16 Comments:

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By  Anonymous, at 21 April, 2008 15:17  

Poor guys. You are still that out of touch with the development in China society and the sentiments in ordinary Chinese, you are still having the belief that those demonstrators are paid by Chinese governemnt, not driven by their true feeling.

No wonder there are so many misunderstanding among Western media and people, and no wonder why they always make the wrong projection on China's development.

I hope they really just misunderstood, not unconsiously select those they want to know and neglect those they don't want to know.

By  Anonymous, at 21 April, 2008 16:54  

This whole thing is not right.

I am an activist and I refuse to be one anymore.

The tactic we employed is just downright immoral and dishonest.
We teach these Tibetan how to lie and twist and in the end we have turn them into monsters!

How can we use these decent fellows of the Buddist faith in our campaign?

This whole concept of telling a big white lie and the disinformation we are spreading is just so wrong.

By  Anonymous, at 21 April, 2008 18:08  

c.k.: I know that many of the patriots are driven by their patriotic feelings. I hope they'll ask themselves, after they calm down a bit, whether scrawling such things on another nation's flag is the best way to promote national pride, and admiration of others for their country. Surely the domestic demonstrators aren't paid (would they?)

But someone in Minnesota clearly slipped up in the security department, and let the cat out of the bag. We can only guess how widespread this is.

Anonymouse #1: Speak for yourself, if you feel so ashamed. Come clean, and tell us how you immorally taught Tibetans how to lie, you'll feel better for it. I'm all ears.

By  Agam, at 21 April, 2008 18:49  

I can see the misunderstanding and emotions of both sides as I am Chinese-American. I've also been to Tibet and fully absorbed the situation there.

I must say that I am skeptical of Chinese students being paid to protest (at least the majority of people I know who are pro-China are doing it out of pride and nationalism, in China, the US, and the UK where I reside now). I'm not saying that such pro-China rage and mob mentality is correct or justified (my heart goes out to Grace Wang and her family), but I would actually say that neither side understands the other and it was exactly was Grace was trying to achieve.

The claim that a university Chinese student was absolutely unaware of the situation is absolutely false, because if a Chinese national is studying in the US, they are practically the top 0.001% of a pool of intelligent students with college educations much more rigorous than our own. Basically cream of the crop. Someone with such intelligence and even a hint of Chinese pride would be very aware of the situation. It is unlikely, unless he is a robot??, that an American enlightens a Chinese person on the situation regarding China in the US. To infer that all Chinese students across the world were like him is not logical.

However, arguments of dubious claims could be made for both sides. The Western media demonizes China, Chinese media suppresses it and counter-demonizes western media, and so on. People get caught up in their beliefs, other uses it as a vehicle for political interest, and pretty soon emotions get involved. I believe the pro-Tibetan protesters are not well-informed, and those heads of States calling for boycotts have hidden political agendas; it is fueled by media's preference of negative issues rather than balanced reporting. Thats anther discussion. I also believe that many Chinese people are not as free thinking as Westerners, they don't question things as much and stick together (explaining the mob rage mentality). Something as personal as nathionalism surely gets very emotional very quickly. Neither side has the right to declare the other to be wrong.

One could refer to history for a more objective view on things since the blogger talks about history a bit (although it is used to belittle Chinese protesters). The history of pre-1951 relations of Russia/Britain/China and their interests in Tibet as a political base should be brought to light. One can actually conclude that Tibet would've been annexed by any one of the 2 other states in the Cold War struggle, not dissimilar to how India came under British rule or Afghanistan became Soviet. The state of Tibet in 1950s was unlikely to remain free in consideration of the political theater at the time and the inability of the feudal Tibetans to defend themselves. So I guess 50 years later, Tibet would've been exploited by the British, suppressed by the Chinese, frozen by the Soviets, or stayed in its feudal, savage state. Is anyone of them a better outcome?

Having lived in China, I would actually assert that the police there are equally or less confrontational than their American counterparts. I believe that China is slowly democratizing for reasons of stability. Since the Dalai Llama doesn't actually want independence from China, but more cultural and religious freedoms, the politicians at the top of that Chinese government (who I can say with certainty are smart, reasonable, and not 'evil-doers') recognize this and are doing it at their own pace. I know this because people in China ARE happy - they are not enlightened or free thinking - but they are happy and full of pride.

So final word is, understand that China is a developing nation (perhaps a gentle giant), probably a few decades behind the EU and US in freedom of thought. Understand that Chinese people think differently from us Western-educated minds. And understand that the Chinese government is not a power-hungry dictatorship and its leaders have compassion for the Tibetans as well as the other 20-some ethnicities.

Would a mature adult be justified in berating a kid who has made the same mistakes as the he has when he was growing up? No. He should show compassion, understanding, and a guiding hand because its all part of the necessary process. I have a hunch that Grace Wang was on that road.

Sean, Cambridge, UK

By  sjcmind, at 21 April, 2008 19:05  

Dalai Lama is a good spiritual leader but a pretty bad politician for insisting on his dream of the Great Tibet. His idea of the Great Tibet will be 1/3 of China's territory and millions of other Chinese ethnic groups living there currently. His reason is that every Tibetan needs to be protected and he wants to limit if not expel other ethnic groups. This is just like saying San Francisco should be a part of Great China because the city has large Chinese population. I don't see that could happen in any country.

Agam - what's your view on this?

By  Anonymous, at 21 April, 2008 22:20  

Sean:
I really, really appreciate the tone of your comments. And very nicely put; that the two sides don't really understand each other, and that was what Grace Wang was trying to help with. I see her experience as a symbol of the things now happening on a much larger scale. The people who really try to build bridges are being denounced the loudest, and that's very worrying.

You are right, that more people should know more history, which would help in understanding. I'm nearly always shocked at the simplistic historical views of people who argue with me here and on YouTube. And many Tibet rights supporters also don't know much about pre-1950 Tibet, or its changing relations with China. Many on both sides should do some studying (using good, credible sources please).

As long as we're playing "what if", I would add that HHDL was 15 years old in 1950. He hadn't yet assumed his responsibilities (the gov't was headed by a Regent, as in Thailand when the King was young). But he was already deeply curious about science, the outside world, and particularly in democracy. It is said that he had a model of the Statue of Liberty by his bedside (I can hear the CCP'ers now, "SEE! CIA stooge!")

I highly doubt the British would have tried to annex Tibet right after Indian and Burmese independence. Post WWII, western colonialism was on the way out; countries left right and centre were gaining their independence.

Barnett says the turning point was really 1904, with the British aggression into Tibet (Younghusband). The Qing got worried by that one, and later sent the invasion that never really happened. Shortly thereafter, Qing collapsed, Tibet expelled the Ambans, re-declared their independence, and China never forgot the humiliation.

If there'd been no invasion by Mao's forces and Tibet was left alone for a while, there's no way Britain would have done it instead. What colonies did they hold then? Virtually all were on the road to independence, the Brits had no reason to grab a new one.

Now the Soviets, who knows. They took Afghanistan in the '70's, but Tibet is much more remote to them. I doubt that one too, but who could predict what Soviets would do?

But Tibet left alone, there's the interesting "what if." You may think of the country in 1950 as "feudal, savage state" but did you know Tibet was one of the very first countries in the world which abolished the death penalty?

A lot of this "feudal, savage" stuff comes from credulous British explorers of 100 years ago or more, writing down every rumour and story they were told during their "adventures." Western leftists like Parenti and Grunfelt dig this stuff out of the old diaries and stitch it together for popular consumption. And it becomes one picture of "Tibet just before liberation."

But what if another thing happened? What if HHDL took his responsibilities around 1953 (they customarily did at age 18), and had the opportunity to modernize his country, as he surely would have? Could Tibet have become one of the very first democracies in Asia? That's a possibility that can't be overlooked either, and more likely than becoming a British colony or Soviet satellite. I could envision them deciding to have mutual defence treaties with both India and China, if they worried about Khruschev.

I trust that you are right, that CCP wants to democratize, because not to do so will be destabilizing. But it is so slow, and in the last month appears to be moving the opposite way. Economic rights haven't been followed by political rights, and China watchers have warned for years that this is unsustainable. The tension created will only increase unless the one catches up with the other. For the country's own good, the CCP must be made to see this.

If you metaphorically refer to China as a kid making the mistakes his father also made as a kid (I'd be careful with this one, who you use it on!), then let's see. There should be a right way and a wrong way to handle it. Yelling at the kid when he doesn't know what you're talking about, won't help. But just because the adult once made the same mistake is no reason to ignore the kid when he's going down the same road. If the adult is the responsible one (father or mother), he's also partly responsible if the kid (let's say) mistreats the neighbour's dog. Especially if the kid did it before without any "berating" or discipline. Metaphors only go so far.

Compassion, understanding and guidance, yes. Sometimes, with some people, these things will also encourage stubbornness, digging in the heels, closing the mind, and doing the "mistake" all the more out of rebellion (with some kids, anyway). Until it really backfires, and then he learns. I also think that's what Grace was trying to do, and I think that's also the (unfortunately widespread) reaction she got.

It's a pleasure sharing views with you Sean. I hope you'll stay engaged here if you have time.

Agam

By  Agam, at 22 April, 2008 10:36  

Anonymouse #2:
You may be right that he isn't a good politician, not that being a good politician is always a compliment. He seems rather unable to get some people to actually understand what he says, but I'm not sure whose fault that really is.

What he wishes for his country, and he's been saying this for at least 20 years, is for Tibet to remain within the Republic, having genuine autonomy (self-rule) in areas like culture, language, religion, environment. Foreign relations and economic policy, defense etc. are still the responsibility of the federal government.

It works pretty well in Canada, where there have been separatist tendencies in the past. But Quebecois don't talk much about separatism anymore. They have a "National Assembly", their own flag which flies over Quebec's foreign diplomatic missions overseas, manage their own language laws, and so on. It's actually more autonomy than HHDL envisions for a Tibet solution, yet it doesn't create more separatist feeling, but less. Canada could really help China in this field, if they would listen.

But you paint a picture of the Tibetans wanting to evict all Chinese from 1/3 of China's area, and that's just not true. But, keep up the heavy handed repression, and you just might eventually get them to that point.

So, there's no demand (from "responsible Tibetan authorities," as Condi Rice put it) for separation. Genuine (not fake, as now) autonomy, including the 2/3 of historical Tibet which China has redistributed to various Chinese provinces. What they call "Tibet" now is only what they used to call "Outer Tibet". Kham and Amdo were parcelled up and given to those Chinese provinces. Let the historically Tibetan area - where Tibetan civilisation evolved, otherwise known as the Tibetan plateau - be reunified under genuine autonomy (a principle guaranteed under Chinese constitution).

Let it be reunified for China's own stability, not for separation. The Canadian experience shows the benefits. Let them have their Kashag and their Kalons, and let them select these by democratic system. Let them fly, and be proud of, their national flag within the greater Republic (which I hope will also be democratic sometime soon). Texans do it, Quebecois do it, and their countries are stronger and more stable because of it.

Unity in Diversity. Remembering that principle in a multi-ethnic, multi-language state is important. That's the founding principle of one very diverse archipelagic state of more than 17,000 islands. Indonesia. Thousands of different cultures, thousands of different regional languages, it's also learning the benefits of local autonomy. It's inspiring to listen to local people talk about the diversity of this country, and their pride in this. Autonomy actually works well to keep such republics together in mutual respect, China should try it sometime.

By  Agam, at 22 April, 2008 11:13  

China should consider the Roman style of Congress whereby there is one Party but delegates to the one party sysytem is democratically elected.

A one party system can still be democratic as long as the representatives are elected by the people.

China can take this approach step by step. The first step is to perhaps to have a third of the delegates democratically elected and this ratio increased every 5 years or so.

This way, the changes are introduced in a controlled way without any risk to the country stability.

Who is to say, a one party country can't be democratic?

By  Anonymous, at 22 April, 2008 14:54  

I see many people arguing over the historical evidence from both sides. Does that really matter? The only thing that never changes is "power rule". The party/nation with power rules. Will American give the land back to Native American people? Will Russia give part of its far east territory back to China? Will India give the land used to be a part of Tibet back to Tibet/China? Will UK give Falklands back to Argentina? Of cause not. So why should China lose its control over Tibet? Unless there is power change in the region, nothing will change much in Tibet. For China, Dalai Lama and the Tibetan exile groups are annoying but not threatening, just like flies.

About the idea of "great Tibet", Dalai Lama and his followers need to stop dreaming. If a free election is held in these regions today, Dalai Lama will lose for sure since Tibetan is minority group in these "great Tibet" areas (according to BBC, Tibetan is only 25% of population in these areas). What happens then?

By  Anonymous, at 22 April, 2008 20:21  

Anonymouse #3:
It all depends on who gets to vote, doesn't it? If there is one Party, and Party members vote for Party leaders, and Party leaders rule the country, are you saying the country has democracy?

If you're never given the chance to choose a different policy from that of the Party (which is constitutionally guaranteed to be the permanent and only authority), can that be described as democracy?

I say, only if we change the dictionary definition of the word.

By  Agam, at 23 April, 2008 12:03  

Anonymouse #4:
CCP relies heavily on the historical arguments, so obviously it matters a lot to them. The Tibetan side is then obliged to try to correct the biased history put out by the Chinese side, because to let it stand would be to accept it.

Your comparisons don't work very well either. Are Native Americans demonstrating against violent oppression, government control of their religious affairs, or "patriotic" re-education campaigns in their territories? If you know of any such demonstrations, are they being confronted by the US Army and National Guard who open fire upon them, beat them, imprison them?

What matters is what the people actually want. No responsible Native American authorities are agitating for separation. Some people in the Sioux lands were reportedly doing so some months ago, and it actually turned out to be a couple of radical activists who had little or no support among their community. Russell Means and friends.

Native people in US and Canada have proudly and bravely fought and died for their country for a very long time. You won't find many who are anti-America or anti-Canada. There are some, just as there are some in other communities (French, Latino, Swedish, radical Far Leftists, you name it).

And wasn't there a referendum in Falklands after the conflict with Argentina? It's what they want that matters. If they want to belong to Argentina, or to be independent, there should be a peaceful way to achieve that. To envision countries trading regions and peoples around like baseball cards, without the people's say in the matter, is ridiculous.

On second thought, China already behaved this way. After invading parts of Northern India and grabbing some territory, she parcelled off a piece and gave it to Pakistan! Maybe that's your idea of how the world should work, it's not mine.

And finally, we see the true purpose of the mass transmigration of Hans into Tibetan areas. It was always clear, but now with this crisis still going on, it's expressed more openly by such as Anonymouse #4. "We outnumber you in your own country, ha ha, we own you."

That's exactly why it's against customary international law for an occupying power to conduct such demographic aggression in disputed territories.

If the Tibetans are ever given their act of self determination (to which they are entitled as a well-defined "People" in international legal terminology), the UN will have to ensure that it's fair and just. Otherwise it would have no validity at all. CCP managed sham process won't count.

Among Tibetans HHDL would win in a landslide, or whatever is bigger than a landslide, should he ever want to stand in an election. You know it, and I know it.

But you'll never have the pleasure of seeing that. Even if the Tibetans some day get their self-rule in domestic affairs, he wants nothing more than to achieve his own complete retirement, to go home at last and spend his final years in meditation.

China shouldn't object to that.

By  Agam, at 23 April, 2008 12:44  

Agam,you are talking through your ar-e!

Why won't yiu ask....Did the IRAQI asked to be invaded?

DID THE PEOPLE OF DIEGO GRACIA ASKED TO BE FORCIBLY EVACUATED BY THE AMERICAN AND THE BRITS?

DID THE PEOPLE OF BIKINI ATOLL ASKED TO HAVE THE FRENCH TEST THE A BOMB ON THEIR ISLAND?

DID THE IRISH IN NORTHERN IRELAND ASK THE BRITS TO RULE THEM?

AND SO THE LIST GOES ON....OF COURSE YOU ONLY WANT TO EXPOUSE YOUR LOP SIDED VIEW.....

ALL I WILL SAY, IS HISTORY TAUGHT ME BUDDHA GAVE UP HIS PRINCELY LIFE TO LIVE A SIMPLE LIFE.

HHDL ON THE OTHER HAND LOVES TO TRAVEL FIRST CLASS, STAY IN THE BEST HOTEL SUITE AND WANTS TO BE A KING!

THAT IS CONTRARY TO BUDDHA LIFE.

By  Anonymous, at 24 April, 2008 18:06  

Anonymouse #5:

You seem to be an expert in all the wrongs of this world, except one of course. I can't tell if you are replying to my response for Anonymouse #4, or perhaps you are Anonymouse #4. Pick a name, any name.

All that HHDL wants to do is to go home and be with his people. That's what they want too. What's so difficult? The CCP will never again have the key to solving their Tibet problem once he is gone. When that happens, China's wish for stability will be gone as well. Then watch out.

Forget about the history, the claims and counter claims. China has a big problem in Tibet. 60 years of following hardline policy has completely failed, and everyone knows it.

He doesn't want to be a king, he wants to finish his life as the simple monk he really is, without needing security to protect him, but with his people who want him home very much. It shouldn't be so hard to understand. For most people.

By  Agam, at 24 April, 2008 19:49  

Falun Gong's faux torch relay is not grassroot. Rightwing "China hawks" in US Congress are linked to this event.

Susan Prager, the outreach director of HRTR, is also the communications director of "Friends of Falun Gong", a quasai-government non-profit founded by people linked to US Congress and the NED - it has injected over 6 million dollars in 5 years to various FLG groups to promot their intensely anti-Chinese political message.

By  bobby fletcher, at 04 May, 2008 12:07  

"bobby fletcher":

Charles, I know you've have a bug in your bonnet for Falun Gong, NED, Tibetans, and anybody else who doesn't toe the CCP line, for a very long time. But your conspiracy theories won't fly here. I wish the US Congress and every other freedom-loving government would give way more money to those who stand for Chinese freedom. They don't give nearly enough.

Is the UFWD paying better in these crisis days? Are you still a fan of Crank Yanking? And do you know what that idiom actually means?

That's what I really want to know.

I don't take kindly to CCP propagandists around here, Charles. Just to give you fair warning.

By  Agam, at 04 May, 2008 21:47  

Post a Comment