Author: mollyshan

Tibet Facts and Figures! [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Gold Medal

Post time 2009-3-31 20:58:10 |Display all floors
Originally posted by emucentral at 2009-3-31 20:27


So those evil Brits helped the Chinese garrison and diplomats to safely return to China from Tbt, eh ?



Is this important? I don't think it is. What 'iculie' tries over here is to justify India's claim to 0ccupy  T. or T n. independence. Both is nonsense and he knows it.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Medal Medal of honor Gold Medal July's Best Writer 2012 October's Best Writer 2012

Post time 2009-4-1 17:03:04 |Display all floors

Emu

Quiet in here mate.


The article from Bhutani is very interesting and it should be noted that even he declares that “The issue is not a black and white matter”.
It is also interesting that Chinese people believe one side and Westerners the other side.

Whilst the article is very good reading one might declare that we should roll back the clock and give Kurdustan back to the Kurds.  One might declare that the French Government was evacuated by from France by the British in 1940 and this has implications and ramifications.

What would be the point?

The real situation is that the argument has already ended and therefore we must deal with the matter as is stands, rather than might have been.  It is true the purists might want to argue the politics of Tbet pre-1950 for purely aesthetic reasons, but it does not and will not change anything.

The fact that China went to Tbet in 1950 and claimed it as part of its territory is also fact.  Remember we must deal with the facts.  There was no world political outcry to stop this. In fact no one at that time seemed to be interested in Tbet and they probably didn’t even know where it was.  Or they probably believed that Tbet was a Chinese territory. Certainly Younghusband knew their were links between the two and asked the Chinese to sign the Tbet Treaty in 1906.

According to available sources after 1950 the main part of Tbet was left pretty much alone by China, however the area of Qinghai which was considered more Chinese started undergoing land reforms which meant taking the land back from landowners and monasteries. This in effect was stated as the route cause of the problem and suddenly revolt was in the air.  The U.S clandestinely took interest in this area (CIA) and started training local people in camps in the U.S and supplying weapons. In 1956 this trouble erupted and lasted until 1959. This makes the question. What was the U.S doing in Tbet and why?  The training and arms they supplied were instrumental in the death toll and people who talk about loss of life in this period should ask the U.S whether they feel accountable for this.

This led to the present situation where the DL fled to India and is now still there.

The main countries of the world and the U.N recognize Tbet as part of China, and China is firmly in control of Tbet.  Arguments about who owns what, are all finished and it doesn’t matter what is argued about the relationship between China and Tbet from here to the beginning of the world.

As we discuss this issue in 2009 and deal with clear facts. Tbet is definitively part of China.

One of the real issues now is whether the Western countries who have made this such a cause célèbre will continue this pattern now that they are all bankrupt.    :)

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2009-4-2 16:56:20 |Display all floors
Originally posted by expatter at 2009-4-1 19:03
The U.S clandestinely took interest in this area (CIA) and started training local people in camps in the U.S and supplying weapons. In 1956 this trouble erupted and lasted until 1959. This makes the question. What was the U.S doing in Tbet and why?  The training and arms they supplied were instrumental in the death toll and people who talk about loss of life in this period should ask the U.S whether they feel accountable for this.


Hi Expatter.
I am not excusing US foreign policy. They've had a long list of disasters in this sort of area, from South America, Afghanistan and so on.
I think (and hope) that they have learned the lesson that this funding of certain insurgencies can backfire bigtime.
It has, spectacularly, when the only opposition to the "communist enemy" was an equally oppressive facist government as we saw in parts of South America and so on.

In the case of Tbt, as with other places, there was obviously a significant number of people who were against the occupying powers. This is still the case today, and the exiled former leader (the DL) is not seen as anywhere close to the characteristics of rulers like Pinochet, the Taliban's Mullah Omar, Batista (Cuba) et al.
The only place that continues to damn the DL and continues to lie and twist his words, is China.
China, a country of 1.3 billion people is scared of one little old man ???
"他不是救星, 他是一个非常淘气男孩" - Monty Python

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Medal Medal of honor Gold Medal July's Best Writer 2012 October's Best Writer 2012

Post time 2009-4-2 22:06:05 |Display all floors

Emu

G'day Mate,

I would agree that you cannot compare the DL to the list you provided and that both sides prevaricate.

I think the issue is wider than a little old man.  I am not sure if you will agree with me but the West's stance towards China in the past has been in some instances openly bigoted in many of the ways in which it deals with China.  This has become less over time but the fact that the US has been part of the finance structure for trouble in China and continues to push this cause some 50 years later is a cause for concern.

China has made errors in its past but if you look at where it is today.  It is nothing short of a marvel.  O.K there are many people who say that it is not perfect and that is where I say but it will get there. Time is the answer.

China, 1.4 billion people feeding themselves and having unprecedented freedom in comparison to the previous 5,000 years is a great achievement.  The most frightening thing would be to see China go back to conflict, war and starvation.

The DL may well a good person and you have to remember he will also have influence from others around him and they may have their own ideas and itinerary.

The main problem I see is that he is looking for too much, which I don't think he will get anyway.  He is not seeking to be just a religious mentor but also wants a political structure and power.  My feeling is that if he were to gain a position in Tbet and then trouble erupted, that the Western world would be all over the problem calling for action. The U.S has the power to control the skies and then you have conflict that was unnecessary.

Once the media got on it it would be another Kosovo (invented rape camps) or another Iraq (invented brutality and weapons) I therefore see it as too dangerous.  I despair when I see the problems of world hunger and war and anything which keeps conflict at bay is a good thing.

If the DL asked the Chinese Government if he could hold council for Tbet religious meetings, I am sure he would get this, but politics are too dangerous in China. When he became involved in armed action in the late 50's, I believe that he lost his vote and credibility at that time.

More religion from this little old man and no politics.  

Cheers

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Medal Medal of honor Gold Medal July's Best Writer 2012 October's Best Writer 2012

Post time 2009-4-3 11:54:35 |Display all floors

Seneca

The territory of Tbet from an historical direction is a moot point and could be argued until the cows come home with academics from all sides.

In 2009 it is a settled case with a solid answer. Tbet is part of China.  Full stop.

As regards who did what to who, that is again history.

The question remains: who is the DL?

A land owner and politician or a theologian?

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2009-4-3 20:46:58 |Display all floors
Originally posted by expatter at 2009-4-3 00:06
I think the issue is wider than a little old man.  I am not sure if you will agree with me but the West's stance towards China in the past has been in some instances openly bigoted in many of the ways in which it deals with China.  ...

Actually I agree that in the past the west's attitude to China has been somewhat bigoted, however you have to remember that China's attitude to the outside world was just as, if not more bigoted at times.
When the Europeans first sent trade delegations to China the envoys were treated as barbarians, told to kowtow and informed that the "centre of the world" had no need of barbarian goods. That went down rather well and the Brits and others then decided that they would assist in accomodating China's demand for Opium.

The west has changed. People who are of Chinese ancestry are not treated any different to anyone else. The simple fact that millions of Chinese live perfectly ordinary and decent lives in western countries and are able to take full part in those societies is proof of that and of the "ordinariness" of Chinese migrants ("Ordinary" in that they have the same hopes, dreams and aspirations as people from other cultures).

Originally posted by expatter at 2009-4-3 00:06
China has made errors in its past but if you look at where it is today.  It is nothing short of a marvel.  O.K there are many people who say that it is not perfect and that is where I say but it will get there. Time is the answer.

China had been dragged kicking and screaming into the 20th century.
If it were not for the people of Hong Kong and Twn, flourishing under far more open and free environments, using the mainland's low cost manufacturing, what else would have prised open China ?

Originally posted by expatter at 2009-4-3 00:06
If the DL asked the Chinese Government if he could hold council for Tbet religious meetings, I am sure he would get this, but politics are too dangerous in China. When he became involved in armed action in the late 50's, I believe that he lost his vote and credibility at that time.
Originally posted by expatter at 2009-4-3 13:54
As regards who did what to who, that is again history.

So they are still judging him by what he thought and did 50 years ago, what if the rest of the world behaved as if China was still carrying on like it did 50 years ago ?

Originally posted by expatter at 2009-4-3 13:54
The question remains: who is the DL?
A land owner and politician or a theologian? ...

So if the DL's not allowed to be a politician and a theologian, then how do they justify Beijing's politicians appointing a Pan-chen, not to mention having approval over Catholic Bishops ?


Cheers
JB
"他不是救星, 他是一个非常淘气男孩" - Monty Python

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Medal Medal of honor Gold Medal July's Best Writer 2012 October's Best Writer 2012

Post time 2009-4-3 22:22:36 |Display all floors

Emu

G'day Mate,

China first had to have the will to open up.  The Korean war 1950 against the UN and mainly the US. The Tbet conflict and India war of 1962 with the US hand in the manipulations.  The Vietnam war and finally the US had got itself in so far and deep with politics with China, Russia it needed a friend and that friend was China with the ping-pong diplomacy of 1972.  Mao died in 1976 and by 1982 there was an opening up.  It mostly stayed closed until 1972 because it was being under-mined on all sides.

I do not think the DL is being judged by just what he was involved in 50 years ago, although it will be be in the memory of some.

I think he is being judged by what he is still asking for after what he was involved in some 50 years on. It could well be that it his comrades who are making the demands and the DL is stuck in the middle. He is also seeking the whole of Tbet regions and not just the immediate provinces of inner Tbet.

You will know that theological deities do not and cannot rule in China as the state requires political ideology above religion. It is illegal to preach to people under 18 years old as this is considered as not allowing the individual to make their own choice and tuning them to a specific doctrine.

Is this a new thing in not having a deity in China?  No, it goes back to the practice of Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism.  All three have no deity and were therefore not a threat to an Emperor.  In modern China the same idea applies in relation to politics and religion is not allowed to dictate to politics rather it must be the other way around.  Hence China appoints Catholic Bishops rather than the Pope and also China will choose its own Panchen. As with Henry VIII of England, he was not prepared to have the Pope dictate how to be a king and so it is with Catholicism in this part of the world. China has to agree the appointment and this cannot be dictated by someone from another country.

Religions with a deity have always been regarded with suspicion in China because they influence people spiritually and can also use the deity to activate a cause other than spiritual. So you might say that these appointments are politically tame spiritual leaders dealing with theological matters and not acting as a political influence.  Will this dilute the message of the deity, I doubt it.

Religious freedoms are guaranteed in China except the loony ones like the Fal Gong. That is the freedom to practice their faith, but it does not give people the right to mix what their deity says which is espoused from the mouth of a cleric to become political activists.

When the religion is stronger than the politics there could be a problem. Christianity in the dark ages and modern Moslem's share this anomaly and have shown that the power of the God through man can destroy any form of public order or peace. You only have to look at places such as India and Pakistan to see how divisive religion can be.

The last surge of Christianity in China ended in chaos in the form of the Taiping rebellion 1849-1860 with some 20 million dead.

China does not want a religiously factionalized society but wants to allow people to practice their faith in the spirit of the beliefs of that faith. This does not allow the proselytizing to be of a nature which could disrupt and harm the public order.

The form of Buddhism practiced by the DL is particularly problematical in that the people regard him as a living God and therefore possibly having more influence than an aesthetic deity.  You will know that all his family are reincarnate Buddha's along with the people of his government.  I find that convenient but that is another matter.

So that leads to the question.  As the head of a government in exile, does that make the DL a politician, a theologian or both?

Well obviously he is both and that is where the potential for trouble occurs.

Cheers

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

BACK TO THE TOP
Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email: blog@chinadaily.com.cn
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.