seem to have been targeted especially.
 
So, Leo, tell me how many Aboriginal labguages do you speak?  How long do you have to live in an area to be a "native"?
 
by the time i came here they were long gone from my area, if you want to trip up an Australian over native rights your talking to the wrong one, I fully support all rights they are asking for plus more.  ...you see i use  that very argument against any Anglo that bitches about WOGS like me.


All the best to the Chinese authorities in restoring order and safeguarding the lives and properties of people.
thats like 'all the best for isreali troops' in the west bank, but hey isreali's are native by your logic and therefore such behavior completely reasonableThumbs%20Down

Edit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkMcj4vQtRU -


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-Mar-2008 at 14:09
China should get out of Tibet.
Perhaps a good complot at the Olympics could help them to understand


-------------


Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 15-Mar-2008 at 14:20
one (small) persons first hand account and pictures are http://steve.ulrike.stivi.be/english/list.php?LijstNr=2&Item=55 -


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 15-Mar-2008 at 16:18
This is all fine coming from the inhabitants of nations that had carte blanche in eras past to colonise, rape and pillage other countries to their heart's content and still do under  pretences of human rights and democracy.   The humanitarian Germans supplied Saddam with finished chemical weapons which they held onto from their Nazi past and they were foremost in stirring the ethnic troubles in Yugoslavia - show some outrage.  It seems that only repressive countries within spheres of their competition only ever come under such scrutiny, where is the outrage at the treatment of Iraqis, Kurds, Afghans, Palestinians and others?   Or are they free game as long as the civilised allies are doing the killing?
 
China's policy is completely wrong but I think your concerns should be directed closer to home.  Lavrov was spot on.
 
Russia Accuses U.S. of Double Standards on Rights (Update1)

By Michael Heath

March 13 (Bloomberg) -- Russia said the U.S. State Department's ``latest opus'' on http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2007/100581.htm - human rights reflects the double standards of a country that uses the issue as a foreign policy tool while failing to examine its own actions.

The Foreign Ministry said in a http://www.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/0/57887EDFED23AB5EC325740A0061164B - statement it rejects criticism of Russia's human rights record from a country that ``has in effect legalized torture, uses capital punishment on minors and denies responsibility for war crimes and human rights violations in Iraq and Afghanistan.''

The U.S. report, published two days ago, said President http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Vladimir+Putin&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1 - Vladimir Putin 's centralization of power in the Kremlin, selective law enforcement and restrictions on aid groups and the media have eroded government accountability. The Foreign Ministry called it ``a hackneyed set of claims.''

Ties between the U.S. and Russia have been strained over the past year by the possible further expansion of NATO into former Soviet republics, American plans to set up missile shield sites in Poland and the Czech Republic and President http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=George+W.ABush&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1 - George W. Bush 's support for Kosovo's independence.

The government in Moscow says the moves are part of an effort to isolate Russia and says the U.S. has violated international law when it suits American interests.

Moscow Talks

U.S. Secretary of State http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Condoleezza+Rice&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1 - Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Robert+Gates&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1 - Robert Gates will visit Moscow on March 17-18 for talks on missile defense, non-proliferation and counter- terrorism, the http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/03/20080312-5.html - White House said yesterday.

White House spokeswoman http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Dana+Perino&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1 - Dana Perino said Bush and Putin agreed on the meeting in a telephone conversation last week.

Russia has accused the U.S. of sponsoring popular uprisings against flawed elections in the former Soviet republics of Georgia and Ukraine to install pro-American leaders. Both countries want to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

``The U.S. uses the struggle to spread democracy and the defense of human rights as a cover'' to advance its interests, the ministry said in the statement issued late yesterday.

Putin, in a May 9, 2007, speech in Red Square marking the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany, suggested U.S. foreign policy resembled that of http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Adolf+Hitler&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1 - Adolf Hitler 's Third Reich.

The president has warned western countries not to interfere in Russia's affairs and demanded it be treated as an equal. The Foreign Ministry echoed that sentiment, criticizing what it called the ``mentorish tone'' of the State Department report.

The ministry said the report was prejudiced, mistaken, poorly sourced and counterproductive.

``Many passages are copied from previous reports; the impression is that the State Department simply collected facts to suit the conclusions formulated in advance,'' it said.

To contact the reporter on this story: http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Michael+Heath&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1 - Michael Heath in Sydney at mailto:mheath1@bloomberg.net - mheath1@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: March 13, 2008 06:23 EDT
 
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=aJp0kZSBMgnI&refer=europe - http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=aJp0kZSBMgnI&refer=europe


-------------


Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 15-Mar-2008 at 17:14
Originally posted by Zagros

This is all fine coming from the inhabitants of nations that had carte blanche in eras past to colonise, rape and pillage other countries to their heart's content and still do under  pretences of human rights and democracy.   The humanitarian Germans supplied Saddam with finished chemical weapons which they held onto from their Nazi past and they were foremost in stirring the ethnic troubles in Yugoslavia - show some outrage.  It seems that only repressive countries within spheres of their competition only ever come under such scrutiny, where is the outrage at the treatment of Iraqis, Kurds, Afghans, Palestinians and others?   Or are they free game as long as the civilised allies are doing the killing?
 
China's policy is completely wrong but I think your concerns should be directed closer to home.  Lavrov was spot on.
 
I don't really see what you are complaining about. The new generation of Germans has nothing to do with the Nazis. 
 
And outrage? About 10,000,000 (2,000,000 people in London alone) marched in the 15th February 2003 protests against the invasion of Iraq. That's several magnitudes more of people than those complaining on Tibet...


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 15-Mar-2008 at 17:43

In that case I must not have been clear enough, my apologies (though i am not sure how you think Saddam could have been supplied by the Nazis as you think i inferred) - the current generation of Germans SUPPLIED Nazi era chemical weapons to Saddam.  For example the issue of Saddam's use of these weapons against Kurds wasn't a big issue in mainstream media until it was used as one of the excuses for regime change in Iraq, that is the sort of thing I am talking about.  It's not Ulrich's fault because he only reacts to what he's exposed to and he is exposed selectively to the oppression of those suffering at the hands of the West's primary competitors and imperial targets.

And those people marched against an unjustifiable war, I don't rmember much public outrage about Saddam using the weapons supplied to him by the benevolent allies against Kurds.  The people who get most attention from the list I gave are the palestinians but that is thanks to strong elements in the Arab world bringing their plight to light.


-------------


Posted By: Gundamor
Date Posted: 15-Mar-2008 at 18:13
The Chinese only recognize strength. They'll quickly crush this and things will be back to normal by next week. Its funny that a lot of major U.S. media and government outlets are kind of keeping this on the side not at the front of news. It shows how much of an economic stranglehold the Chinese have over the U.S. and how the U.S. government is walking on eggshells when it has to deal with the Chinese government especially with Taiwan elections looming.






-------------
"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind"


Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 15-Mar-2008 at 19:27
An internal problem for China.


-------------
Mughal e Azam


Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 15-Mar-2008 at 20:03
Originally posted by Zagros

The humanitarian Germans supplied Saddam with finished chemical weapons which they held onto from their Nazi past and they were foremost in stirring the ethnic troubles in Yugoslavia - show some outrage.


LOL where did you get that from? the Sun?


-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-Mar-2008 at 20:39
Originally posted by Leonidas

thats like 'all the best for isreali troops' in the west bank, but hey isreali's are native by your logic and therefore such behavior completely reasonableThumbs%20Down

This is the Chinese Army operating in Chinese Territory. That is the Israelites operating in occupied territory. Big diff. Incidentally, the army has'nt as yet been called out, the police are handling it. If this was a commonwealth country there would have the army out now.


-------------


Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 15-Mar-2008 at 20:44
What is this? Whenever an article is brought about an Asian Country, European countries and, always, the USA are being accused off by members with specific orientation and of specific origin. Now, this is spamming. If you have any complaints about USA or Germany's behaviour, then be my guess and open a relevant topic. But do not spam in other topics. We talk about China here, not Iraq, Palestine ,Germany. Personally, i did not came to this topic to learn about Saddam and him being supplied by Western countries, but about China.

-------------
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-Mar-2008 at 20:47
Edit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkMcj4vQtRU - this video is of PRC border guards shooting Tibetan pilgrims on their way to see the Dalia lama. 'safeguarding the lives' as Spartan will call it.


Lol. My god Leo that was priceless! I don't know what was funnier, the guy hiding in that makeshift toilet (who incidentally, knew English) or the pilgrims deciding to make a journey through the worst mountains in the world, which are crawling with Chinese soldiers on one end, and Indians on the other, especially when Tibet is an autonomous region and travl with India is fairly easy, especially into Ladkak or NEFA. Or maybe it was the guy filiming from a kilometer telling us what happened.

-------------


Posted By: Majkes
Date Posted: 15-Mar-2008 at 21:59
Originally posted by Sparten

Originally posted by Leonidas

thats like 'all the best for isreali troops' in the west bank, but hey isreali's are native by your logic and therefore such behavior completely reasonableThumbs%20Down

This is the Chinese Army operating in Chinese Territory. That is the Israelites operating in occupied territory. Big diff. Incidentally, the army has'nt as yet been called out, the police are handling it. If this was a commonwealth country there would have the army out now.
 
Could You please explain why Tibet is Chinese territory and Palestine occupied territory. As far as i know both territories were taken with breaking international law and both are occupied.


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 15-Mar-2008 at 22:48
Originally posted by Sparten

Actually , the largets number of migrants in Tibet are actually Ughur Muslims. Who seem to have been targeted especially.
 
So, Leo, tell me how many Aboriginal labguages do you speak?  How long do you have to live in an area to be a "native"?
 
All the best to the Chinese authorities in restoring order and safeguarding the lives and properties of people.
 
Actually, they are Hui i.e. Han muslims not Uighurs, they are complitely Chinese except the religion.


-------------
Σαυρομάτης


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 15-Mar-2008 at 22:50
Originally posted by Majkes

 
Could You please explain why Tibet is Chinese territory and Palestine occupied territory. As far as i know both territories were taken with breaking international law and both are occupied.
 
As far as international law is concerned I don't think Tibet was ever recognized as an independent subject of international law in modern times.


-------------
Σαυρομάτης


Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 00:03

I never understood why some groups get priority over others when it comes to such movements, the Uygurs in China hardly get any coverage in the West, the region they live in has been used for nuclear testing, prison labour camps and at least Tibet is still called Tibet, Eastern Turkistan was re-named "Xinjiang" province.

However, these are internal crisises of China, every country has its problems and critics. Its difficult to really know what is going on in Tibet everything is being kept hush hush.
 
What are the demands of the protesting Tibetians?


-------------
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine



Posted By: beorna
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 00:13
Originally posted by Zagros

This is all fine coming from the inhabitants of nations that had carte blanche in eras past to colonise, rape and pillage other countries to their heart's content and still do under  pretences of human rights and democracy.   The humanitarian Germans supplied Saddam with finished chemical weapons which they held onto from their Nazi past and they were foremost in stirring the ethnic troubles in Yugoslavia - show some outrage. 
 
Where can I get the money if "The Germans" supplied Saddam with gas? I haven't seen a cent! Did you ever count the weapons that US companies delivered to Saddam with the help of the government? I do not know what our government knew and what not, but a lot of these "German" help for Saddam was illegal as far as I know. It would be nice if you can differ between some criminal companies and the most of the German population. Not to go to war against Iraq was a very important factor for the elections in 2002. And the Germans aren't guilty of stirring ethnic troubles, too. Jugoslavia wasn't a succesful attempt. The nations decided to leave the serbian domination. Don't nations have the right to be independent?
So if the people in Tibet want to become free its their right. To defend China, for me is not to understand. Do you still remeber the massacre on the place of the heavenly peace. Was that a correct chinese reaction too? If you argue with Nazi past I don't know which mentality of us is closer to it.
Unfortunately I believe that the western world will not help Tibet. The economic interests are to great. Our governments will protest against it but nothing more. I don't know if a boycott of the Olympic games can help. I wonder at all why China received it. Here we again with the Nazis. They got the Olympic games as present too. Perhaps the people of the IOC should be chased away for their decisions. But I think if the chinese government has to decide between Tibet and Olympia they would chose the boycott.
By the way, if Tibet will ever become free and independent, I hope the people will have the chance to install a democratic government and do not change a pseudo-communist tyranny against an autocratic and theocratic monarchy.


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 03:26
Originally posted by Temujin

Originally posted by Zagros

The humanitarian Germans supplied Saddam with finished chemical weapons which they held onto from their Nazi past and they were foremost in stirring the ethnic troubles in Yugoslavia - show some outrage.


LOL where did you get that from? the Sun?


Not looked at the Sun for since I was 14 and that was for the titties on page 3.

The extent of German involvement in the proliferation of WMD to dictatorships is vast.


-------------


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 03:28
Originally posted by Bulldog

I never understood why some groups get priority over others when it comes to such movements, the Uygurs in China hardly get any coverage in the West, the region they live in has been used for nuclear testing, prison labour camps and at least Tibet is still called Tibet, Eastern Turkistan was re-named "Xinjiang" province.

However, these are internal crisises of China, every country has its problems and critics. Its difficult to really know what is going on in Tibet everything is being kept hush hush.
 
What are the demands of the protesting Tibetians?


It's easy to understand.  Whatever most people like to think... the international agenda of mainstream western news agencies is very well decided by those countries' intelligence services. psyops 101.


-------------


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 03:30
Originally posted by beorna

Originally posted by Zagros

This is all fine coming from the inhabitants of nations that had carte blanche in eras past to colonise, rape and pillage other countries to their heart's content and still do under  pretences of human rights and democracy.   The humanitarian Germans supplied Saddam with finished chemical weapons which they held onto from their Nazi past and they were foremost in stirring the ethnic troubles in Yugoslavia - show some outrage. 
 
Where can I get the money if "The Germans" supplied Saddam with gas? I haven't seen a cent! Did you ever count the weapons that US companies delivered to Saddam with the help of the government? I do not know what our government knew and what not, but a lot of these "German" help for Saddam was illegal as far as I know. It would be nice if you can differ between some criminal companies and the most of the German population. Not to go to war against Iraq was a very important factor for the elections in 2002. And the Germans aren't guilty of stirring ethnic troubles, too. Jugoslavia wasn't a succesful attempt. The nations decided to leave the serbian domination. Don't nations have the right to be independent?
So if the people in Tibet want to become free its their right. To defend China, for me is not to understand. Do you still remeber the massacre on the place of the heavenly peace. Was that a correct chinese reaction too? If you argue with Nazi past I don't know which mentality of us is closer to it.
Unfortunately I believe that the western world will not help Tibet. The economic interests are to great. Our governments will protest against it but nothing more. I don't know if a boycott of the Olympic games can help. I wonder at all why China received it. Here we again with the Nazis. They got the Olympic games as present too. Perhaps the people of the IOC should be chased away for their decisions. But I think if the chinese government has to decide between Tibet and Olympia they would chose the boycott.
By the way, if Tibet will ever become free and independent, I hope the people will have the chance to install a democratic government and do not change a pseudo-communist tyranny against an autocratic and theocratic monarchy.


By Germans I refer to government and companies - but I wonder why I have never seen a German protest their crimes?


-------------


Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 03:57
Originally posted by Spartakus

What is this? Whenever an article is brought about an Asian Country, European countries and, always, the USA are being accused off by members with specific orientation and of specific origin. Now, this is spamming. If you have any complaints about USA or Germany's behaviour, then be my guess and open a relevant topic. But do not spam in other topics. We talk about China here, not Iraq, Palestine ,Germany. Personally, i did not came to this topic to learn about Saddam and him being supplied by Western countries, but about China.
 
Its called politics. Its relevent.


-------------
Mughal e Azam


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 05:53
Originally posted by Sarmat12

Originally posted by Majkes

 
Could You please explain why Tibet is Chinese territory and Palestine occupied territory. As far as i know both territories were taken with breaking international law and both are occupied.
 
As far as international law is concerned I don't think Tibet was ever recognized as an independent subject of international law in modern times.
correction, tibet has been recognized as Chinese territory, and was recognized as Chinese territory by the UN and other countries. Tibet was part of China before the revolution of 1912, when China lost territory pretty much all over. The Chinese succeeded in reestablishing control in 1951. In the interim Tibetr was recognized as being part of China by every nation in the world and that is still the case.


-------------


Posted By: Gundamor
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 06:59
Originally posted by Sparten

Originally posted by Sarmat12

Originally posted by Majkes

 
Could You please explain why Tibet is Chinese territory and Palestine occupied territory. As far as i know both territories were taken with breaking international law and both are occupied.
 
As far as international law is concerned I don't think Tibet was ever recognized as an independent subject of international law in modern times.
correction, tibet has been recognized as Chinese territory, and was recognized as Chinese territory by the UN and other countries. Tibet was part of China before the revolution of 1912, when China lost territory pretty much all over. The Chinese succeeded in reestablishing control in 1951. In the interim Tibetr was recognized as being part of China by every nation in the world and that is still the case.


Dont mistake Manchu with Han china, they are not the same Chinese or even Chinese for that matter. They never had Tibet only the Manchus and Mongol Yuan dynasties had control of it.


-------------
"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind"


Posted By: Majkes
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 07:00
Originally posted by Sparten

Originally posted by Sarmat12

Originally posted by Majkes

 
Could You please explain why Tibet is Chinese territory and Palestine occupied territory. As far as i know both territories were taken with breaking international law and both are occupied.
 
As far as international law is concerned I don't think Tibet was ever recognized as an independent subject of international law in modern times.
correction, tibet has been recognized as Chinese territory, and was recognized as Chinese territory by the UN and other countries. Tibet was part of China before the revolution of 1912, when China lost territory pretty much all over. The Chinese succeeded in reestablishing control in 1951. In the interim Tibetr was recognized as being part of China by every nation in the world and that is still the case.
 
Tibet was independent country before 1950 when China took it. Saying Tibet was Chinese before 1912 is like saying Bulgaria was Turkey before 1914. So what? Does it have any significance that China mamnaged to occupy Tibet before 1912? Tibet was also independent before 1912 and after this date. I don't see any diffrence between occupied Palestine and Tibet. China is just bigger and stronger than Israel. You show double standards, Sparten. I know from other of Your posts that You believe that stronger is always right. I don't only understand why You exclude US and Israel from Your theory.


Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 07:11
Originally posted by Sparten

Edit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkMcj4vQtRU -
Originally posted by Sparten

Originally posted by Sarmat12

Originally posted by Majkes

 
Could You please explain why Tibet is Chinese territory and Palestine occupied territory. As far as i know both territories were taken with breaking international law and both are occupied.
 
As far as international law is concerned I don't think Tibet was ever recognized as an independent subject of international law in modern times.
correction, tibet has been recognized as Chinese territory, and was recognized as Chinese territory by the UN and other countries. Tibet was part of China before the revolution of 1912, when China lost territory pretty much all over. The Chinese succeeded in reestablishing control in 1951. In the interim Tibetr was recognized as being part of China by every nation in the world and that is still the case.
It was under China's control. The other empires of that day; Russia and Britain didn't recognize china's sovereignty (only suzerainty), so its not a clear cut case as most Chinese would have you believe or as is stated above. Tibet had a functioning government under the Qing, after the Qing and it continues in exile now in India.




Posted By: ulrich von hutten
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 07:25
Okay, an internal problem for a country to kill their own people cause they protest ?
 
Here it is like we had it so often before. Human rights, spurned by the authorities, noticed by a member at the forum, and some try to defend this deeds by proclaming the internal affairs.
 
Zargos even calls out a conspiracy of intellegence services.
 
Matter missed, like my old teacher Mr. Havelmann used to say.
 
I know, Seko will get  an anaphylactic reaction. Human rights are for all humans on this planet. There are human beings in Bagdad, Lhasa, Ohio or Hamburg.
Same humans , same rights.
 
Please spare us with trys of excuses for outbreaks of violence against people.
 
And i think the one who proclaims that this is an internal problem, has an internal problem himself. The problem to differ hurt vanity from impartial facts.
 
Tibet, anyway, is only one place of many others, where the human rights are ignored currently. Bagdad, Zagros, is another, and to record confidants or supporters is important,too.
 
But to apologise one injustice with another one cant be the right way.
 
 
 
 


-------------

http://imageshack.us">


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 07:30
I don't know why Tibetian independence gets so much support when Uighur, Yunnani, Manchu, & Mongol does not.

China is running an imperialistic occupation of all those territories, those people have the right to revolt against Chinese rule, but the chinese also have the right to suppress those revolts.
I am neither in favour nor against Tibetan independence, it will happen eventually, at the next dynastic change in China.
I don't see any diffrence between occupied Palestine and Tibet.

Tibetians are allowed to live in Tibet. That is just being silly, China may be occupying Tibet but it isn't trying to ethnically cleanse Tibet.
tibet has been recognized as Chinese territory, and was recognized as Chinese territory by the UN and other countries. Tibet was part of China before the revolution of 1912, when China lost territory pretty much all over. The Chinese succeeded in reestablishing control in 1951. In the interim Tibetr was recognized as being part of China by every nation in the world and that is still the case.

Except for outer mongolia, Qing China's borders were recognised by the Europeans (Britain & Russia most importantly) even while the Qing did not control territories such as Tibet, Manchuria and East Turkestan.

The Russians even occupied East Turkistan & Manchuria while claiming "they were only holding them for the Chinese"


-------------


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 07:37
Originally posted by Leo

are you suggesting that was fake? maybe using offical Chinese press for information was funny, but shooting pilgrims...

Yeah it probably was Leo. That stunk of propaganda.
Russia and Britain didn't recognize china's sovereignty (only suzerainty), so its not a clear cut case as most Chinese would have you believe or as is stated above.

Yes they did. Even when English-Indian troops were in Lhasa and Cossacks in Kashgar. The English only changed their position in 1951.
Originally posted by Ulrich

And i think the one who proclaims that this is an internal problem, has an internal problem himself.

Yes but if you interfere you will probably just screw it up more.


-------------


Posted By: Roberts
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 10:44
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim


Tibetians are allowed to live in Tibet. That is just being silly, China may be occupying Tibet but it isn't trying to ethnically cleanse Tibet.

Do Tibetans have any future ?

They are now the minority in their own land due to the Chinese politic of overwhelming the population with numbers of imported Chinese inhabitants as well suppressing any rebellion with force.


Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 11:35
Originally posted by Mughaal

 
Its called politics. Its relevent.


Plain bs.


-------------
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)


Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 11:57
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim


Except for outer mongolia, Qing China's borders were recognised by the Europeans (Britain & Russia most importantly) even while the Qing did not control territories such as Tibet, Manchuria and East Turkestan.

The Russians even occupied East Turkistan & Manchuria while claiming "they were only holding them for the Chinese"
borders of control, while im talking about sovereignty, two different things.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

Russia and Britain didn't recognize china's sovereignty (only suzerainty), so its not a clear cut case as most Chinese would have you believe or as is stated above.

Yes they did. Even when English-Indian troops were in Lhasa and Cossacks in Kashgar.

 English only changed their position in 1951.
 


The 1914 Simla http://tibetjustice.org/materials/treaties/treaties16.html -

Article 2. The Governments of Great Britain and China recognizing that Tibet is under the suzerainty of China, and recognizing also the autonomy of Outer Tibet, engage to respect the territorial integrity of the country, and to abstain from interference in the administration of Outer Tibet (including the selection and installation of the Dalai Lama), which shall remain in the hands of the Tibetan Government at Lhasa.

The Government of China engages not to convert Tibet into a Chinese province. The Government of Great Britain engages not to annex Tibet or any portion of it

the polity of Tibet was defined in the west even during the Qing era.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim


I don't see any diffrence between occupied Palestine and Tibet.

Tibetians are allowed to live in Tibet. That is just being silly, China may be occupying Tibet but it isn't trying to ethnically cleanse Tibet.
nah its silly to think the tibteans can last as a distinct group in the near future under present conditions. Flooding Tibet with han colonist is going to achieve the same result.





Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 12:59
Simla declaration was in 1914. The Chinese withrawl from Tibet was in 1912. Here is the USG position on this
 
"The United States considers the Tibet Autonomous Region or TAR (hereinafter referred to as "Tibet") as part of the People's Republic of China. This longstanding policy is consistent with the view of the entire international community, including all China's neighbors: no country recognizes Tibet as a sovereign state. Moreover, U.S. acceptance of China's claim of sovereignty over Tibet predates the establishment of the People's Republic of China. In 1942, we told the Nationalist Chinese government then headquartered in Chongqing (Chungking) that we had "at no time raised (a) question" over Chinese claims to Tibet."

Per

U.S. Department of State 95/09/07 Testimony: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Wiedemann - Kent Wiedemann on policy toward Tibet Bureau for East Asia and Pacific Affairs, testimony by Kent M. Wiedemann, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State For East Asian And Pacific Affairs Before Subcomittee On East Asian and Pacific Affairs Senate Foreign Relations Committee

And here is a statement the USG made before 1950, to the British EMbassy in 1943
 
For its part, the Government of the United States has borne in mind the fact that the Chinese Government has long claimed suzerainty over Tibet and that the Chinese constitution lists Tibet among areas constituting the territory of the Republic of China. This Government has at no time raised a question regarding either of these claims.
 
That deals with the United States. As Henry Bradsher a supporter of Tibet, admited in 1969.
 
"even today international legal experts sympathetic to the Dalai Lama's cause find it difficult to argue that Tibet ever technically established its independence of the Chinese Empire, imperial, or republican"
 
The only one who was ever againt this was the United Kingom Of Great Britain and Ireland/Nothern Ireland, when it was trying the annex Tibet in the early part of tha last century and it managed to annex a bit , which is now the Indian occupied North East Frontier Agency. WHat about that? Or is this thread limited only to Sino-Bashing.
 
 


-------------


Posted By: ulrich von hutten
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 13:14

Dalai Lama condemns 'cultural genocide' in Tibet


for more...  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/16/wtibet116.xml - here

-------------

http://imageshack.us">


Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 20:41
Originally posted by beorna


By the way, if Tibet will ever become free and independent, I hope the people will have the chance to install a democratic government and do not change a pseudo-communist tyranny against an autocratic and theocratic monarchy.


Thumbs%20Up completely agree

Originally posted by Zagros


Not looked at the Sun for since I was 14 and that was for the titties on page 3.

The extent of German involvement in the proliferation of WMD to dictatorships is vast.


i re-read your response serveral times and found no source. so unless you can back up your claims other than with conspiracy theories, please refrain from tracking off the topic. if you have something to add to this, open a new thread. your a mod and know the procedures.


-------------


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 20:51
There are plenty of sources, you can use google, just as well as I (I hope). 

And Ulrich, intelligence service manipulation of mass media is not a theory - it's fact - who do you think fed the bogus claims of Iraqi WMDs to the press who whole heartedly endorsed it at the time?




-------------


Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 21:37
Ive noticed Western Europeans and North Americans are very honest, simple minded people. They eat up and believe everything their governments tell them.

Tomorrow if XYZ country has weapons of mass destruction, they will believe it. These countries dont really give a damn about "freedom of Tibet". They care to destabilize China and keep it tied up.

Otherwise, Kurdistan would have been independent by now.


-------------
Mughal e Azam


Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 22:26
Yes but just because America does more for Tibet indipendence then Kurdistan's one,does not make Tibets right for indipendence any less of an right then that of Kurdistan.
 
This is something that all anti-Americans strugle to understand,even here in Europe or America itself the liberals strugle to understand this.
 
Just because a right decicion is suported by the Americans it does not become less of an right then another decision which is not suported by the Americans.
 
For example,is a fact that America and Turkey are friends,therefore America is more careful on Kurdistans issue,but because America is no friend with China then is very right to suport openly the Tibets right for indipendence.
And i dont see why not.
It amazes me that people use this very argument against America.


-------------
Me pune,me perpjekje.


Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 22:30
So the point is not that America wants to destabilise China,but the point is the people of Tibet dont want to be ruled by China,and it is right to suport them in their strugle,Thats the point,and wether America suports them or not,they are still right to ask to govern themselves.

-------------
Me pune,me perpjekje.


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 22:31
Tibet's people have every right to struggle for their rights but you miss the point... This has nothing to do with anti-Americanism or any such thing - it has to do with people's perceptions based on the information strategy of their government, genius.   

-------------


Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 22:49
Originally posted by Zagros

Tibet's people have every right to struggle for their rights but you miss the point... This has nothing to do with anti-Americanism or any such thing - it has to do with people's perceptions based on the information strategy of their government, genius.   
 
If this was directed to me,then i would say it has alot to do with anti-Americanism and such things,so when someone say that America or other democracies are only interested in Destabilisng China and not in the Tibetians right for indipendence ,then that is an anti-American point of view.
And you have given me the opinion that you yourself are quite incapable to separate facts when it comes to Americas policies,since you yourself are driven by anti-Americanism.But this is only my opinion.
 
You yourself say the Tibetians have the right to strugle for their rights,and thats what Americans stand for aswell,so were is your problem?
I tell you and all those that think like you were your problem is,your problem is the involvement of America ,thats whats your problem,and you are biased into opossing everything America suports,wether be it right or wrong.
 
And as for government's information strategy,for your info America is a country that has free media,and government information strategy is applied and even forced into the brains of the populations,were no free and fair news are broadcast,in countries such as China and Venezuela,Iran and Russia,so dont overturn the roles.
 


-------------
Me pune,me perpjekje.


Posted By: beorna
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 22:56

I cannot understand how people in this forum can support or justify the chinese government and its behavior. And I cannot understand why people talking about western desinformation. Do you really believe these chinese government? There is only one excuse for the behavior of the chinese government. This is that they treat their own people as bad as the minorities.

And people in the western world do not believe their governments everything. Before and during the Iraq war millions of Europeans demonstrated against the war, not because they loved Saddam and his mass-murder, but because they were against wars as a part of politics. 

 


Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 22:59
How many of us actually know what the situation in Tibet is? just how opressed are they?
 
Is the average rural Chinese treated any better than the average Tibetan? as far as I know China is quite strict across the board not just ethnic groups.


-------------
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine



Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 23:00
Exactly Beorna.
As i have explained their problem is America ,thats what is their problem,they will opose everything America suports wether be it right or wrong,they even go so far as to say America government is brainwashing its citesins who have free internet,free media,all out acces to info,and this argument is used by suporters of Governments of countries such as China ,Russia,Venezuela and Iran.Ridicolous.


-------------
Me pune,me perpjekje.


Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 23:05

talking about media manipulation, PRC is the benchmark. BTW they just banned youtube so no one can see the footage

Turnaround as official media gives 'saboteurs' the works
 
John Garnaut Asia Economics Correspondent in Beijing
March 17, 2008
 
SCENES of rioters rampaging through Lhasa and setting shops ablaze were shown on official Chinese TV news bulletins over the weekend in a departure from the Government's habit of blacking out all news of civil unrest.

Chinese Central Television footage of robed Tibetan monks looting, beating shopkeepers and setting buildings ablaze were screened around the world. Official news reports included accounts from horrified non-Tibetan Chinese.

"The protesters were barbarous and violent," Xinhua, the official news agency, quoted a tourist as saying. "They ganged up on the young police officers and beat innocent people."

However, domestic coverage was tightly restricted to official media channels, with blogs and non-official news sources largely shut down.

The official media emphasised police casualties inflicted by Tibetan "saboteurs" and commended security forces for bringing the protests under control.

Most reports were overlayed with shrill anti-Dalai Lama rhetoric of the Chinese Government's propaganda machine. Wang Jiaquan, of Xinhua, said he had "turned the tranquil holy city of Lhasa into a land of terror".

He wrote, without evidence, that "this impudent politician's" call for Tibetans to refrain from violence was a clever disguise to continue duping the wider world.

Other reports from Xinhua and the state TV broadcaster CCTV said the purpose of the riots was to destroy the tranquillity, peaceful and healthy lives "which the Tibetan people enjoy at present". Access to YouTube was blocked after videos of the protests in Tibet appeared on the website.

The Panchen Lama, the Tibetan spiritual leader chosen by China's rulers, condemned what he called "lawless riots", saying a tiny minority was to blame.

"The rioters' acts not only harmed the interests of the nation and the people, but also violated the aim of Buddhism."

http://www.smh.com.au - www.smh.com.au


Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 23:07
Originally posted by Bulldog

How many of us actually know what the situation in Tibet is? just how opressed are they?
 
Is the average rural Chinese treated any better than the average Tibetan? as far as I know China is quite strict across the board not just ethnic groups.
Why should Tibetians be ok with being as opresed as the Chinese?Why should they be opresed by the Chinese government?And how can opression of a people be justified with the excuse that that's how we opress our own citisins aswell?
The Tibetians simply dont want,they have been telling this to China and the world for a long time,what else can they do?They are a people that want to be governed in style with their own culture etc,what excuse can there be in such cases,is beyond me!!!!!!!!!!!!


-------------
Me pune,me perpjekje.


Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 23:16
Originally posted by Bulldog

How many of us actually know what the situation in Tibet is? just how opressed are they?
 
Is the average rural Chinese treated any better than the average Tibetan? as far as I know China is quite strict across the board not just ethnic groups.
um being a minortiy in your own land, losing language, actaully losing out in general (health/economic/political). If the place was as good as what the official PRC story goes it would be open for the world media to see. Seeing your revered monks and nuns getting beat up and arested, your spiritaul leader cant even be mentioned for fear of arrest, this is something unique to the tibetans. Its like the UK police going into the mosques and stomping and beating on the imams and any others within the mosques, just if they say anything they dont like. prison and torture to follow
 
It is hard for chinees peasants, but they are being run by their own kind so its their own problem. this was forced onto the tibetans so this is different


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 23:17
You yourself say the Tibetians have the right to strugle for their rights,and thats what Americans stand for aswell,so were is your problem?


I am the one incapable of separating facts?  America stands for nothing but American interests at best and the interests of its corporate elites at worst - NEVER the rights of others.

1. Why did America condone saddam's use of chemical weapons against Kurds in 1988?

Because it suited its interest (i.e.) Saddam was a regional ally.

2.  why did America decry that same incident in 2002-3?

BECAUSE it suited its interest (i.e.) to invade and pillage Iraq.

So tell me now, why is there such an outcry in the West at the plight of the Tibetans?  Because it suits their political interests.  very simple.  It now appears that I am quite capable of separating facts, my man, though you have put your capability in this regard in serious contention with that last post, among others.

My sympathies are with the Tibetans on a subjective basis, just as they are with the Iraqis who have a far worse fate at the hands of America.  Tibet is a case of Chinese imperialism and Iraq is a case of American imperialism.  So get a grip with the name calling.


-------------


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 23:24
Is censorship manipulation?  I think it's far more honest in that you're simply being deprived of information (pretty obviously in this case) whereas the manipulation of which I speak is simply shameless, calculated disinformation.

-------------


Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 23:25

Well the world isn't a bed of roses, what makes you think an independant Tibet would be a model democracy or improve freedoms of the average Tibetan.

I don't think its fair to make judgements before knowing what the actual situation is, ultimately its up to the Tibetans, if they can use the situation for their benefit then they will do whats in thei interests. For China to become a super power it will have to either overcome these problems or its frontier terretories like Tibet and other areas will with foreign powers seperate. I feel Tibetans have always protested about Chinese rule but now there is a situation where certain powers can exploit this feeling.
 
 
 


-------------
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine



Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 23:28
It seams you dont read my posts,i have already explained this in my previous post.
 
I dont doubt that America follows its own interest,but then what?What is it suposed to do,if it does not put its interest first?But the fact that America has its own interest does not make the Tibetian case any weaker,thats the point.While you suport Chinese government in this just because you are against American interest,because there is no other way to look at it then.
 
American policies are not absolutely all right or all wrong,but it does though have the principle to always side with the opressed,unlike its todays enemies (countries formentioned) that have the principle to always opress.


-------------
Me pune,me perpjekje.


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2008 at 23:39
Are putting words into other people's mouths and labeling them with hollow adjectives gifts that you were born with or did they come to you at some other stage in life?  I don't and have never supported the Chinese government in anything.  I am highlighting hypocrisy and double standards. 


-------------


Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 17-Mar-2008 at 00:34
Originally posted by Sparten

Simla declaration was in 1914. The Chinese withrawl from Tibet was in 1912. Here is the USG position on this
 
"The United States considers the Tibet Autonomous Region or TAR (hereinafter referred to as "Tibet") as part of the People's Republic of China. This longstanding policy is consistent with the view of the entire international community, including all China's neighbors: no country recognizes Tibet as a sovereign state. Moreover, U.S. acceptance of China's claim of sovereignty over Tibet predates the establishment of the People's Republic of China. In 1942, we told the Nationalist Chinese government then headquartered in Chongqing (Chungking) that we had "at no time raised (a) question" over Chinese claims to Tibet."

Per

U.S. Department of State 95/09/07 Testimony: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Wiedemann - Kent Wiedemann on policy toward Tibet Bureau for East Asia and Pacific Affairs, testimony by Kent M. Wiedemann, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State For East Asian And Pacific Affairs Before Subcomittee On East Asian and Pacific Affairs Senate Foreign Relations Committee

And here is a statement the USG made before 1950, to the British EMbassy in 1943
 
For its part, the Government of the United States has borne in mind the fact that the Chinese Government has long claimed suzerainty over Tibet and that the Chinese constitution lists Tibet among areas constituting the territory of the Republic of China. This Government has at no time raised a question regarding either of these claims.
 
That deals with the United States. As Henry Bradsher a supporter of Tibet, admited in 1969.
 
"even today international legal experts sympathetic to the Dalai Lama's cause find it difficult to argue that Tibet ever technically established its independence of the Chinese Empire, imperial, or republican"
 
The only one who was ever againt this was the United Kingom Of Great Britain and Ireland/Nothern Ireland, when it was trying the annex Tibet in the early part of tha last century and it managed to annex a bit , which is now the Indian occupied North East Frontier Agency. WHat about that? Or is this thread limited only to Sino-Bashing.
 
 
well it was both russia and britain as the relevant empires of the day. Your second quote talks about suzerainty, please look up the meaning of that word , for instance Britain had that over india and pakistan, can it now claim that that holding is a part of the UK?
 
Your using of the USA is problematic (apart from being a unilateral view), at around that time they were using the CIA to help any resistance. Yep that right they were acting in the opposite way to that quote. So when picking a country, try to picking one that isnt so doubled faced and inconsistent so to lend your argument some credibility. If the tibetan resistance had a chance the US would of 'pulled a kosovo' on China. If you want to use well worn chinese debating points, do some checks first.
 

Between 1957 and 1969 the CIA armed, financed, and helped train Tibetan guerrillas who operated first inside Tibet, and later -- after the Dalai Lama's escape to India in 1959 -- from a base in Mustang, a remote corner of northwestern Nepal. This project, code-named ST Circus, was one of the CIA's longest-running covert operations. The withdrawal of the CIA's support in 1969 was as abrupt as its initial involvement was unexpected: The Tibetans had simply fitted into America's larger policy of destabilising or overthrowing Communist regimes, and when that no longer applied, they were abandoned.

http://www.berkeleymedia.com - http://www.berkeleymedia.com
 
more info on that episode of history in this http://www.utdallas.edu/library/collections/speccoll/Leeker/tibet.pdf - PDF
 
here is what the UN Says about tibetan rights, in december 1961
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/167/76/IMG/NR016776.pdf?OpenElement - resolution 1723

2. Solemnly renews its call for the cessation of practices which deprive the Tibetan people of their fundamental human rights and freedoms, including their right to self determination
 
Tibet is seen in a similar light as other imperial possesions in http://untreaty.un.org/cod/repertory/art1/english/rep_supp3_vol1-art1_2_e.pdf - this UN document, hardly a strong case of Tibet being a unified part of China proper. You dont see any issues in hunan province (for example only) in there now do you.
 
Anyway, whats the problem with critising the PRC, being pakistans big buddy maybe? doesnt feel the same as talking about the nasty West and the Zionist aggressors? They all can share the blame when they deserve it.
  


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 17-Mar-2008 at 00:43
Originally posted by Leonidas

Between 1957 and 1969 the CIA armed, financed, and helped train Tibetan guerrillas who operated first inside Tibet, and later -- after the Dalai Lama's escape to India in 1959 -- from a base in Mustang, a remote corner of northwestern Nepal. This project, code-named ST Circus, was one of the CIA's longest-running covert operations. The withdrawal of the CIA's support in 1969 was as abrupt as its initial involvement was unexpected: The Tibetans had simply fitted into America's larger policy of destabilising or overthrowing Communist regimes, and when that no longer applied, they were abandoned.

http://www.berkeleymedia.com - http://www.berkeleymedia.com
 

 


Which supports my point completely.  And now again, it is in America's interest to give a toss about Tibet.  Any delusion about America or any other country giving two hoots about the human rights of the oppressed of other countries is naive at the very best.


-------------


Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 17-Mar-2008 at 00:48
Firstly, i think Spartakus is right to be frustrated, when he says this is about Tibet and not Uighurs or Manchus.
For those that say that the Tibetans get more coverage, i would say it has a lot of to do with the Dalai Lama's leadership, and efforts, by which he has expanded the audience to his cause.
 
In the end there is no difference in the Occupation of Tibet or Palestine, and they are both undergoing active colonization, with the goal to dilute their native populations. The same is true for Turkestan. All these regions have settlement policies.
 
Sadly the Tibetans don't have the critical mass to achieve anything. As another forumer has already before, two weeks down the line all will be back to normal. Non-violence never succeeded in the face of violence, and by chanting in the temples they will achieve nothing.


-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17-Mar-2008 at 05:17
Leo, why should I use Chinese arguments, when I can find my own. In any case if I had used them you have been on me. The UN rsolutions btw have no force in law, under international law, only security council resolutions are binding and secondly it was a farce as admitted  by "Free" Tibet supporters since the the UN at that time was not even allowing the PRC a seat in the organisation.
 
Anyway as said its Chians territory and they can deal with it as they deem fit. Dalai Lama! Hah, the Chinese have invested billions in the place, the GDP is now 300 times what it was in 1950. The wages in Tibet are the second highest of anywhere in China. The standard of living there is now a million time better then when it was the theocratic monarchy of the Lamas. Anyway forget that, I mean how could we support China. Far better to have the pre-1950 senario back. Let the Lamas run their theocratic monarchy. I am sure Leo and Ulrich would love it. After all the historical UVH was the first person to describe the suffering due to sypallis for the ordinary fellow, I am sure the cyber UVH can describe the "free" Tibetan paradise.


-------------


Posted By: ulrich von hutten
Date Posted: 17-Mar-2008 at 06:55
Originally posted by Mughaal

Ive noticed Western Europeans and North Americans are very honest, simple minded people. They eat up and believe everything their governments tell them.
 
As one of the simple minds, you have noticed, i would like to ask , from where or which sources  do you get your cognitions?
 
Maybe, you mixed official statements of the authorities with the meaning of the people, parts of the western societies. Cause these societies are as much complex as your perception is one-dimensional.

Originally posted by Mughaal

Tomorrow if XYZ country has weapons of mass destruction, they will believe it. These countries dont really give a damn about "freedom of Tibet". They care to destabilize China and keep it tied up.

Otherwise, Kurdistan would have been independent by now.
 
Why it isn't possible for you differ what Bush or his CIA- myrmidons, Miss merkel or the gnom Sarkozy are saying and  what the intentions of civil right organisations and human right fighters are. Might be it's malignity or, and here i would bet on,  your stupidity.
In any case, to stop shouting out for human rights all over the world would mean to leave the field for all this demagogues and dictators.
 
Obviously, Mughaal, to critisize with content is not your preferred thing, but necessary anyhow. Human rights in Kurdistan or New Zealand or even in Iceland and critism of the official state policy do have the same weight.


-------------

http://imageshack.us">


Posted By: poirot
Date Posted: 17-Mar-2008 at 07:07
Haven't been in the forum for a while..........I see that we are still as exciting in debate as before.

This is an interesting one.  A delicate matter for Beijing government, with the Olympics and Taiwan elections.

A couple of observations:

1. Before we go further, let's ask ourselves how do we define the term 'Chinese'?  Most media groups in Europe and North American would exclusively refer to the predominant Han ethnic group as 'Chinese', and the rest as 'Mongolian', 'Tibetan', or 'Uighur'.  In the PRC, official stance dictates that the term 'Chinese' is an overall umbrella comprised of 56 ethnic groups, with the Han, Mongolian, Tibetan, Uighur, Hui, each being an ethnic group of the Middle Kingdom.  For the record, the terms 'China' and 'Chinese' are relatively modern constructs.


2.  I actually agree that we shouldn't overly criticize U.S. or Britain or any other media group for being too hypocritical - oppression anywhere deserves to be noted.  I have some sympathies for Tibetan exiles who feel that the region should be independent and self governing in its entirety.  That being said, I would still say that it is a dream at best; Tibetan independence offers little strategic value to anyone except India.  The PRC has too much at stake and will do everything it can to promote unity.  As students of history, we should recognize that in such matters, the mighty always prevails. 

3.  I would like to clear two misconceptions: a) Ethnic Tibetans are being outnumbered by non-ethnic Tibetan migrants b) All Tibetans support independence. 

a)  Tibetans are being outnumbered by non-Tibetan migrants only in major cities, such as Llasa.  A large portion of that migrant population in Llasa are businessmen from Zhejing Province who do not stay the entire year.  The population of Tibet region as a whole is still very predominantly ethnic Tibetan.

b) The ruling class of Tibet nowdays is comprised of ethnic Tibetans educated in Beijing.  This new group of Tibetan born officials have their own interests to look after.  It is doubtful that they would welcome Dalai Lama's return with open arms.

4.  Observation 3 brings up observation 4 - that this is another example of an economic struggle between the have's and have not's.  China's rapid economic development only benefits certain interest groups (government officials, formerly state owned corporations, coastal cities,  companies that take advantage of globalization, etc); recent riots in inland provinces attest to it.  Unfortunately, many ethnic Tibetans in rural areas are not among the beneficiaries.  When many ethnic Tibetans see that other interest groups - be it migrant businessmen or Tibetan born party members - have far more opportunities and fare better than themselves, they become frustrated.  Unequal distribution of wealth and resources is the best catalyst for protest and unrest.


-------------
AAAAAAAAAA
"The crisis of yesterday is the joke of tomorrow.�   ~ HG Wells
           


Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 17-Mar-2008 at 10:15
Originally posted by malizai_

Firstly, i think Spartakus is right to be frustrated, when he says this is about Tibet and not Uighurs or Manchus.
For those that say that the Tibetans get more coverage, i would say it has a lot of to do with the Dalai Lama's leadership, and efforts, by which he has expanded the audience to his cause.
 
In the end there is no difference in the Occupation of Tibet or Palestine, and they are both undergoing active colonization, with the goal to dilute their native populations. The same is true for Turkestan. All these regions have settlement policies.
 
Sadly the Tibetans don't have the critical mass to achieve anything. As another forumer has already before, two weeks down the line all will be back to normal. Non-violence never succeeded in the face of violence, and by chanting in the temples they will achieve nothing.
very well put, i couldnt agree more on the whole post.Clap


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17-Mar-2008 at 10:55
Originally posted by poirot

Haven't been in the forum for a while..........I see that we are still as exciting in debate as before.

This is an interesting one.  A delicate matter for Beijing government, with the Olympics and Taiwan elections.

A couple of observations:

1. Before we go further, let's ask ourselves how do we define the term 'Chinese'?  Most media groups in Europe and North American would exclusively refer to the predominant Han ethnic group as 'Chinese', and the rest as 'Mongolian', 'Tibetan', or 'Uighur'.  In the PRC, official stance dictates that the term 'Chinese' is an overall umbrella comprised of 56 ethnic groups, with the Han, Mongolian, Tibetan, Uighur, Hui, each being an ethnic group of the Middle Kingdom.  For the record, the terms 'China' and 'Chinese' are relatively modern constructs.


2.  I actually agree that we shouldn't overly criticize U.S. or Britain or any other media group for being too hypocritical - oppression anywhere deserves to be noted.  I have some sympathies for Tibetan exiles who feel that the region should be independent and self governing in its entirety.  That being said, I would still say that it is a dream at best; Tibetan independence offers little strategic value to anyone except India.  The PRC has too much at stake and will do everything it can to promote unity.  As students of history, we should recognize that in such matters, the mighty always prevails. 

3.  I would like to clear two misconceptions: a) Ethnic Tibetans are being outnumbered by non-ethnic Tibetan migrants b) All Tibetans support independence. 

a)  Tibetans are being outnumbered by non-Tibetan migrants only in major cities, such as Llasa.  A large portion of that migrant population in Llasa are businessmen from Zhejing Province who do not stay the entire year.  The population of Tibet region as a whole is still very predominantly ethnic Tibetan.

b) The ruling class of Tibet nowdays is comprised of ethnic Tibetans educated in Beijing.  This new group of Tibetan born officials have their own interests to look after.  It is doubtful that they would welcome Dalai Lama's return with open arms.

4.  Observation 3 brings up observation 4 - that this is another example of an economic struggle between the have's and have not's.  China's rapid economic development only benefits certain interest groups (government officials, formerly state owned corporations, coastal cities,  companies that take advantage of globalization, etc); recent riots in inland provinces attest to it.  Unfortunately, many ethnic Tibetans in rural areas are not among the beneficiaries.  When many ethnic Tibetans see that other interest groups - be it migrant businessmen or Tibetan born party members - have far more opportunities and fare better than themselves, they become frustrated.  Unequal distribution of wealth and resources is the best catalyst for protest and unrest.
A great informative post. Thanks poirot.


-------------


Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 17-Mar-2008 at 12:09
Originally posted by Sparten

Leo, why should I use Chinese arguments, when I can find my own. In any case if I had used them you have been on me. The UN rsolutions btw have no force in law, under international law, only security council resolutions are binding and secondly it was a farce as admitted  by "Free" Tibet supporters since the the UN at that time was not even allowing the PRC a seat in the organisation.
and then why use US state departments testimony as proof?  a UN resolution has a bit more weight than that flimsy piece of evidence and it certainly waters down some of what your saying....


correction, tibet has been recognized as Chinese territory, and was recognized as Chinese territory by the UN and other countries. Tibet was part of China before the revolution of 1912, when China lost territory pretty much all over. The Chinese succeeded in reestablishing control in 1951. In the interim Tibetr was recognized as being part of China by every nation in the world and that is still the case.

..such examples (including Simla and others) just adds a bit more grey in a murky story, so lets not assume that;
  • tibet had never had a form of self government
  •  that this right was never internationally recognized or
  • that china was unarguably a sovereign of that territory .

Im not stating that its a simple case of Tibetan sovereignty, just that China's case isn't water tight or clear cut, never was and still isn't.
 
Originally posted by Sparten

Anyway as said its Chians territory and they can deal with it as they deem fit. Dalai Lama! Hah, the Chinese have invested billions in the place, the GDP is now 300 times what it was in 1950. The wages in Tibet are the second highest of anywhere in China. The standard of living there is now a million time better then when it was the theocratic monarchy of the Lamas. Anyway forget that, I mean how could we support China. Far better to have the pre-1950 senario back. Let the Lamas run their theocratic monarchy. I am sure Leo and Ulrich would love it. After all the historical UVH was the first person to describe the suffering due to sypallis for the ordinary fellow, I am sure the cyber UVH can describe the "free" Tibetan paradise.
ah yes, we saved them story. yeah partly true,  but along then same patronizing lines of the 'white burden' us Europeans have reforming the third world.

If they are so happy why the spontaneous violence?  it also happened in the 80', 60's and 50's. They obviously are, not only backward,  totally ungrateful for all that good work!



has it ever occurred to you, before you read xinhua, that maybe the spoils aren't being shared equally? ive seen a young Tibetan risk his neck in front of his Han boss and in front of a TV camera stating, with a bit of annoyance, that he was getting payed less for the same work as han workers. You see Tibet's new 'prosperity' is being more enjoyed by han Chinese not so much the Tibetans. they could be 50% better but if its allot less than the colonists then there going to feel exploited, and rightly so. The west gave the third world jobs, plantations - factories, so why did they complain?

even from Chinese sources inequality can still be seen

Table 2. Selected demographic indicators of selected ethnic groups, China, 1990a

                    Infant                                                                                     Changes
Ethnic         mortality rate         Life                 Proportion     Median         in women
group         (1/1000)             expectancy         014 (%)         age             aged 1549 (%)
Han                   28.33             69.88                27.10           25.50             21.50
Minority all         59.48             65.16               34.48           21.75              54.04
Tibetan              92.46             59.67               35.80           21.30              27.00

(Institute of Economic Research, State Department of Planning
Commission, Beijing)
http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/booksAndPapers/tibetan.population.in.china.pdf -
The whole Tibetan quarter of the hallowed mountain capital appeared stunned after what had been an orgy of wrecking and looting.

The violence was undoubtedly racial. Its prime targets were the Chinese merchants who have flocked to Tibet by road and on a prestigious new train across the roof of the world.

The mobs were the losers of Lhasa the poor who seethe with resentment, outwitted commercially by Chinese traders, out-gunned by the Chinese army and, many fear, ultimately to be outnumbered by Chinese migrants.

The demonstrations had started as peaceful marches by Tibets revered Buddhist monks. They came out of their monasteries last week to observe the 49th anniversary of the Dalai Lamas flight into exile.

A predictable and harsh response by the Chinese set off more protests by monks, then ignited popular rage among the ordinary inhabitants of Lhasa.

Their explosion of hatred, when it came, was sudden and shockingly intense. Fire engines were attacked. Any Chinese army vehicles were stoned. Cars were ambushed, victims dragged off bicycles and beaten.

Yet for all Chinas claims of a political conspiracy, there was no evidence of organisation on the streets. Only a handful of rioters produced flags or pictures of the Dalai Lama. A few yelled Long live Tibet! For most, it was merely a moment of intoxicating, sweet revenge.




On one level it shatters the carefully fostered illusion that Tibetans are the happy recipients of Chinese money and progress. On another, it has destroyed the reputation for efficiency of the Chinese security forces by exposing their inability to predict an uprising and their failure to protect the Chinese inhabitants of Lhasa.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3559355.ece -

Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 17-Mar-2008 at 21:59
Originally posted by Zagros


Originally posted by Leonidas


Between 1957 and 1969 the CIA armed, financed, and helped train Tibetan guerrillas who operated first inside Tibet, and later -- after the Dalai Lama's escape to India in 1959 -- from a base in Mustang, a remote corner of northwestern Nepal. This project, code-named ST Circus, was one of the CIA's longest-running covert operations. The withdrawal of the CIA's support in 1969 was as abrupt as its initial involvement was unexpected: The Tibetans had simply fitted into America's larger policy of destabilising or overthrowing Communist regimes, and when that no longer applied, they were abandoned.


http://www.berkeleymedia.com - http://www.berkeleymedia.com

Which supports my point completely. And now again, it is in America's interest to give a toss about Tibet. Any delusion about America or any other country giving two hoots about the human rights of the oppressed of other countries is naive at the very best.


I sadly tend to agree but there are many individual Americans who do care and are active. The elite globalist only care about their power and the bottom line. Sudan is a another region the media has ignored for years.

-------------
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 17-Mar-2008 at 22:36
Haven't been in the forum for a while..........I see that we are still as exciting in debate as before.

This is an interesting one.  A delicate matter for Beijing government, with the Olympics and Taiwan elections.

A couple of observations:

1. Before we go further, let's ask ourselves how do we define the term 'Chinese'?  Most media groups in Europe and North American would exclusively refer to the predominant Han ethnic group as 'Chinese', and the rest as 'Mongolian', 'Tibetan', or 'Uighur'.  In the PRC, official stance dictates that the term 'Chinese' is an overall umbrella comprised of 56 ethnic groups, with the Han, Mongolian, Tibetan, Uighur, Hui, each being an ethnic group of the Middle Kingdom.  For the record, the terms 'China' and 'Chinese' are relatively modern constructs.


2.  I actually agree that we shouldn't overly criticize U.S. or Britain or any other media group for being too hypocritical - oppression anywhere deserves to be noted.  I have some sympathies for Tibetan exiles who feel that the region should be independent and self governing in its entirety.  That being said, I would still say that it is a dream at best; Tibetan independence offers little strategic value to anyone except India.  The PRC has too much at stake and will do everything it can to promote unity.  As students of history, we should recognize that in such matters, the mighty always prevails. 

3.  I would like to clear two misconceptions: a) Ethnic Tibetans are being outnumbered by non-ethnic Tibetan migrants b) All Tibetans support independence. 

a)  Tibetans are being outnumbered by non-Tibetan migrants only in major cities, such as Llasa.  A large portion of that migrant population in Llasa are businessmen from Zhejing Province who do not stay the entire year.  The population of Tibet region as a whole is still very predominantly ethnic Tibetan.

b) The ruling class of Tibet nowdays is comprised of ethnic Tibetans educated in Beijing.  This new group of Tibetan born officials have their own interests to look after.  It is doubtful that they would welcome Dalai Lama's return with open arms.

4.  Observation 3 brings up observation 4 - that this is another example of an economic struggle between the have's and have not's.  China's rapid economic development only benefits certain interest groups (government officials, formerly state owned corporations, coastal cities,  companies that take advantage of globalization, etc); recent riots in inland provinces attest to it.  Unfortunately, many ethnic Tibetans in rural areas are not among the beneficiaries.  When many ethnic Tibetans see that other interest groups - be it migrant businessmen or Tibetan born party members - have far more opportunities and fare better than themselves, they become frustrated.  Unequal distribution of wealth and resources is the best catalyst for protest and unrest.

Excellent post Poirot!


-------------


Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2008 at 05:38
Smilewelcome back, and a quality post
Originally posted by poirot


1. Before we go further, let's ask ourselves how do we define the term 'Chinese'?  Most media groups in Europe and North American would exclusively refer to the predominant Han ethnic group as 'Chinese', and the rest as 'Mongolian', 'Tibetan', or 'Uighur'.  In the PRC, official stance dictates that the term 'Chinese' is an overall umbrella comprised of 56 ethnic groups, with the Han, Mongolian, Tibetan, Uighur, Hui, each being an ethnic group of the Middle Kingdom.  For the record, the terms 'China' and 'Chinese' are relatively modern constructs.
This is something for the west to understand when talking to mainly han chinese, who group minorties into the same national idenity even if it has ethnic meanings on the outside. It may not be so relevant a issue when talking to chinese minorities that dont share that identity or whos ethnic identity is more important..
 
Do Tibetans call themsleves Chinese? Maybe some do, but beliveing this is widespread would be assumed at best. Lets not assume they identify in the same way as their Han neighbours. No matter what Sun Yat Sen or the majority Han belived or define is Chinese. Hence where i think there is a possible diconnect.


Originally posted by poirot

2.  I actually agree that we shouldn't overly criticize U.S. or Britain or any other media group for being too hypocritical - oppression anywhere deserves to be noted.  I have some sympathies for Tibetan exiles who feel that the region should be independent and self governing in its entirety.  That being said, I would still say that it is a dream at best; Tibetan independence offers little strategic value to anyone except India.  The PRC has too much at stake and will do everything it can to promote unity.  As students of history, we should recognize that in such matters, the mighty always prevails.  .
this I totally agree with 

Originally posted by poirot

3.  I would like to clear two misconceptions: a) Ethnic Tibetans are being outnumbered by non-ethnic Tibetan migrants b) All Tibetans support independence. 

a)  Tibetans are being outnumbered by non-Tibetan migrants only in major cities, such as Llasa.  A large portion of that migrant population in Llasa are businessmen from Zhejing Province who do not stay the entire year.  The population of Tibet region as a whole is still very predominantly ethnic Tibetan. .
the eroding effects to the indiginoius culture will remain. intentionally or not the culture is under threat from opening the place up to the rest of the country, the train line just made it worse. The emotion of the subject would be greatly reduced had the PRC left them alone demograhically.
 

Compared with those debatable allegations of `genocide and `forced birth control , the present author believes that the suggestion of population transfer of non-Tibetans into the traditionally Tibetan regions, or ethnographic Tibet, is basically true, considering the fact that before 1949 there were only a handful of Han Chinese traders in political Tibet. It is also true that this population transfer has been gaining momentum in recent years. This will certainly affect Tibetan culture. However, the present author sees no deliberate attempt by the Chinese government against the Tibetans or their culture, but instead views the issue of population transfer as part of the modernisation process that has been implemented everywhere in China since the late 1970s. This paper considers the situation as shown in the 1990 census, taking care to distinguish between political and ethnographic Tibet.
http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/booksAndPapers/tibetan.population.in.china.pdf -  Source
 
Originally posted by poirot

b) The ruling class of Tibet nowdays is comprised of ethnic Tibetans educated in Beijing.  This new group of Tibetan born officials have their own interests to look after.  It is doubtful that they would welcome Dalai Lama's return with open arms.
would you put that to a vote? a few sinicized elite winners do not speak for the rest. Im still unsure if the the top position in that region is ethnic tibetan, AFAIK it has always gone to a Han, like the current president. Forgive me of being a little cynical of the local elite story and how important or numrous they really are in the greater context of it all. The local han elite would always call the shots.

Originally posted by poirot

4.  Observation 3 brings up observation 4 - that this is another example of an economic struggle between the have's and have not's.  China's rapid economic development only benefits certain interest groups (government officials, formerly state owned corporations, coastal cities,  companies that take advantage of globalization, etc); recent riots in inland provinces attest to it.  Unfortunately, many ethnic Tibetans in rural areas are not among the beneficiaries.  When many ethnic Tibetans see that other interest groups - be it migrant businessmen or Tibetan born party members - have far more opportunities and fare better than themselves, they become frustrated.  Unequal distribution of wealth and resources is the best catalyst for protest and unrest.
mostly agreed, the economic differences are certainly important, i think your downplaying the ethnic side and turning this into a simple rural vs urban contest. AFAIK the people that rioted were the urban poor tibetans vs Han + police.. i didnt see one report of nomads or farmer getting involved, not in lhasa anyway. But all this ignores the very important religouis dimension, which you didnt really address as contributing factor.
 
Religion? The PRC wants to control it. But the Tibetan religoius structure doesnt play ball, the Dalai lama, amongst others, still has the sympathy of the general laymen. The lamas (not the CCP members) have a esteemed place in their society, that is above anything secular. The PRC as it tried to control or even tame this element, has destroyed much of it instead. It has and does trample all over tibetan senstivities along the way. So when monks protest, and then get beaten this will spark outrage, the economic issues having provided the pent up fuel.
 
I think it shouldt be lost to anyone in this particular subject just how central religion is, to the traditional Tibetan.
 
 


Posted By: tommy
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2008 at 08:52

If China get out from Tibet,the economic and living standard of the Tibet will decrease, it will become a very poor and isolated place in the world, but I also think that han people,should respect the culture and religion of Tibet, the problem may not on the Government, since the  Tibet coomon people make contact everyday with the han common people, may be in the daily life,some han people do not respect them, this make the people of Tibet so angry



-------------
leung


Posted By: tommy
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2008 at 08:56
dou your guys kknow there was slavery in old Tibet, those"peace loving"  monks were slave holders in the days of old Tibet

-------------
leung


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2008 at 11:25
Now I am certain, Leo has never been to Tibet.

-------------


Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2008 at 18:49
Originally posted by Zagros

Are putting words into other people's mouths and labeling them with hollow adjectives gifts that you were born with or did they come to you at some other stage in life?  I don't and have never supported the Chinese government in anything.  I am highlighting hypocrisy and double standards. 
If you dont suport the Chinese government then fine ,come in this topic and start shouting against the injustice being done in Tibet by the Chinese opression,dont come here shouting against America and its double standarts,the topic is for Tibet,and is only right that all countries raise their voices against the opression of the Chinese,and America is the worlds leading Democracy,it has a duty,and in this aspect is right,wether it has other interest or not.
 
As i explained before to you,the fact that America does not the same for other conflicts does not mean that America is not right to voice its concern about this one.
 
Now which hipocrisy and double standars are you highliting?Cause is confusing Confused


-------------
Me pune,me perpjekje.


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2008 at 22:31

Well, if you're going to pursue that line of argument - then before the leading "democracy"  (and I use this term very loosely) can shout about the human rights violations of others it should better damn well make sure its own house in order!  In the case of America I am afraid that is simply not the case, my man.

Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Ramadi the recent exploits in Somlia in conjuction with Ethiopia (where tens of thousands of refugees have been murdered) to name a few

So there is hypocrisy for you.

Double standards? 

I don't hear any condemnation of the treatment of over a million Palestinians in Gaza.

Now, is it still confusing for you?  Because if it is then I can be of no further assistance.

-------------


Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2008 at 00:47
Originally posted by Sparten

Now I am certain, Leo has never been to Tibet.
and that means? if you have a problem with what I write then cut it up and show me where my POV falls down, i may learn something. otherwise it would be better not say anything at all.
 
update on another fallacy that was written about the lucky Tibetan uni students in Beijing that apperantly are not supporting the Dalai (and somehow infering support for the PRC or at the very least the status quo). 50 or so brave souls  where protesting in Beijing itself. It seems sentiment is not just limited to the 'losers' in tibet.
 
edit: sorry 100 protestors
 

Anti-Chinese unrest spreading through Tibetan regions reached the capital, Beijing, today when Tibetan students at the National Minorities University staged a sit-in.

About 100 students braved a cordon of police to hold a demonstration, apparently in support of Tibetans who have been demonstrating since last Monday in Lhasa, capital of the Himalayan regions, and many other towns to demand greater religious freedom and the return of the Dalai Lama.

The students sat cross-legged on the ground in a circle near a tennis court at the centre of the campus. Their heads were bowed and a mass of glowing candles spread out in front of them. The students maintained complete silence and ignored teachers and university leaders who tried to persuade them to disperse.

Police, both uniformed and plainclothed, stood around the students but took no action. They did not allow anyone to approach the group. Police were deployed at entrances to the university, checking identity cards of anyone going in.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3568810.ece - www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3568810.ece


Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2008 at 17:29
Originally posted by tommy

If China get out from Tibet,the economic and living standard of the Tibet will decrease, it will become a very poor and isolated place in the world.



Kosovo is also very poor. Yet , it declared it's , already de facto,independence.


-------------
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)


Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2008 at 19:24
Originally posted by Zagros


Well, if you're going to pursue that line of argument - then before the leading "democracy"  (and I use this term very loosely) can shout about the human rights violations of others it should better damn well make sure its own house in order!  In the case of America I am afraid that is simply not the case, my man.

Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Ramadi the recent exploits in Somlia in conjuction with Ethiopia (where tens of thousands of refugees have been murdered) to name a few

So there is hypocrisy for you.

Double standards? 

I don't hear any condemnation of the treatment of over a million Palestinians in Gaza.

Now, is it still confusing for you?  Because if it is then I can be of no further assistance.
 
Thats absolutely fine if you think that,and lets open a topic and talk about Americas human right violations,but i dont agree that a topic about the terror that Chinese government is exercising on streets of Tibet ends up with ciriticising America just because is voicing its concern.
 
Ps.As for America's human right violation you know this to well precisely because it is a open ,democratic society that allows free journalism and information.If it was in any way comparable to China or other such dictatorships,god knows how many journalists or citisins would hav ebeen killed there.


-------------
Me pune,me perpjekje.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2008 at 19:50
So, if an "open, democratic society" oppresses people, its fine, but someone else dose its not? Evidently being a "democracy" is a carte blanch to do whatever you like.

-------------


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2008 at 20:55

don't go far, Israel was hailed by the aussie PM some days ago as the "cradle of democracy and Human rights" in a land filled with religious regimes! seriously, the Syrian and Jordanian regimes are religious! The same Israel that threatens over 80 thousand Arabs living in "illigal" towns and villages that existed before Israel or for that matter Jewish refugees came into being with homlessness and giving most of those lands to building settlements. Anyway, as I said, if you support giving Tibet than good luck trying so. Tibet was a fueldal society with much of the population living as serfs for the monasteries of those harmless monks who lead the protesters to burn and loot non buddhists and non Tibeteans. The world doesn't need another state which no resources or any potential for a growing economy.

 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2008 at 22:59
Al JASSAS i think you are wrong.It is nothing worse in the world then to tell a people who fight for their right to rule themselves,that the world dont need them because they are poor or backward.You say that becasuse in Saudi Arabia you have won your own freedom to rule yourself,and dont forget at a time that the penisula was extremely poor and backward.But there came oil and you showed the world that with oportunities any people can prosper.
The opinion that others can be allowed to be free but Tibetians not for some reasons,is pure racism.
 
As for Israel,it is in fact the only Democracy in the middle east,wether you like it or not,and the Israeli citesins there are respected and protected by law,wether they be Arabs or Jews.
Were in the region a Jew would be treated as an Arab is in Israel?????
 
As for the Palestinian question it is mainly the Saudis fault.If they would treat Palestinians with respect,and pay the palestinian imigrants wages the same as all others ,then this very settlements that are at the hart of the conflict would not have been build by Palestinians themselves,as it is buing builld,hard to belive?Well it is Palestinian workers who build this settlements.
 
Giving up on arm deals and a little bit more pressure would help alot the Palestinian conflict,but not,in countrary,by using it,pressure is aplied to the west to come to arm deals agreement etc.
 
The Palestinian people have the right to govern themselves,the Jews have the right to govern themselves,the Kurdish have the right to govern themselves,and every people that speak a language and have a national identity,have the right to have a state to protect their interest in the world,otherwise they will always be opressed by regimes of all kinds.
 


-------------
Me pune,me perpjekje.


Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2008 at 01:24
The Tibet movement is more political than social. Its amazing some people dont understand that. And ive said it before: Westerners and North Americans are amazingly simple, straightforward, naive and honest people.

They dont understand when they are being used as pawns for politics.


-------------
Mughal e Azam


Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2008 at 20:13
BTW i'm dissapointed by you Ulrich, why don't you support your nice Chinese comrades who want to bring the communist achievements to Tibet and turn them into good commies themselves? quite a double standard here, isn't it? Wink

-------------


Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 21-Mar-2008 at 04:11
Originally posted by Mughaal

The Tibet movement is more political than social. Its amazing some people dont understand that. And ive said it before: Westerners and North Americans are amazingly simple, straightforward, naive and honest people.

They dont understand when they are being used as pawns for politics.
well the PRC motives are what, political or social? They say social but its not working out that way. You see dismantling the Tibetan feudal structure serves a (self serving) political purpose to Beijing. more so if it doesn't bring about real benefits to the Tibetans, obviously the changes the PRC have done have not made them happy.

The west support of the Tibetans politically is very limited, they are nowhere near as as important to our own interests as the PRC. The Tibetan issues receive allot of of public empathy which puts our leaders into hypocritical positions with their constituents. Which i can assure you they don't like it and makes them uncomfortable and weak looking. We can thank the charismatic Dalai Lama for that empathy, though he has it seems alienated himself from the Tibetan youth in the process.

In relation to the PRC, our leaders 'the west" prefer that everything is going smoothly and trade being the only issue to deal with.


Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2008 at 08:03
more updtaes,

it seems people inside the PRC take their news with a grain of salt more than the wishful thinkers from the outside


Chinese petitioners urge end to propaganda on Tibet


http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/23/asia/china.php?page=1# - SHANGHAI : A group of prominent Chinese intellectuals has circulated a petition urging the government to stop what it has called a "one-sided" propaganda campaign and initiate direct dialogue with the Dalai Lama.

The petition, which was signed by more than two dozen writers, journalists and scholars, contains 12 recommendations which, taken together, represent a sharp break from the Chinese government's response to the wave of demonstrations that has swept Tibetan areas of the country in recent days.

They come, moreover, at a time when the government is working hard to convey a sense of strong international support for putting down what is being depicted here as a civil disturbance by lawless people being instigated by Tibet's spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, denounced by Beijing as a secessionist, or "splittist."

The violence has turned into a public relations disaster for China before the August Olympics, which it had been hoping to use to bolster its international image.

Though the European Union and the United States have so far said they opposed boycotting the Beijing Games over the crackdown, an EU politician said in remarks published Saturday that European countries should not rule out threatening a boycott if violence continued, The Associated Press reported.

"Beijing must decide itself, it should immediately negotiate with the Dalai Lama," the European Parliament president, Hans-Gert Pttering, was quoted as saying by Germany's Bild am Sonntag newspaper. "If there continue to be no signals of compromise, I see boycott measures as justified."

In recent days, the state-controlled Chinese press has also stepped up its criticisms of the international press for what it says has been biased and overblown coverage of the Tibetan crisis.

China has barred international journalists from Tibet and expelled most tourists and other foreigners from the province since the beginning of the crisis. As trouble has spread to neighboring provinces where many Tibetans live, the government has blocked access to these areas, as well.

"In our view the current news blockade cannot gain credit with the Chinese people or the international community, and is harmful to the credibility of the Chinese government," the petitioners wrote, adding, "only by adopting an open attitude can we turn around the international community's distrust of our government."

Given the government's stringent censorship of the media, including the Internet, it is not clear how widely knowledge of the intellectuals' letter will spread within China, but many of its points challenge or dispute the government line head on.

"We support the Dalai Lama's appeal for peace, and hope that the ethnic conflict can be dealt with according to the principles of good will, peace and non-violence," it reads.

The petition goes on to cite government claims that the unrest was "organized, premeditated and meticulously orchestrated by the Dalai clique," and calls on Beijing to invite the United Nations Commission on Human Rights to carry out an independent investigation of these charges.

"In order to prevent similar incidents from happening in the future, the government must abide by the freedom of religious belief and the freedom of speech explicitly enshrined in the Chinese Constitution, thereby allowing the Tibetan people fully to express their grievances and hopes and permitting citizens of all nationalities to freely criticize and make suggestions regarding the government's nationality policies."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/23/asia/china.php?page=1 -


Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2008 at 08:12
Originally posted by tommy

dou your guys kknow there was slavery in old Tibet, those"peace loving"  monks were slave holders in the days of old Tibet

yeah and the Communists over in the PRC have a handle on that issue....



Police 'bust Chinese slave-ring'

Police in China have rescued 33 mentally disabled men who were forced to work as slaves at a building site, Chinese media report.

The men were said to have been discovered in a filthy 30sq m (320sq ft) room in Hulan, a city in the north-eastern province of Heilongjiang.

At least three people were detained, suspected of keeping the slaves.

College students reportedly saw a man jump to his death from a seventh-floor window, and raised the alarm.

Last year, one man was sentenced to death and 28 others were jailed for their roles in a slave labour scandal involving hundreds of people at brick factories in northern China.

Following that scandal, China announced a nationwide crackdown on enslavement and child labour.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7306426.stm -

Mass rescue of 'slaves' in China

More than 200 people, including 29 children, have been rescued after working as "slaves" in brick kilns in central China, state media reports.

Tens of thousands of police moved in on the kilns in Henan province, arresting 120 people, Xinhua news agency said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6752507.stm -


Posted By: The Charioteer
Date Posted: 26-Mar-2008 at 12:36
http://you.video.sina.com.cn/b/11918924-1301497961.html - http://you.video.sina.com.cn/b/11918924-1301497961.html


Posted By: The Charioteer
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2008 at 03:05
"Majority Han Want Their Side
Of the Story to Be Heard"
 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120638214966859837.html - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120638214966859837.html
 
 
 
 


Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2008 at 20:07
The Chinese government has its own agenda and frankly I do not trust them. The Tibet issue might be political but the Tibetans still want self-rule and freedom from the tyrannical hands of the Chinese Communist.
(FREE TIBET!!)

I recommned this book about China:


The threat is real

By Bill Gertz
web posted November 6, 2000

A fundamental lesson of the twentieth century is that democracies cannot coexist indefinitely with powerful and ambitious totalitarian regimes. Sooner or later the competing goals and ideologies bring conflict, whether hot war or cold, until one or the other side prevails. This central lesson must be learned before we can even begin to understand the China threat. Unfortunately, President Clinton and his advisers have proved to be slow learners.

Nazism and Soviet-style communism were the ideologies that guided the past century's dictatorships, and they were discredited only when their brutal regimes were destroyed at fearful cost in human life and material wealth. The great threat of the twenty-first century -- to the United States and the whole world -- is "socialism with Chinese characteristics," as the unrepentantly violent rulers in Beijing beguilingly call the theory and practice that oppress the 1.3 billion wretched inhabitants of the People's Republic of China.

This book is an examination of the recent history of the China threat and how it grew stronger through the misguided policies of the Clinton-Gore administration. While his predecessors in the Oval Office share the blame, the magnitude of the Clinton-Gore administration's missteps, fumbling, and outright appeasement is in a class by itself. The result has been that the United States has actually helped in the creation of a new superpower threat to world peace and stability in the decades to come.

While the China threat is not yet in the same league as that posed by the nuclear-armed Soviet Union during the Cold War, Beijing is a serious danger nonetheless. As a dictatorship with no regard for human life and no input from outside its small circle of Communist Party policymakers, it has repeatedly shown itself to be prone to miscalculations on a staggering scale -- miscalculations that have cost tens of millions of its own people's lives. In light of this record of massive blunders and the continuing insularity of its ruling clique, there exists the very real possibility that China's rulers could make the same kind of catastrophic miscalculation that Japan's dictators did in attacking Pearl Harbor. Serious internal problems -- widespread corruption, social unrest, and economic instability -- might combine with their longstanding ambition to dominate the Pacific region and tempt Beijing into the dictator's historic strategy: military aggression.

Another danger, somewhat ironically, is that China will collapse and fragment, Soviet-style. The country is not unified; it could easily break up into several nation-states. While this could eventually reduce the threat of a Chinese Communist superpower, it would throw into question the central government's control over a small but growing strategic nuclear arsenal.

The great unknowns about the almost opaque Chinese Communist system also hold many dangers. China is a "hard target" for American intelligence agencies, a euphemism meaning ignorance about the inner workings of the last remaining nuclear-armed Communist state. The danger in not knowing or understanding the true nature of Chinese communism, China's government, and its military poses the most serious internal threat to the United States today. Communist governments have never responded favorably to concessions; they pocket them and demand more. They do respond to pressure. But before pressure can be applied, a strategy is needed, and the crucial requirement for a strategy is solid intelligence.

Those who insist, ignorantly or deliberately, that China is not a threat put great faith in the supposedly democratizing effect of increased trade with the West. Unhappily, there is little evidence that the Beijing dictatorship has been undermined by such trade. The growth of prosperous coastal cities has not alleviated the poverty of rural China. The levers of power that keep the Party in control remain unchanged and unreformed. The permanent normal trade status granted to China in 2000 by Clinton and Congress will do little to liberate the Chinese people or lessen Beijing's threat to the West. To the contrary, the Clinton policy of conciliation has only increased the danger.

Perhaps the greatest failure of the Clinton appeasment policy was a moral one: its betrayal of the long-suffering Chinese people. Their true aspirations emerged with tragic results in the Tiananmen Square demonstrations. The protesters looked to the United States as the beacon of freedom and hope. We learned from survivors of the Soviet Empire that it was the United States, by its very existence, that kept their hopes of freedom alive. Thus, while the Beijing regime is a threat to the United States, our nation by its very existence is a threat to Beijing. Any strategy designed to counter the China threat must include persistent exploitation of America's status as a model of democracy and a symbol of hope for the oppressed Chinese people.

The frightful human toll of the Chinese Communist regime is almost beyond imagining, despite attempts by some academics and other apologists to ignore or minimize the slaughter. As long ago as 1971 in a study done for Congress, Professor Richard L. Walker, in "The Human Cost of Communism in China," noted that Beijing was responsible for the deaths of between 34.3 million and 63.8 million people. The figures can no longer be dismissed as those of a Cold War anticommunist. A 1999 estimate by European historian Jean-Louis Margolin confirms Walker's figures. Margolin stated that Chinese communism cost the lives of 44.5 million to 72 million people from repression, famine, executions, and forced labor.

Since the fall of Eastern European communism in 1989 and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, China's rulers have survived by rejecting the central economic tenets of Marx, Lenin, and Mao Zedong. But they have kept Communism's brutal totalitarian structure so aptly captured in Mao's famous nostrum: "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

The central question underlying the China threat is whether the Beijing regime, direct heirs of those who sacrificed so many millions of their countrymen at the altar of a false god, can be reformed by exposure to the civilizing influence of the West. Bill Clinton believed they could. His biggest mistake was to treat the Beijing government as just another foreign government, no different or worse than a noncommunist dictatorship. The problem is that China's patient communist rulers have a strategy that stretches over the next several decades. They rightly regard the United States as their main enemy and the primary obstacle to China's achievement of world status and Pacific domination.


Jiang Zemin and Bill Clinton in 1999
Bill Clinton was elected in 1992 as a critic of George Bush's friendly policies toward China, having lambasted Bush for "coddling" dictators from Baghdad to Beijing. But the new president soon became a key facilitator of China's march to world superpower status. China's human rights record was criticized, but only because polls showed it would gain political points. There was never a serious effort to bring about changes in Beijing's behavior. The idea of pressure -- using leverage to force changes -- was specifically rejected by the administration as counterproductive. The central theme of Clinton's policy was that China is a "normal," nonthreatening power. That is the same theme that has been advanced by China's Communist rulers from its first premier, Chou Enlai, to its current president, Jiang Zemin.

China's always pragmatic rulers know well that decisions made today by U.S. defense planners, under the mistaken notion that China poses no threat in the future, will prevent the United States from preparing for the challenge from China in the crucial decades up to 2030. Weapons systems being designed and researched today must anticipate the threats of tomorrow.

Business groups have played a key role in playing down the China threat. Their argument is that free trade will not only help China evolve peacefully, but will actually undermine the communist system. But the evidence from trade with Beijing over the last two decades shows that China today is less free and more threatening than it was before the United States established formal government-to-government relations in 1979. Free trade has not worked. A prosperous middle class in China is emerging, but there is no sign it will lead the government toward democratic reform.

The China threat is real and growing. The solution is not trade, but democracy. But as China's rulers have made clear, their current program of modernization leaves out democratic reform. Resolving the China threat will require patience and clear-headed strategy. It will require studying the People's Republic of China, understanding its strategy and tactics, and forming alliances with democratic states that share democratic values.

Most important of all, the United States must maintain and build up its military power, following the same strategy adopted by President Ronald Reagan that left the Soviet Union in ruins: Peace through strength.

Bill Gertz is the author of China Threat: How the People's Republic of China Targets America which was released on November 1. This article is an excerpt from that book and was printed here courtesy of the National Book Network.

Buy this book at Amazon.com for $22.36 (20 per cent off)

Other related articles: (open in a new window)

You don't need to know by Charles Bloomer (March 13, 2000)
Panama Canal: China's gateway to Mexico? by Peter Zhang (February 18, 2000)
Shilling for Bill at Stanford by Lewis J. Goldberg (January 3, 2000)
Will Lord Keynes cripple China's military? by Peter Zhang (November 1, 1999)
China and Taiwan -- Two be or not two be by Diane Alden (August 16, 1999)
U.S. Foreign Policy Is Foreign to Reason by Michael R. Allen (December

-------------
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε


Posted By: The Charioteer
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2008 at 02:35
Originally posted by eaglecap

The Chinese government has its own agenda and frankly I do not trust them. The Tibet issue might be political but the Tibetans still want self-rule and freedom from the tyrannical hands of the Chinese Communist.
(FREE TIBET!!)

I recommned this book about China:


The threat is real

By Bill Gertz
web posted November 6, 2000

A fundamental lesson of the twentieth century is that democracies cannot coexist indefinitely with powerful and ambitious totalitarian regimes. Sooner or later the competing goals and ideologies bring conflict, whether hot war or cold, until one or the other side prevails. This central lesson must be learned before we can even begin to understand the China threat. Unfortunately, President Clinton and his advisers have proved to be slow learners.

Nazism and Soviet-style communism were the ideologies that guided the past century's dictatorships, and they were discredited only when their brutal regimes were destroyed at fearful cost in human life and material wealth. The great threat of the twenty-first century -- to the United States and the whole world -- is "socialism with Chinese characteristics," as the unrepentantly violent rulers in Beijing beguilingly call the theory and practice that oppress the 1.3 billion wretched inhabitants of the People's Republic of China.

This book is an examination of the recent history of the China threat and how it grew stronger through the misguided policies of the Clinton-Gore administration. While his predecessors in the Oval Office share the blame, the magnitude of the Clinton-Gore administration's missteps, fumbling, and outright appeasement is in a class by itself. The result has been that the United States has actually helped in the creation of a new superpower threat to world peace and stability in the decades to come.

While the China threat is not yet in the same league as that posed by the nuclear-armed Soviet Union during the Cold War, Beijing is a serious danger nonetheless. As a dictatorship with no regard for human life and no input from outside its small circle of Communist Party policymakers, it has repeatedly shown itself to be prone to miscalculations on a staggering scale -- miscalculations that have cost tens of millions of its own people's lives. In light of this record of massive blunders and the continuing insularity of its ruling clique, there exists the very real possibility that China's rulers could make the same kind of catastrophic miscalculation that Japan's dictators did in attacking Pearl Harbor. Serious internal problems -- widespread corruption, social unrest, and economic instability -- might combine with their longstanding ambition to dominate the Pacific region and tempt Beijing into the dictator's historic strategy: military aggression.

Another danger, somewhat ironically, is that China will collapse and fragment, Soviet-style. The country is not unified; it could easily break up into several nation-states. While this could eventually reduce the threat of a Chinese Communist superpower, it would throw into question the central government's control over a small but growing strategic nuclear arsenal.

The great unknowns about the almost opaque Chinese Communist system also hold many dangers. China is a "hard target" for American intelligence agencies, a euphemism meaning ignorance about the inner workings of the last remaining nuclear-armed Communist state. The danger in not knowing or understanding the true nature of Chinese communism, China's government, and its military poses the most serious internal threat to the United States today. Communist governments have never responded favorably to concessions; they pocket them and demand more. They do respond to pressure. But before pressure can be applied, a strategy is needed, and the crucial requirement for a strategy is solid intelligence.

Those who insist, ignorantly or deliberately, that China is not a threat put great faith in the supposedly democratizing effect of increased trade with the West. Unhappily, there is little evidence that the Beijing dictatorship has been undermined by such trade. The growth of prosperous coastal cities has not alleviated the poverty of rural China. The levers of power that keep the Party in control remain unchanged and unreformed. The permanent normal trade status granted to China in 2000 by Clinton and Congress will do little to liberate the Chinese people or lessen Beijing's threat to the West. To the contrary, the Clinton policy of conciliation has only increased the danger.

Perhaps the greatest failure of the Clinton appeasment policy was a moral one: its betrayal of the long-suffering Chinese people. Their true aspirations emerged with tragic results in the Tiananmen Square demonstrations. The protesters looked to the United States as the beacon of freedom and hope. We learned from survivors of the Soviet Empire that it was the United States, by its very existence, that kept their hopes of freedom alive. Thus, while the Beijing regime is a threat to the United States, our nation by its very existence is a threat to Beijing. Any strategy designed to counter the China threat must include persistent exploitation of America's status as a model of democracy and a symbol of hope for the oppressed Chinese people.

The frightful human toll of the Chinese Communist regime is almost beyond imagining, despite attempts by some academics and other apologists to ignore or minimize the slaughter. As long ago as 1971 in a study done for Congress, Professor Richard L. Walker, in "The Human Cost of Communism in China," noted that Beijing was responsible for the deaths of between 34.3 million and 63.8 million people. The figures can no longer be dismissed as those of a Cold War anticommunist. A 1999 estimate by European historian Jean-Louis Margolin confirms Walker's figures. Margolin stated that Chinese communism cost the lives of 44.5 million to 72 million people from repression, famine, executions, and forced labor.

Since the fall of Eastern European communism in 1989 and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, China's rulers have survived by rejecting the central economic tenets of Marx, Lenin, and Mao Zedong. But they have kept Communism's brutal totalitarian structure so aptly captured in Mao's famous nostrum: "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

The central question underlying the China threat is whether the Beijing regime, direct heirs of those who sacrificed so many millions of their countrymen at the altar of a false god, can be reformed by exposure to the civilizing influence of the West. Bill Clinton believed they could. His biggest mistake was to treat the Beijing government as just another foreign government, no different or worse than a noncommunist dictatorship. The problem is that China's patient communist rulers have a strategy that stretches over the next several decades. They rightly regard the United States as their main enemy and the primary obstacle to China's achievement of world status and Pacific domination.


Jiang Zemin and Bill Clinton in 1999
Bill Clinton was elected in 1992 as a critic of George Bush's friendly policies toward China, having lambasted Bush for "coddling" dictators from Baghdad to Beijing. But the new president soon became a key facilitator of China's march to world superpower status. China's human rights record was criticized, but only because polls showed it would gain political points. There was never a serious effort to bring about changes in Beijing's behavior. The idea of pressure -- using leverage to force changes -- was specifically rejected by the administration as counterproductive. The central theme of Clinton's policy was that China is a "normal," nonthreatening power. That is the same theme that has been advanced by China's Communist rulers from its first premier, Chou Enlai, to its current president, Jiang Zemin.

China's always pragmatic rulers know well that decisions made today by U.S. defense planners, under the mistaken notion that China poses no threat in the future, will prevent the United States from preparing for the challenge from China in the crucial decades up to 2030. Weapons systems being designed and researched today must anticipate the threats of tomorrow.

Business groups have played a key role in playing down the China threat. Their argument is that free trade will not only help China evolve peacefully, but will actually undermine the communist system. But the evidence from trade with Beijing over the last two decades shows that China today is less free and more threatening than it was before the United States established formal government-to-government relations in 1979. Free trade has not worked. A prosperous middle class in China is emerging, but there is no sign it will lead the government toward democratic reform.

The China threat is real and growing. The solution is not trade, but democracy. But as China's rulers have made clear, their current program of modernization leaves out democratic reform. Resolving the China threat will require patience and clear-headed strategy. It will require studying the People's Republic of China, understanding its strategy and tactics, and forming alliances with democratic states that share democratic values.

Most important of all, the United States must maintain and build up its military power, following the same strategy adopted by President Ronald Reagan that left the Soviet Union in ruins: Peace through strength.

Bill Gertz is the author of China Threat: How the People's Republic of China Targets America which was released on November 1. This article is an excerpt from that book and was printed here courtesy of the National Book Network.

Buy this book at Amazon.com for $22.36 (20 per cent off)

Other related articles: (open in a new window)

You don't need to know by Charles Bloomer (March 13, 2000)
Panama Canal: China's gateway to Mexico? by Peter Zhang (February 18, 2000)
Shilling for Bill at Stanford by Lewis J. Goldberg (January 3, 2000)
Will Lord Keynes cripple China's military? by Peter Zhang (November 1, 1999)
China and Taiwan -- Two be or not two be by Diane Alden (August 16, 1999)
U.S. Foreign Policy Is Foreign to Reason by Michael R. Allen (December
 
Its no secret that "free Tibet" is more or less associated with "China threat".
but unlike others, this is honest and straightforward acknowlegement.
 
btw, just as one could get books on "China threat" from Amazon.com, one could also get books on "American imperialism" from it.
 
For instance Noam Chomsky's
 
Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance (The American Empire Project)
 
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0805074007?tag=commondreams-20/ref=nosim/ - http://www.amazon.com/dp/0805074007?tag=commondreams-20/ref=nosim/
 
which Venezuela's president Hugo Chavez cited and recommended at the U.N. General Assembly in 2006.
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/20/AR2006092000893.html - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/20/AR2006092000893.html
 
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0920-22.htm - http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0920-22.htm
 
then there is "The Power of Nightmares"  to be recommended
 
http://www.amazon.com/Power-Nightmares-Adam-Curtis/dp/B000ZI3G30/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1206839777&sr=8-1 - http://www.amazon.com/Power-Nightmares-Adam-Curtis/dp/B000ZI3G30/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1206839777&sr=8-1
 
and those arent "China's agendas".
 


Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2008 at 03:54
Originally posted by eaglecap

The Chinese government has its own agenda and frankly I do not trust them. The Tibet issue might be political but the Tibetans still want self-rule and freedom from the tyrannical hands of the Chinese Communist.
(FREE TIBET!!)

in all honesty Bill gertz is hardly a balanced source, please don't bring him into the Tibet issue.


Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2008 at 04:31
while some have been wining that the 'Han' are not getting a fair showing of their side of the story. i have yet to see this, we all know about the rioting, burning and looting of Han ethnics. What they really mean is that the Han side should never be talked about in context to the Tibetan issue. or that there is no other Tibetan view that is both valid and contrary to their own.

In the PRC the only media attention was on the handful of Han deaths, or western bias but nothing that addresses the Tibetan POV or anything that would come close to criticizing or debating the very policies that have created this problem. Should we be surprised that many Han including the effected colonist are confused and angry with this riot?  if we only believe without question the proscribed story, sponsored by Beijing and its media and external Han nationalist then there should be no dialog or debate. According to them,  everything is good, the Tibetans are happy and now modernized and richer than  ever and of course Tibet is a part of China (always was right?)  end of story. 'Its the Dalia Lama's fault not us'Thumbs%20Down , 'everyone is bias against the Han', boo hoo the real victim


here is an example of how the PRC makes sure a 'balanced' view is made in regards to the ethnic dimension of the riots


In life, the five young women who burned to death in a Chinese clothing store during rioting in Tibet on March 14 were not the types who would make headlines.

One had received permission from her family to follow her fianc to Lhasa; another sent home most of her wages to support 13 relatives; several sent text messages in the minutes before they died, warning loved ones to stay indoors as violence erupted.

In death, though, the women are being treated as martyrs. The Chinese government has been using their deaths to support its version of what happened on "3/14," when Tibet experienced its worst day of violence in 20 years. In that version, broadcast by state-controlled media, ethnic Tibetans took to Lhasa's streets, unprovoked, burning and looting shops that were owned by Han Chinese.

This week, Meng Jianzhu, head of the Ministry of Public Security, used his visit to the burned-out store to drive home the government's message: that the rioting was instigated by supporters of the Dalai Lama, Tibet's exiled spiritual leader, who denies encouraging violence.

"The government will lead people of all ethnicities to smash the Dalai clique's intentional and secret effort to separate the motherland and undermine Tibet's harmony and stability," he said after bowing before the victims' portraits and laying a wreath.

But the women's story, like that of the violence that erupted in Tibet and neighboring regions, is more complex than the government suggests.

Four of the women were Han Chinese. The fifth was an ethnic Tibetan, Cirenzhuoga, 21, who supported her relatives. The government, which has spoken often of innocent Chinese victims, mentioned only in passing that she was Tibetan. Her family is as angry as the others at the protesters.

And the riots that claimed their lives did not happen in a vacuum.

Some Tibetans who have been able to communicate with the outside world say that in the days before March 14, they heard that monks protesting China's hold on Tibet had been arrested, maybe even killed. Many Tibetans also say the crackdown that followed the riots has left more than 140 dead and perhaps as many as 1,000 ethnic Tibetans jailed.

Western journalists have not been able to verify either version of events because reporters have been banned from traveling on their own to the sites of violence.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/28/asia/tibet.php -


Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2008 at 04:48
what freedom of speech would look like In PRC's Tibet. Glad they couldnt control the whole sham of this media tour


Reuters: Monks disrupt China's Media Tour
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AS-4i7P43U&feature=related - www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AS-4i7P43U&feature=related

BBC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBUygCUtPdU&feature=related - www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBUygCUtPdU&feature=related


without the reporter voice you can hear their emotion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBd8eEanaio&feature=related -


Posted By: The Charioteer
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2008 at 05:50
Originally posted by Leonidas

everyone is bias against the Han', boo hoo the real victim
 
sure, and the racist behaviours of Australia's white miners against ethnic Chinese miners during Australia's "gold rush" era was only "few drunkards got high".
 
boo hoo the real "balanced" voice,
 
besides, Han are not the only victim during the riot, there were also Tibetans and Hui,
 
Originally posted by Leonidas

Reuters: Monks disrupt China's Media Tour
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AS-4i7P43U&feature=related - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AS-4i7P43U&feature=related - www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AS-4i7P43U&feature=related
 
http://you.video.sina.com.cn/b/11918924-1301497961.html - http://you.video.sina.com.cn/b/11918924-1301497961.html
 
in this video one can also hear a Tibetan girl who emotionally denounced the violence by Tibetan rioters when they burned the shop where she worked which caused the death of 5 girls including one Tibetan girl who were her friends and colleagues.
 
"I want to say this to those criminals, why would you kill so many innocent people!?"
 
one can also hear Tibetan residents of Lhasa denounce the violence.
 
A 6 years old Han Chinese boy was attacked by Tibetan rioters, they stepped on his chest causing him to suffocate, when the ambulance arrived a Tibetan doctor was attacked by the rioters while he was trying to rescue that boy despite he told them "we are medics".
 
the picture that the action of those monks in front of reuters which would be utilized to illustrate is conflicting with the action of those Tibetans who denounce the violence which would be utilized to illustrate different pictures.


Posted By: The Charioteer
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2008 at 06:53
Originally posted by Leonidas

these are Han colonist with a foreign language and culture and I'm certain they don't bother earn the language of the Tibetan nation. Soon enough the Tibetans will be a minority in their own land, so how does that not make them repressed.
 
reminiscent of the experience of aboriginal people in Australia.
 
except the Aboriginal people are already a minority in their own land.
 
im certain majority Australian citizens and PR dont bother to learn the language of the aboriginal people, since English is the official language.
 
 


Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2008 at 10:10
Originally posted by The Charioteer

Originally posted by Leonidas

everyone is bias against the Han', boo hoo the real victim
 
sure, and the racist behaviours of Australia's white miners against ethnic Chinese miners during Australia's "gold rush" era was only "few drunkards got high".
 
boo hoo the real "balanced" voice,
 
besides, Han are not the only victim during the riot, there were also Tibetans and Hui,

*yawn* so sad to see the same re-hashed lines screaming racism- oh yeah any one heard about some racism in Australia, white australia policy, the gold mines?.. oh so much to write yet nothing to do with Tibet. Guess who's got one massive 'white'  chip on their shoulder...Ermm

.. what other people in my country have done make no difference to what is happening in Tibet. It is so pathetic to use other wrongs as some kind of defence (attack) over new wrongs. Han can be racist too, and guess what? your most probably one of them.

People, as far as Charioteer is concerned no Australian can talk about minority rights because of our past!  it doesn't matter if your against those same wrongs or that your own ancestors were in another land. So convenient, i guess he cant talk about aboriginal rights either .... We can close down the forum because really no one can talk, if you think about it.

Originally posted by The Charioteer

Originally posted by Leonidas

these are Han colonist with a foreign language and culture and I'm certain they don't bother earn the language of the Tibetan nation. Soon enough the Tibetans will be a minority in their own land, so how does that not make them repressed.
 
reminiscent of the experience of aboriginal people in Australia.
 
except the Aboriginal people are already a minority in their own land.
 
im certain majority Australian citizens and PR dont bother to learn the language of the aboriginal people, since English is the official language. 
Clap fantastic and this has what to do about tibet?Clap

Lets start counting posts that Charioteer creates, without providing a thoughtful opinion on the topic (that is without the 'you are' type stuff) or by simply bringing up completely unrelated topics as points of argument. I see 5 and counting

BTW - there is no one 'aboriginal language' there are like 400 of them, thought you would of known that since you seem to be so genuinely interested in their cause. I am glad to see you bothered to learn how to spell aboriginal i guess your putting in some more effort in your pointless posts.


Posted By: The Charioteer
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2008 at 11:20
Originally posted by Leonidas

*yawn* so sad to see the same re-hashed lines screaming racism- oh yeah any one heard about some racism in Australia, white australia policy, the gold mines?.. oh so much to write yet nothing to do with Tibet. Guess who's got one massive 'white'  chip on their shoulder...Ermm

.. what other people in my country have done make no difference to what is happening in Tibet. It is so pathetic to use other wrongs as some kind of defence (attack) over new wrongs. Han can be racist too, and guess what? your most probably one of them.

People, as far as Charioteer is concerned no Australian can talk about minority rights because of our past!  it doesn't matter if your against those same wrongs or that your own ancestors were in another land. So convenient, i guess he cant talk about aboriginal rights either .... We can close down the forum because really no one can talk, if you think about it
 
my point was you are "simplifying" the "Tibet issue" just as you would "simplify" that piece of history.
 
to you i guess its only "few drunkards got high", but some authors would write a whole book on that history. they are more "thoughtful" on it.
 
Originally posted by Leonidas

Lets start counting posts that Charioteer creates, without providing a thoughtful opinion on the topic (that is without the 'you are' type stuff) or by simply bringing up completely unrelated topics as points of argument.
 
whether thoughtful or not is not really judged by you, there are people who support your perspective, there are people who dont.
 
Originally posted by Leonidas

I am glad to see you bothered to learn how to spell aboriginal i guess your putting in some more effort in your pointless posts.
 
"oboriginal", instead of the letter A which would symbolize importance they are more like 0 in the eyes of the designers of "stolen generation", a wrong approach which characterize the past policies towards them until Kevin Rudd's formal apology, i was hoping you would point that spelling error out in that thread so i can point this thought out, but instead you are retarded enough to bring this here in this thread to make attack on me.
 
Originally posted by Leonidas

Han can be racist too, and guess what? your most probably one of them.
 
nice come back, i guess you would substantiate that im such?
 
speaking of "thoughtful posts" and related to the "Tibet issue"
 
i would like to recommend another book from Amazon.com
 
The CIA's Secret War in Tibet
 
http://www.amazon.com/CIAs-Secret-War-Tibet/dp/0700611592 - http://www.amazon.com/CIAs-Secret-War-Tibet/dp/0700611592
 
"Defiance against Chinese oppression has been a defining characteristic of Tibetan life for more than four decades, symbolized most visibly by the much revered Dalai Lama. But the story of Tibetan resistance weaves a far richer tapestry than anyone might have imagined.

Kenneth Conboy and James Morrison reveal how America's Central Intelligence Agency encouraged Tibet's revolt against China--and eventually came to control its fledgling resistance movement. They provide the first comprehensive, as well as most compelling account of this little known agency enterprise.

The CIA's Secret War in Tibet takes readers from training camps in the Colorado Rockies to the scene of clandestine operations in the Himalayas, chronicling the agency's help in securing the Dalai Lama's safe passage to India and subsequent initiation of one of the most remote covert campaigns of the Cold War. Conboy and Morrison provide previously unreported details about secret missions undertaken in extraordinarily harsh conditions. Their book greatly expands on previous memoirs by CIA officials by putting virtually every major agency participant on record with details of clandestine operations. It also calls as witnesses the people who managed and fought in the program--including Tibetan and Nepalese agents, Indian intelligence officers, and even mission aircrews.

Conboy and Morrison take pains to tell the story from all perspectives, particularly that of the former Tibetan guerrillas, many of whom have gone on record here for the first time. The authors also tell how Tibet led America and India to become secret partners over the course of several presidential administrations and cite dozens of Indian and Tibetan intelligence documents directly related to these covert operations.

As the movement for Tibetan liberation continues to attract international support, Tibet's status remains a contentious issue in both Washington and Beijing. This book takes readers inside a covert war fought with Tibetan blood and U.S. sponsorship and allows us to better understand the true nature of that controversy. "

trust me Leonidas, the book offers more "thoughtful" sentences and "facts" than you, and its all just about the Tibet "controversy".
 
one might need to incorporate such dimension into the "Tibet issue" in ones "thoughtful" posts,
because what you are doing is simply "Defiance against Chinese oppression"
 
But "the story of Tibetan resistance weaves a far richer tapestry than anyone might have imagined"
 
until then, I have nothing "thoughtful" to contribute for now.
 
P.S. "Han can be racist too, and guess what? your most probably one of them"
 
Its alright if one would consider such infamous racist incident in Australia's history as "few drunkards got high" hence downplay its racist nature, but instead attacking and accusing the person who point out its racist nature as "racist" without any substance is something only retarded redneck would do.


Posted By: The Charioteer
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2008 at 16:12
Originally posted by Leonidas

in all honesty Bill gertz is hardly a balanced source, please don't bring him into the Tibet issue.
 
The American involvement in the "Tibet issue" or "Tibet controversy" is irrefutable, such post only tend to reveal that fact.
 
Tibet, the 'great game' and the CIA
By Richard M Bennett

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/JC26Ad02.html - http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/JC26Ad02.html
 
P.S.two other articles on "Tibet issue"
 
India wakes to a Tibetan headache
By M K Bhadrakumar
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JC18Df01.html - http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JC18Df01.html
 
Tibet, China and the West: Back to stereotypes
By Kent Ewing
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/JC28Ad01.html - http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/JC28Ad01.html

 




Posted By: The Charioteer
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2008 at 18:18
Foreigners in Tibet: Western media reports not conform with facts
 
http://english.china.com/zh_cn/news/china/11020307/20080325/14746546.html - http://english.china.com/zh_cn/news/china/11020307/20080325/14746546.html
 
 
Tony Gleason said, "No, violence is not ok, I think it's terrible."
 
http://english.sina.com/1/2008/0324/151734.html - http://english.sina.com/1/2008/0324/151734.html
 
Originally posted by The Charioteer

http://you.video.sina.com.cn/b/11918924-1301497961.html - http://you.video.sina.com.cn/b/11918924-1301497961.html
 
English version:
 
http://english.sina.com/china/1/2008/0321/151336.html - http://english.sina.com/china/1/2008/0321/151336.html



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com