quadraphonics said:
But you ARE sure that Tibet becoming a theocracy will immediately transform it into a humanitarian disaster? And, again, since nobody here is advocating a return to theocracy (and even the former theocrats aren't aiming to reimpose the old system as it was), I still don't see the relevance of this line of argument either.
No, I can't imagine anyone would want to see or advocating a return to any form of totalitarianism, pre-Mao theocratic slavery... it is just too politically incorrect to say these stuffs in the modern era! anwyay, no one can be SURE of what would happen... if we are so sure about things in life, making decisions would be much much easier.
However, it would be naive to believe that a destabilised region (as the result of CCP pulling out), can in a few years be stabilized, become economically viable and above all gives a good life to the masses. Suggesting this is not being paternalistic, this is what any strategist would predict.. regardless of the race of the ppl. Well, perhaps, that's why they don't want
true independence (too much to lose for not enough gain) but prefer instead an autonomous region. Officially, Tibet
is an autonomous region in the People's Republic of China presently. What ppl is not happy with is not this fact, but that they want
more. Unfortunately, this is when it interferes with Chinese national security (in the CCP opinion). You mentioned that
The idea is that China would still run foreign relations and national security, while Tibet would be left free to govern its own internal affairs.
to many this is exactly what is the current status of Tibet, however, it is when it comes to national security, ppl feel that they have lost some rights.
Frankly, I feel very strongly that my govt. can monitor all my internet, phone usage, raid my place etc, without a court warrant, arrest and detain me without charge for up to 36 hours and in some cases 72 hours, stop me from catching a plane if I wear a T-Shirt says "Bush is the real terrorist",
all in the name of national security and War on Terror. And don't forget the infamous
US Patriot Act. If one doesn't feel one's "freedom" is under threat in this situation, I don't know what is.
Ok what this got to do with religious and cultural freedom in Tibet? Let me say this, although I do not agree with those actions of the CCP, just as I don't agree with how my govt. can do all that stuffs, it is clear that religion and politics are inseparable. Religion has the power to rally ppl to topple govt. , and too much freedom there can always be seen as a threat to national security especially under foreign influences. Given the huge influence of the religious entity in Tibet on politics and eveything else, it is not surprise that China needs it to be under "his control". In your words, it is probably called "suppression". But how to draw the line?
You mention also about "self-determination". No one is telling the Tibetans that you can't sell your tomatoes at 99c per kilo or you must not own a car or something... again, it only becomes an issue when it is in conflict with any anti-sedition policies. So if you want to own guns, you may not; if you rally a group of ppl to beat other groups up, you may not; if you plan a "terrorist attack", you may not. When would self-determination not interfere with national security and or laws of central govt? Where to draw the line? Why is his defintion of the line is any better or worse than hers?
But if one believes that Tibet should
not be part of China anyway (as the "free Tibet" movement seems to advocate, and the western media seems to imply), then this line
can be drawn. But as I said before this is debatable. There is only one way to gain a better perspective on this debate: study the full Chinese/Tibetan history. It won't give you the answer, but it will make you understand why there is even a debate.
The issue of Tibet is far from black and white: the CCP is evil so we need to save Tibet from the harshship. Or the west knows best what is right and wrong and so we knows what's best for the Tibetans. At the end of day, can the "free Tibet" movement really make lives better for the ordinary ppl? Should we encourage them to start a revolution when we may not be willing to give them substantial financial support afterwards and for a long term? It is a bit like if a friend of yours is having a dispute with his parents, you encourage him to stand firm and move out of the family house, but would you go as far as supporting him (financially etc.) for the long term after he breaks away?
I thought it was an international pharmaceutical competition for who can make the best drugs?
