The Los Angeles Times has an interesting article on the subject.
China's view of Tibet
Western leaders' grandstanding ignores both history and the situation on the ground.
News reports of protests targeting the Beijing Olympics torch relay -- first in France, then the U.S. and now Australia -- are surely happily consumed by Westerners who assume supporting a free Tibet is a just cause. What could be more moral than helping a weak people gain independence from an oppressive Chinese government?
The West paints the tale of Tibet in black and white: The politicians and activists in Europe and America are only trying to protect the human rights of the innocent Tibetans, who were invaded not so long ago by the communist Chinese. So when, for instance, European leaders -- so far, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek -- decide to skip the Olympics' opening ceremonies, they appear to be simply responding to a deep moral urge. Solidarity with the oppressed has been a hallmark of the West, although no Western country actually challenges China's sovereignty over Tibet.
Try stepping into the Chinese minds to understand how different the same events look. Chinese history records dominion over Tibet as far back as the 13th century. China's control has ebbed and flowed -- but this is equally true in many other parts of China. Central control by the capital has never been consistent, shifting with the strength of the central government. But this much is certain: China has been in control of most of its territories longer than some Western nations have existed.
More important, the Chinese recall that the latest efforts to separate Tibet from China came as recently as the 1940s and 1950s, when British and U.S. agents were seen to be encouraging Tibetan independence while the new People's Republic was still weak. The Chinese also have powerful memories of Britain's central role in the notorious opium trade of the 18th and 19th centuries, when European trading companies sold the drug to smugglers, then used the ill-gotten gold to buy silk, tea and porcelain.
The related Opium Wars, during which Hong Kong was seized by Britain, are a distant memory in Western minds but remain in the forefront of the Chinese psyche. When the West is seen to be trying to detach Chinese territory again, it rubs salt into this still-fresh wound. Virtually no Chinese believe that Western governments have a strictly moral interest in Tibet. They are convinced that their efforts are only the latest efforts to dismember or derail China.
.........
The lions of human rights, particularly in European capitals, behave like poodles in Beijing. Virtually all of them spend their time trying to sell products to China. Then, in passing, they will whisper that they have to mention human rights issues because when they return home they have to say that these issues were raised. That sends an unmistakable message: This is a Western ritual; please do not pay too much attention to it. Given this record, it is not surprising that Chinese leaders have little respect for European leaders when they make grand gestures on human rights in front of their domestic audiences.
.........
Kishore Mahbubani, dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore, wrote "The New Asian Hemisphere: The Irresistible Shift of Global Power to the East."
Full article here:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,2235462.story
----------------------------------
I think we should listen more to Hegel and baeirr, who actually live in China and can tell us their side, how they see this conflict.
It is true, the West is mostly harping on the human rights violations, yet, how is the West's record on that?
And then just the mention of China being a Communist state is enough to make us shudder!
"The Irresistible Shift of Global Power to the East." I can see it coming! I only hope the new power will be gentler than the present western one.
