Olympic torch relay disruptions

[fourier jr]

Can anyone explain why what China is doing (or has done recently) in Tibet in the lead-up to the Olympics is any worse than what the US did in Grenada & Lebanon in the lead-up to the 1984 Olympics in LA? (not that I'm a great admirer of China's human-rights record) As far as I know, the "justification" for the invasion of Grenada & overthrow of its government, with less political justification than what China's doing in Tibet, was the existence of an airstrip (which was in fact built by British & Canadians). Apparently the existence of that airstrip was "indisputable proof" of "communist subversion." If that's true it must have been a world-record-sized lie that stood until the lead-up to the Iraq invasion in 2003. With that in mind, I think I'm leaning to China's point of view (the torch-relay disruptions are disgusting or something) especially because China doesn't say they're "their" Olympics; they say the Olympics belong to the world.

 

[drankin]

It's pretty much stupid. If they want to boycott China, quit buying stuff made in China. Leave the Olympics out of it.

 

[russ_watters]

Can anyone explain why what China is doing (or has done recently) in Tibet in the lead-up to the Olympics is any worse than what the US did in Grenada & Lebanon in the lead-up to the 1984 Olympics in LA?

Were those things wide public knowledge at the time?

In any case, the obvious difference is that Grenada and Lebanon are/were not US territories and the US wasn't there to annex them nor to oppress the populaces. They really aren't anything alike.

 

[Poop-Loops]

Solution? Get people who run faster.

Srsly.

http://lioninoil.blogspot.com/2008/04/ari-fleischer-solves-olympic-torch.html

It's pretty much stupid. If they want to boycott China, quit buying stuff made in China. Leave the Olympics out of it.

 

[vanesch]

The point was, that China got the Olympic games against the promise of making advances on the human rights question. Somehow one can feel a bit screwed.

From 2001:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/jul/15/olympicgames2008.sport

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I've pretty much been boycotting the Olympics ever since they introduced sports into it.

 

[Art]

What exactly has China done in Tibet that warrants protest?

The Tibetans indulged in ethnic cleansing burning Han Chinese to death in their homes and businesses and the Chinese military intervened to stop them. Given the level of violence by the rioters it seems the Chinese gov'ts response was fairly muted no doubt because of the Olympics. I wonder if the neo-Nazi National Front Party in the UK attacked Pakistanis and beat or burned them to death would they also have widespread global support with protesters complaining when the UK gov't stopped them?

 

[Art]

I've pretty much been boycotting the Olympics ever since they introduced sports into it.

Sport? I thought it was an international pharmaceutical competition for who can make the best drugs?

 

[mjsd]

What exactly has China done in Tibet that warrants protest?

China needs not to do anything, the exile Tibetans have been protesting ever since Mao "reclaimed" Tibet about 60 years ago. But many don't realize that the history between Tibet and China goes back much further than just 60 years ago (ie. the rise of coummunism in China).

 

[mjsd]

Can anyone explain why what China is doing (or has done recently) in Tibet in the lead-up to the Olympics is any worse than what the US did in Grenada & Lebanon in the lead-up to the 1984 Olympics in LA? (not that I'm a great admirer of China's human-rights record) As far as I know, the "justification" for the invasion of Grenada & overthrow of its government, with less political justification than what China's doing in Tibet, was the existence of an airstrip (which was in fact built by British & Canadians). Apparently the existence of that airstrip was "indisputable proof" of "communist subversion." If that's true it must have been a world-record-sized lie that stood until the lead-up to the Iraq invasion in 2003. With that in mind, I think I'm leaning to China's point of view (the torch-relay disruptions are disgusting or something) especially because China doesn't say they're "their" Olympics; they say the Olympics belong to the world.

These must be rhetorical questions. Anyway, as we all know no one is perfect in this world, we make mistakes, they make mistakes (sometimes delibrately for other gains), what is amazing is how the (special interest controlled) media can turn one's small mistakes into big mistakes or diminish big mistakes into smaller ones...

 

[NeoDevin]

I've pretty much been boycotting the Olympics ever since they introduced sports into it.

Sports? You mean there are olympics other than the math olympics?

 

[vanesch]

The Tibetans indulged in ethnic cleansing burning Han Chinese to death in their homes and businesses and the Chinese military intervened to stop them. Given the level of violence by the rioters it seems the Chinese gov'ts response was fairly muted no doubt because of the Olympics. I wonder if the neo-Nazi National Front Party in the UK attacked Pakistanis and beat or burned them to death would they also have widespread global support with protesters complaining when the UK gov't stopped them?

Point is, the Han Chinese are considered as "colonists" by the Tibetans, a bit like the Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory are. Moreover, they are usually better at business and so on than the Tibetans. Point is, the Tibetan people never accepted Chinese governance. So, this could also be seen as Algerians attacking French colonists in Algeria in the 60-ies, or any other attack by indigenous populations against economically more powerful colonizers.

 

[BobG]

The Olympic Torch Relay is really turning into an embarrassment for China with a good possibility of more to come. Who ever came up with the bright idea of taking the Olympic Torch up to the top of Mt Everest? What if a storm comes up and they don't make it? (the companies that guide expeditions up Mt Everest are really pissed off since the peak is closed right in the middle of the best conditions for scaling Mt Everest). I think China is beginning to regret that Hitler ever came up with the idea of an Olympic Torch relay.

The touch I like is Democrats Pelosi and Clinton calling for Bush to boycott the Opening Ceremonies. I have to admit that there's ample precedent.

US Presidents boycotted every Opening Ceremony from 1896 to 1980, including Teddy Roosevelt's boycott of the 1904 Games in St Louis and Herbert Hoover's boycott of the 1932 Opening Ceremony in Los Angeles. President Reagan was the first President to break the boycott tradition by attending the Opening Ceremony in Los Angeles in 1984. Of course, he resumed the tradition by boycotting the 1988 Opening Ceremony, as did Bush the 1992 Opening Ceremony. Clinton broke tradition by attending the 1996 Opening Ceremony in Atlanta, but he boycotted the 2000 Opening Ceremony in Australia, as did Bush 43 the 2004 Opening Ceremony.

I noticed boycott supporters in Great Britain were successful in persuading Gordon Brown to boycott the Opening Ceremony. His excuse that he never planned to attend the Opening Ceremony sounds pretty lame in spite of the fact that past Prime Ministers haven't even attended the Opening Ceremony when the games were in London in '48 and '08 (those duties were pushed off onto the King, instead).

In fact, it's rare for world leaders to ever attend the Olympic Games Opening Ceremony if it's not in their own country and it's not a guarantee that they'll attend even if their own country is hosting the games. It is just a sporting event, after all, even if one of the most significant sporting events.

Requesting Bush to boycott events he never planned to attend is an idea that could catch on. Ohio St folks could write an open letter requesting that Bush boycott the University of Michigan graduation ceremony. UCLA folks could write an open letter requesting that Bush boycott USC's graduation ceremony. Texas folks could request that Bush boycott Oklahoma's graduation ceremonies.

Personally, I'm going to request that Bush boycott the barbecue that annoying neighbor behind me has planned next weekend (I'm kind of pissed that he didn't invite me).

 

[Art]

Point is, the Han Chinese are considered as "colonists" by the Tibetans, a bit like the Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory are. Moreover, they are usually better at business and so on than the Tibetans. Point is, the Tibetan people never accepted Chinese governance. So, this could also be seen as Algerians attacking French colonists in Algeria in the 60-ies, or any other attack by indigenous populations against economically more powerful colonizers.

There is a huge difference between the ME and Tibet. China has governed Tibet since C13th and the Han Chinese having freed the Tibetans from serfdom have added greatly to the local economy with any affirmative action laws passed to benefit native Tibetans. Plus they haven't built settlements, they live in amongst the Tibetans buying property as anyone else can.

I agree the cause of the riots is some Tibetans are resentful of the fact the immigrants are working harder and being more successful than them but that's the norm with immigrants. The fact they are people who got off their ass and moved to find work in the first place tends to categorise them as a 'can do' type of person and so more prone to success.

During the mass Asian immigration into the UK of the 70s it wasn't long before every corner shop was owned by a Pakistani or an Indian which created huge resentment from some of the English leading to the popularisation of the Nat'l Front but that still in no way would justify the murder of immigrants by resentful nationalists and certainly should not engender any sympathy for ethnic cleansing from politicians abroad.

Prior to the Chinese retaking control of Tibet human right abuses were enshrined in Tibetan law. Under the the Thirteen and Sixteen laws;

Tibetans were divided into three social strata within nine grades:

In the upper stratum, the King of Tsang and other rulers belonged to the upper grade; Geshes, teachers of morals, abbots, high-ranking officials, or "headmen who had more than 300 attendants and servants", the middle grade; while "the independent bachelors, servants doing odd-jobs in government offices" were relegated to the upper grade of the lower stratum; "blacksmiths, butchers and beggars who had permanent residence and paid taxes", to the middle grade of the lower stratum; and "women, beggars, butchers and blacksmiths" to the lower grade of the lower stratum "whose life-price was a straw rope".
snip
The serfs and house-slaves who accounted for 95 percent of the population were the property of serf owners.
Even their offspring became the property of the serf owners from birth.
According to many original contracts preserved in the Archives of the Nationalities Cultural Palace and the Archive of the Tibet Autonomous Region, the manorial lords had the freedom to exchange serfs or present serfs to each other as gifts.
snip
Part of another contract, also kept at the Archives of the Nationalities Cultural Palace, as No MC 10144 File, was signed in 1947 by Drashi Choda to pay off his debt by letting his sister Tsering Lhamo work for Lharang without pay for 10 years.

It reads: "I, Drashi Choda, belong to the Nari Monastery of the Nari Manor. I borrowed 34 khal (about 1,047 pounds) and 3 sheng (0.085 bushels) of grain from the Lharang granary in the Wood-Monkey year, the interests of which amount to 6 khal (184 pounds) and 14.5 sheng (0.41 bushels). The principal and the interest total 40 khal (1,232 pounds) and 19.3 sheng (0.49 bushels) of grain.

"As I am unable to pay back the sum annually, I ask my younger sister Tsering Lhamo, who shares weal and woe with me, to pay off my debts by doing 10 years' unpaid service for the Lharang beginning at the first day of the 12 month of this Fire-Dog year."

The contract also stipulates: "In case of violation of the contract, Drashi Choda shall be punished according to the local law."

According to old Tibetan administration records of 1950, kept at the Archive of the Tibet autonomous region, 90 percent of Tibet's 1 million people were homeless. Of the 20,000 in Lhasa at the time, more than 1,000 families lived as beggars.

Some serf owners tortured their slaves by chopping off their feet and hands, gouging out their eyeballs, cutting off their tongues or pushing them off cliffs.
They could do this legally, because they were protected by the Thirteen and Sixteen Laws.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-04/10/content_7951789.htm

These Tibetan 'exiles' one sees protesting are the offspring of this barbaric ruling class.

 

[jaap de vries]

What exactly has China done in Tibet that warrants protest?

The Tibetans indulged in ethnic cleansing burning Han Chinese to death in their homes and businesses and the Chinese military intervened to stop them. Given the level of violence by the rioters it seems the Chinese gov'ts response was fairly muted no doubt because of the Olympics. I wonder if the neo-Nazi National Front Party in the UK attacked Pakistanis and beat or burned them to death would they also have widespread global support with protesters complaining when the UK gov't stopped them?

YEEEEE it only took 5 response to use a Nazi comparison.

I spoke to a Chinese student the other day and he said that during the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989" the students killed 1000 of soldiers?! (he is obviously injected with different information than we are)

I guess it is all about which source to believe but since you don't cite any you make it hard for us to follow your point.

 

[Poop-Loops]

Well, you see, the pen is mightier than the sword, and knowledge is power, so it is really so hard to believe that a bunch of students armed with textbooks and pens could defeat 1000 armed soldiers? I mean, how hard could it be?

PROTIP: China doesn't have freedom of press. You'd better watch where you get your information from.

 

[fourier jr]

PROTIP: China doesn't have freedom of press. You'd better watch where you get your information from.

& the US does? Is all the stuff the US did in Central America (including soon before the LA Olympics) common knowledge among Americans? I guess Americans should watch where they get their information from...

 

[Poop-Loops]

Oh, you're right, I'm sorry. Let's just let the Chinese continue to suppress their own people and destroy the lives of people who want nothing to do with them.

You do of course know that Buddhists can no longer designate their own Dalai Lama, right? The Chinese government decide that THEY would do it, instead.

 

[mjsd]

Oh, you're right, I'm sorry. Let's just let the Chinese continue to suppress their own people and destroy the lives of people who want nothing to do with them.

why are ppl suddenly so concerned about human rights of the Chinese ppl? when there are human rights violations all over the world. Not so long ago we were talking about Sudanese, Saudi, Burmaese,...and we know indigenous population all around the world are too being suppressed...

is this just because that the Olympics is going to China this year? is this why the big fuss?

On one hand I'm glad to see that so many are concerned about human rights and civil liberty of the Chinese and or Tibetans, but on the other hand I see gross hypocrisy in the way the western media is portraiting the entire event.

You do of course know that Buddhists can no longer designate their own Dalai Lama, right? The Chinese government decide that THEY would do it, instead.

Given that their so called "spiritual leaders" are effectively their political leaders or at least they have a very strong influence in politics, how can a designated Dalai Lama (be it by the high rankings Buddhists or Chinese govt) reflect our beloved democratic values anyway?!

Today's Tibet is NOT the Tibet we know under Chairman Mao's cultural revolution although many seem to think that it is. The suppression may be still bad, but not as bad as what the media is trying to imply.

It is of China's benefit to treat the Tibetans with respect, help them economically etc, if they want a stable region in the longer term. And it is definitely not a good idea to fight for independence (not right now at least...it will hurt the ordinary Tibetans).

 

[vanesch]

why are ppl suddenly so concerned about human rights of the Chinese ppl? when there are human rights violations all over the world. Not so long ago we were talking about Sudanese, Saudi, Burmaese,...and we know indigenous population all around the world are too being suppressed...

is this just because that the Olympics is going to China this year? is this why the big fuss?

Eh, yes, of course. The Olympics are kind of a symbol of humanist values, and it is the contrast between the show they want to set up and the reality of the place that hurts people. Not so much the fact that people are oppressed by itself, but the fact that the Olympic games, as a symbol, is used as a propaganda tool for a dictatorial regime. So the idea is to make it so embarrassing that it won't become a propaganda tool (and that the Chinese will curse themselves for having organized the games in the first place).

If it would have been a tennis competition or a car race in China, nobody would have cared. It is the contrast between the symbolic value that has been attributed to the Olympics and its intended use for propaganda that is shocking, not so much the suppression of people by itself.

 

[mjsd]

Eh, yes, of course. The Olympics are kind of a symbol of humanist values, and it is the contrast between the show they want to set up and the reality of the place that hurts people. Not so much the fact that people are oppressed by itself, but the fact that the Olympic games, as a symbol, is used as a propaganda tool for a dictatorial regime. So the idea is to make it so embarrassing that it won't become a propaganda tool (and that the Chinese will curse themselves for having organized the games in the first place).

If it would have been a tennis competition or a car race in China, nobody would have cared. It is the contrast between the symbolic value that has been attributed to the Olympics and its intended use for propaganda that is shocking, not so much the suppression of people by itself.

mmm... who awarded China the Olympics in the first place? Anyone with half a brain would know better that China cannot change quick enough to meet all humanitarian requirements to fit the supposed spirit of the Games. Either those folks who awarded China the Games are really really dumb or they see $$$ before principles. Say one thing to the media but do something else behind closed doors. And now ppl are saying that China is using the Olympics to show the world that they are "clean"? Well, we should blame those who gave them the Games in the first place for either being unbelievably stupid or greedy.

Also there is no doubt that Tibetan protestors/rioters, chose their timing quite well too.

I personally do not have a strong feeling on: against or for a boycott. As far as I see it, Olympics is just a world class sporting event, fullstop. I mean, if we are so really concerned about the well-being of the Tibetans, shouldn't we be doing something more cocrete than just a symbolic boycott? I mean that doesn't change the lives on the ground there; that doesn't do anything to improve their economy; that doesn't do anything to religious freedom... all it would be is just a big symbolic gesture, a symbolic gesture not so much for the Chinese ppl to see but for western govt. to show to their masses and to keep themselves in office.

Frankly, if US and Europe are that concerned about the human right violations and that they think Tibet should be independent, well why not send in NATO troops and help them break free? Then pump in 600 billions cash for them unconditionally to rebuild their economy, infrastructure and all, and when that's done NATO just leave quietly after a few years?? Sure China wouldn't lose that easily, but the point is that, at least, this is how to really help them to gain independence and freedom...if we believe they have their rights to be so. Cut the empty talks and match words with sincere actions, eh?

Like it or not, Tibet is just a pawn in this political game.

 

[mheslep]

why are ppl suddenly so concerned about human rights of the Chinese ppl? when there are human rights violations all over the world. Not so long ago we were talking about Sudanese, Saudi, Burmaese,...and we know indigenous population all around the world are too being suppressed...

is this just because that the Olympics is going to China this year? is this why the big fuss?

On one hand I'm glad to see that so many are concerned about human rights and civil liberty of the Chinese and or Tibetans, but on the other hand I see gross hypocrisy in the way the western media is portraiting the entire event.

Where's the hypocrisy?

China is making a bid to be a first rank nation in economic strength and influence. Despite the historic opening of the Chinese economy from the 80's on they are still a long way from the front row. To achieve that China needs fully modern economy and to achieve that they need hi tech trade and cooperation of the kind that the EU and the US currently enjoy. Don't mistake the magnitude of Chinese trade volume w/ the quality of trade by the US/EU. For instance, China would not be allowed by law to bid on the big USAF air transport contract as the French did; large quantities of Chinese exports have been rejected for safety, still more are on the edge of widespread boycotts, rightfully so. And of course the Olympics is a clear example where China needs world wide blessing, economic/military strength alone gets them nowhere with that kind of event. Public relations are key to all of these. Do they get a pass because China is no worse than, say, Burma.

To get the cooperation of the free world and the Chinese are throwing a table cloth over all the dirty dishes. Now is true that other rule by rifle butt nations do the same, but it is quite right to have 10 and 100 times the media focus on human rights in China because the consequence of treating China the same as Burma is far greater. China is physically capable of hosting the olympics, Burma is not, so send the camera crew to China.

 

[quadraphonics]

Given that their so called "spiritual leaders" are effectively their political leaders or at least they have a very strong influence in politics, how can a designated Dalai Lama (be it by the high rankings Buddhists or Chinese govt) reflect our beloved democratic values anyway?!

The value in question here is national self-determination, not democracy per-se. When the Tibetan people have the opportunity to live under a government of their own choosing, then we'll get around to criticizing its nature. Also, the Dalai Lama has suggested electing future Dalai Lamas, rather than letting religious authorities pick them.

 

[_Mayday_]

What effect will it have on the olympics? It's not exactly going to stop when the olympics start.

 

[mjsd]

Where's the hypocrisy?

The hypocrisy I was talking about is the way the media concentrated on China and did not spend anytime on those who somehow too stupid and or for whatever $$$ reasons awarded the Olympics to China in the first place. If you are not happy with China staging it because human rights etc. Then don't give it him. I have no problems with that. The Olympic committee and western media needs to take some blame here.

 

[mjsd]

The value in question here is national self-determination, not democracy per-se. When the Tibetan people have the opportunity to live under a government of their own choosing, then we'll get around to criticizing its nature. Also, the Dalai Lama has suggested electing future Dalai Lamas, rather than letting religious authorities pick them.

yeah, we are all very concerned about "the self-determination" of the people in the Arab states too eh?

Tell you what, China is a multicultural country made up of at least 50 different ethnics groups, why are we just so concerned about the Tibetans alone? Why are those other 49 ethnics groups less important? Why don't we break it up like Yugoslavia? Well, some argues that we shouldn't break it up because they are all Chinese. But for some, they somehow think that Tibet is not? well, I agree that whether Tibet is part of China is debatable, and you really have to go back a thousands of years (not 60 years) and all the historical events in between (including the Opium wars) to judge for yourself. I have my opinion on that and you can have yours.

At the end of the day though, this is not really about just the big word of "self-determination", although this is how the media has painted it. If I have to choose between living in Iraq (under Saddam) or Tibet (under China), you bet I'll choose the later.

I would hope that making ppl's lives better is as easy as some protestors and the west tend to imply, but in reality it is not. The so-called chant of "Free Tibet" would not help the lives of the people; unless perhaps the west also injects 500 billions cash unconditionally into their land...

 

[aquitaine]

This person has it right:

From washington post

"Let the Games Go On

By Joan Chen
Wednesday, April 9, 2008; Page A19

I was born in Shanghai in 1961 and grew up during the Cultural Revolution. During my childhood, I saw my family lose our house. My grandfather, who studied medicine in England, committed suicide after he was wrongly accused of being a counterrevolutionary and a foreign spy.

Those were the worst of times.

Since the Cultural Revolution ended in the late 1970s, however, I have witnessed unimaginable progress in China. Changes that few ever thought possible have occurred in a single generation. A communist government that had no ties to the West has evolved into a more open government eager to join the international community.

A state-controlled economy has morphed into a market economy, greatly raising people's standard of living. It's clear that the majority of the Chinese people enjoy much fuller, more abundant lives today than 30 years ago. Though much remains to be done, the Chinese government has made rapid progress in opening up and trying to be part of the international community.

continued at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/08/AR2008040802907.html

 

[fourier jr]

the latest:

Chinese web awash with calls for boycott of French goods

Aileen McCabe , Canwest News Asia Correspondent
Published: Monday, April 14, 2008

SHANGHAI - Savvy Chinese are learning that a boycott can be a two-way street.

As talk around the world of boycotting the Beijing Olympics gathers steam, in China the Internet is jammed with calls for a boycott of French products and, in particular, the French supermarket chain Carrefour S.A. that has more than 100 outlets around the country.

A "letter to all citizens" is circulating on the Internet, by e-mail and text message calling for a May 1 boycott of Carrefour.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=6805a872-4db0-4f2b-a375-793b7bf97448

 

[phoenixy]

I didn't care much about the torch thing but then I see this photo.

I mean, seriously? Is this guy really trying to wrestle the torch away from someone in a wheel-chair(she only has one leg)?

I love human right and all that. So how exactly are these protesters advancing their cause? If anything, the lack of discretion from some individuals is a huge set back for the rights movement in China. Their action fuels the nationalism fire and divert attention away from the CPP.

I say having a mass of people dressing up like a Tibetan monk and running along side the torch would had been much more effective.

 

[quadraphonics]

yeah, we are all very concerned about "the self-determination" of the people in the Arab states too eh?

Who is "we?"

Tell you what, China is a multicultural country made up of at least 50 different ethnics groups, why are we just so concerned about the Tibetans alone?

Who said "we" were?

Why are those other 49 ethnics groups less important?

They aren't. It just happens that the Tibetans are the ones currently being gunned down and summarily imprisoned when they agitate for their rights.

Why don't we break it up like Yugoslavia? Well, some argues that we shouldn't break it up because they are all Chinese. But for some, they somehow think that Tibet is not? well, I agree that whether Tibet is part of China is debatable, and you really have to go back a thousands of years (not 60 years) and all the historical events in between (including the Opium wars) to judge for yourself. I have my opinion on that and you can have yours.

The right to self-determination flows from the status as nation, which is a self-identified unit. The historical interpretations of outsiders have no bearing on nationhood, and you seem to be conflating the ideas of "country", "state" and "nation." If Tibetans believe they are a nation, and act accordingly, then they are a nation.

At the end of the day though, this is not really about just the big word of "self-determination", although this is how the media has painted it. If I have to choose between living in Iraq (under Saddam) or Tibet (under China), you bet I'll choose the later.

Nobody is being offered, or requesting, that choice. Cheap shots at American foreign policy aren't relevant.

I would hope that making ppl's lives better is as easy as some protestors and the west tend to imply, but in reality it is not. The so-called chant of "Free Tibet" would not help the lives of the people; unless perhaps the west also injects 500 billions cash unconditionally into their land...

Tibetans aren't asking for improved material welfare; they're asking for an end to the suppression of their culture and religion.

 

[mjsd]

Who is "we?"
Who said "we" were?
They aren't. It just happens that the Tibetans are the ones currently being gunned down and summarily imprisoned when they agitate for their rights.

you may be interested to know that there were anit-govt protests in neighbouring provinces: Xinjiang (Uyghur region), Qinghai (mix of Han, Tibetan, Hui and others), and Sichuan (mix of Han, Yi and others) soon after the Tibet incident... but as one would expect those were crushed pretty quickly... so is it not "just Tibet" to say the least. But let's not emphasize on that point alone for human abuses no matter where they happen are bad. I was concerning about the media over-playing the issue of "Free Tibet" without real consideration as to what is good for the Tibetans or Chinese in those regions general.

The right to self-determination flows from the status as nation, which is a self-identified unit. The historical interpretations of outsiders have no bearing on nationhood, and you seem to be conflating the ideas of "country", "state" and "nation." If Tibetans believe they are a nation, and act accordingly, then they are a nation.

This is the crux of the issue, isn't it? Is Tibet part of or not part of China? before we can talking about "self-determination", we must first define what is "self" here. I know there is a huge dispute over whether Tibet is indeed part of China or not, but until we can resolve that there is no sense in talking about "self-determination" simply because we run into difficult definitions as to what constitute a legitimate independent nation, county or state.

Nobody is being offered, or requesting, that choice. Cheap shots at American foreign policy aren't relevant.

No mention of American foreign policy whatsoever... Iraq under Sadddam has nothing to do with America (at least after the 80s)... just comparing the situation face by the ppl in those countries. If you don't like that comparsion, fine, I have no problems with that. everyone is entitle to their opinion.

Tibetans aren't asking for improved material welfare; they're asking for an end to the suppression of their culture and religion.

For many years Tibetans are living under horrific conditions, that's a fact. But is it better now than in the 1920s when it was run by warlords and high ranking monks, subjecting ordinary ppl to slavery and all that?... I would say so. But is it good enough today? NO. Is "Free Tibet" the best solution for better quality of life? Most certainly not. because China is keeping it afloat to, some extend, economically and in other aspects. If Tibetans just want the Chinese to leave them alone, then that's very easy to achieve. They can just walk out and create a power vacuum for thugs and warlords to turn Tibet back to the early 1920s... we don't want that do we? But is there a better solution? Hard to tell at this point.

Somehow I find it hard to comprehend what the "free Tibet" movement is really trying to achieve for the ordinary Tibetans.

 

[quadraphonics]

you may be interested to know that there were anit-govt protests in neighbouring provinces: Xinjiang (Uyghur region), Qinghai (mix of Han, Tibetan, Hui and others), and Sichuan (mix of Han, Yi and others) soon after the Tibet incident... but as one would expect those were crushed pretty quickly... so is it not "just Tibet" to say the least. But let's not emphasize on that point alone for human abuses no matter where they happen are bad. I was concerning about the media over-playing the issue of "Free Tibet" without real consideration as to what is good for the Tibetans or Chinese in those regions general.

Actually, I did know about that stuff, and it's definitely the case that the international media machine the Dalai Lama has built over the decades draws most of the limelight onto Tibet. Nevertheless, the Tibet issue is very similar to the issues in those other provinces, and so the same debate is largely applicable. Indeed, I think that a big reason why China takes such a strong stand on Tibet is exactly because any perceived weakness there would set uncomfortable precedents in the other western provinces, and eventually in the Han heartland itself.

This is the crux of the issue, isn't it? Is Tibet part of or not part of China? before we can talking about "self-determination", we must first define what is "self" here. I know there is a huge dispute over whether Tibet is indeed part of China or not, but until we can resolve that there is no sense in talking about "self-determination" simply because we run into difficult definitions as to what constitute a legitimate independent nation, county or state.

The questions are only difficult if you confuse nations, states and contries. The issues about whether "Tibet is part of China" relate to whether the Tibetan *state* is/was a part of the Chinese *state*. Self-determination is a *national* right, and nations are self-identified units. While the issue of what degree of independence the state of Tibet has enjoyed may be complex, I don't see anything controversial about the observation that Tibet is a nation. Tibetans believe that they are a nation, and act accordingly. Moreover, even official Chinese documents refer to Tibetans as a "national minority;" the Chinese state, at least on paper, is supposed to be composed of multiple nations. The issue comes down to the fact that the Chinese state does not respect the self-determination of the various nations within it (including, some would argue, the Han nation). What they're disputing is not the status of Tibet as a nation, but rather what rights nations are entitled to.

Also, it seems perverse to insist that an entity must already have a clear, undisputed claim to independence before we can define its right to self-determination. If we adopt such an approach, then the only people who have the right to self-determination are those whose self-determination is unchallenged.

For many years Tibetans are living under horrific conditions, that's a fact. But is it better now than in the 1920s when it was run by warlords and high ranking monks, subjecting ordinary ppl to slavery and all that?... I would say so. But is it good enough today? NO. Is "Free Tibet" the best solution for better quality of life? Most certainly not. because China is keeping it afloat to, some extend, economically and in other aspects. If Tibetans just want the Chinese to leave them alone, then that's very easy to achieve. They can just walk out and create a power vacuum for thugs and warlords to turn Tibet back to the early 1920s... we don't want that do we? But is there a better solution? Hard to tell at this point.

The supposition (mostly forwarded by CCP apologists) that Tibet will necessarily revert back to its conditions of decades ago strikes me as ridiculous. Infrastructure has been built, society has progressed. The assumption seems to be that Tibetans lack the capacity for effective self-government, which I think is very paternalistic, if not outright racist. The biggest impediment facing an independent Tibetan state would be a revanchist China working to undermine it. Anyway, this is all beside the point, as nobody is promoting the idea of an independent Tibetan state. What is desired is for China to stop interfering in their culture and religion, and grant them meaningful autonomy. 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.

Also, I think you mean early 1950's, not early 1920's, as that is when Mao invaded and coopted the Tibetan government. It wasn't until almost 1960 that they kicked out the Dalai Lama.

Somehow I find it hard to comprehend what the "free Tibet" movement is really trying to achieve for the ordinary Tibetans.

I am given to believe that it has something to do with "freedom."

 

[mgb_phys]

The supposition (mostly forwarded by CCP apologists) that Tibet will necessarily revert back to its conditions of decades ago strikes me as ridiculous. Infrastructure has been built, society has progressed. The assumption seems to be that Tibetans lack the capacity for effective self-government, which I think is very paternalistic, if not outright racist.

Sure - the idea that a central asian country would revert to the medieval when a commie invader is kicked out, just because it becomes a theocracy under an all powerfull religious leader is completely without precedence.

 

[quadraphonics]

Sure - the idea that a central asian country would revert to the medieval when a commie invader is kicked out, just because it becomes a theocracy under an all powerfull religious leader is completely without precedence.

That precedent involved the commie invader more-or-less reducing the place to rubble before they left, so the implied chain of causality in your description seems off to me. Anyway, last time I checked, the Dalai Lama had embraced a lot of democratic ideals (including the election of his "reincarnation"), and nobody is asking for China to withdraw and so create a power vacuum. There's also the issue that the religion in question is famous for non-violence. So I think the parallel is pretty far off.

It's striking that so many people are willing to forward an argument that depends on the Dalai Lama/Free Tibet movement having goals that explicitly contradict their stated aims.

 

[mgb_phys]

There's also the issue that the religion in question is famous for non-violence. So I think the parallel is pretty far off.

I suspect the Chinese have a very different idea of Buddhist non-violence, especially in it's Japanese form.

It's striking that so many people are willing to forward an argument that depends on the Dalai Lama/Free Tibet movement having goals that explicitly contradict their stated aims.

He's a politician - of course his goals contradict their stated aims.
There is another religous leader currently visiting washington who's religion is based on peace, love and the meek inheriting the Earth - but you'd have a hard job determinign that from it's history.