China-Tibet a western 'point of view'.


china
Conservative
#1
China used some of its strongest language yet in reference to the Dalai Lama, calling him a "wolf in monk's robes" Wednesday and saying a "life-and-death battle" is underway with his followers.





A Tibetan monk shouts pro-freedom slogans as Tibetans hold a peace march against China's crackdown, in Katmandu, Nepal on Wednesday, March 19, 2008. (AP / Saurabh Das)
China is facing the biggest threat to its rule of Tibet in two decades.
Official media in China was reporting Wednesday that more than 100 people had surrendered to police in and around Lhasa, the Tibetan capital. China maintains that 16 people have died in the protests. However, Tibet's government in exile, based in India, said that the number of people is closer to 80.
China has accused the Dalai Lama of orchestrating the protests which began as peaceful demonstrations ahead of this summer's Beijing Olympics.
They turned violent on Friday, with Chinese forces cracking down on protesters and the international community beginning to focus its attention on the nation's human rights record.
On Tuesday, Tibetan rioters spilled into the neighbouring Chinese province of Gansu Tuesday and tried to storm a government office, despite efforts by the military to quell protests against Chinese rule.
Roughly 100 armed troops holed up inside the building repelled the protesters with tear gas, as CTV cameras filmed the confrontation.
Tibetans protesters streamed into the area after hearing Chinese troops were cracking down on a monastery.
"They were having none of it," said CTV's Beijing Bureau Chief Steve Chao, who was one of the only Western journalists in the area.
"We saw them chanting the battle cry of the Tibetans, they tore down Chinese flags and put up the Tibetan flag and were very much calling for independence and the end to the oppression they say the Chinese government has put on their people."
One protester, bleeding profusely from the head, said he had been beaten by the soldiers.
On the same day, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner was considering a proposal by the head of the European Parliament and media watchdog Reporters Without Borders, who have suggested boycotting the opening ceremonies of the 2008 Beijing Olympics.
Kouchner said the idea should be discussed later this month when EU foreign ministers meet.
However, he insisted that France has no plans to skip the Games and he added that a full boycott would not be "just."
Meanwhile, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao said Tuesday that recent violent demonstrations by Tibetans were well-planned.
"There is ample fact -- and we also have plenty of evidence -- proving that this incident was organized, premeditated, masterminded and incited by the Dalai clique," Wen said.
"This has all the more revealed that the consistent claims made by the Dalai clique that they pursue not independence but peaceful dialogue are nothing but lies."
Wen made the comments to reporters at his annual news conference at the end of China's national legislative session.
The Dalai Lama has maintained that he is not behind the violence, said Chao, reporting from the China-Tibet border.
"For the most part the Dalai Lama has urged both sides to show restraint," said Chao.
"He has always advocated peace rather than violence. So, in this case, he says if it is proven at all that he is involved he will step down."
On Tuesday, the Dalai Lama warned that he would leave his post as leader of Tibet's government-in-exile if Tibetan protesters in China continued to act out violently.
Tibetans began protesting early last week, timed for the anniversary of a 1959 uprising against the Chinese government. China took control of a then-independent Tibet in 1950.
 
MikeyDB
#2
I wonder how much "support" Tibet can expect from the same America that recognized Kosovo...or was willing to go to war to "free" the people of Iraq....or supplied arms and intel to the Sandanistas....or practiced regime change in Chile....or who looted Haiti....etc. etc. etc.

Maybe with a nation that's a large and as capable of an aggressive response as China we won't hear anything....
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
#3
Has Tibet ever been a soverign nation? I have always understood Tibet to be an indigenous people - just like the Khmer, the Meo, Australian Aboriginals or the 'Indians' of the Americas.

Woof!
 
jimmoyer
#4
Actually, it's no accident you're seeing Tibet in the news these days, and that you'll see more of Tibet.

China just built a railroad from its industrial center to Tibet.

This is the equivalent of the continental railroad in Canada and US replacing the Pony Express.

Huge development.

Bad for Tibet's old ways.
 
MikeyDB
#5
Jimmoyer

If we believe that "western democracy" is taking root in Communist China and the precepts and "values" of this idea mean that people (Tibetans) will pay the price of standing in the way of "progress"...doesn't this also mean that the rubric of un-relenting consumption and greed are also demonstrating "success" in this situation? Why is it that we can stand off at a distance in some cases and "allow" despots and oppressive regimes to flourish...while in other instances "regime-change" and the "overthrow" of Saddam Hussein and all the "bad people" (with whom we disagree..) is cause for invaision and war?

Doesn't it really boil down to who weilds the bigger stick?
 
Hazmart
No Party Affiliation
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

Has Tibet ever been a soverign nation? I have always understood Tibet to be an indigenous people - just like the Khmer, the Meo, Australian Aboriginals or the 'Indians' of the Americas.

Woof!

I thought that Tibet and China have had a simular historic realtions to that of Mongolia and China. So why is Mongolia its own country and Tibet is not. I also thought that Tibet was it's own country up until the chinese occupied it in 1950.
I may be wrong but that is what I have always understood.
 
jimmoyer
#7
If we believe that "western democracy" is taking root in Communist China and the precepts and "values" of this idea mean that people (Tibetans) will pay the price of standing in the way of "progress"...doesn't this also mean that the rubric of un-relenting consumption and greed are also demonstrating "success" in this situation? Why is it that we can stand off at a distance in some cases and "allow" despots and oppressive regimes to flourish...while in other instances "regime-change" and the "overthrow" of Saddam Hussein and all the "bad people" (with whom we disagree..) is cause for invaision and war?

Doesn't it really boil down to who weilds the bigger stick?
--------------------------------------MikeyDB-----------------------------------------------------------

Answer: Selfish National Interest ---- as defined by the power elite.

Why we go into the Balkans and not Dafur ? Because it's the backyard of Europe and therefore more strategic than the Sudan.

Why was the US friends with Saddam before ? Because he was the enemy of our enemy ---Iran.

Why did the US attack Vietnam ? Because the elite thought of the cold war as monolithic and not nationalistic.

But let's talk of a more adult reason why "Consistency of Good Works" is virtually impossible.

We often hear the plaintive cry, If you're working on Aids in Africa, why can't you put more of that money home ? Or if you're against one tyrant, why are you not fighting the other tyrants ?

Practicality, simply is the answer.

You have finite resources of blood and treasure and time to attack every disease, every tyrant all at once. And thus you are drawn into prioritizing.

Prioritizing begs argument.
 
talloola
No Party Affiliation
#8
The chinese should have left Tibet alone, they are bullies.
I don't see the c hinese trying to stop the americans from doing any of
the things they do, all of the bullies in the world will give each other room,
and they won't step into each others space. Just like the bullies in the school yard.
 
no new posts