Broad support for China over Tibet issue.China daily - Page 8 - Political Forum

Slartibartfas · 03-28-2008, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LostInTranslation

One reason is that they don’t want to internationalize the Tibet problem, the other is that they don’t want anything bad leak out. Whatever happened after the foreign correspondents moved out could be anyone’s guess, but as far as they are concerned, it would be at best speculations without solid proof which cannot be used against them. I am not suggesting that there would necessarily be bad things happening either. Although when you were going to confront some of these people who engaged in the atrocious acts earlier, things might get out of control. They were taking the preventive measure here. Here is an interesting article by an Indian on the possible damage control by China:
Tibet:* Chinese Damage Control Exercise

" ...Before starting the arrests in Tibet on March 17, 2008, the local authorities ordered all foreign tourists and journalists to leave the region for their own safety. ..."

What a pathetic lie. As I have said, those foreign journalists have often been already to worse places like Tibet during riots, they know the risks. Those who don't want to take those risks are free to leave anyway. Safety is a lame excuse for the succesful attempt of eliminating any reliable information flow from Tibet for whatever reason. The Chinese officials did not want that anything except rumors leaves Tibet. That and their own official statements. To get this done they had to get rid of independent and trusted journalists who have proved already to do reliable work in other parts of the world.

The question is, what adavantage does arise from this. If the Chinese version of the whole thing is true, its highly irrational as it does not do them much favor then. I do not buy this argument that they did it for the sake of deescalation.

Quote:

You would be mistaken if you believe the reason for China’s accusation of Dalai Lama is to destroy him politically. CCP knows well that Dalai Lama is the key to solve the Tibet problem, and it is to China’s best interest to bring Dalai Lama home before he dies, because the new Dalai Lama won’t have the leadership to unite the Tibetans, even if he decides to work with China. That is why they reached out to him as early as in the early 1980s, and again when Panchen Lama died, but unfortunately Dalai Lama declined because he believed that time was on his side. The dialogue is still open as of today, but hardly goes anywhere.
If somehow they can sell the idea that there is a tie between Dalai Lama and the more radical groups, such as the TYC, it serves two purposes. On the one hand, Dalai’s image of non-violence would be severely undermined, and lose his international support; on the other hand, the radical groups would also proceed more cautiously, because each violent act they committed would be one more blow to their leader.

Sounds reasonable. I don't think anyone has been convinced by the Chinese claims so far however. As far as I can see they have not come up with the tiniest proof for their accusations so far. If China is trying to win international support for its version of the story, it has done a pretty bad job so far. Even if Chinese media might write about how North Korea supports is behind China, thats not quite what one would think when hearing the term "international support"

Quote:

There is another possibility, but I hope it was not the case. Beijing can simply wait out until Dalai Lama passed away. It is true that the Tibetan independence movement would turn towards the violent side, but it will also put them closer to become a terrorist group, and cost them the international support.

Well, if China deliberately provokes that, it deserves it. The bad thing is however that not the politicians who provoke it get the bill but innocent Chinese civilians.

Quote:

I take it as that you haven’t checked it? Here is a link:

(interviews with CIA agents and Tibetan rebels, conducted in the U.S., by Americans)
or you can read an article written by a Tibetan:
The CIA Circus: Tibet's Forgotten Army | Friends of Tibet (INDIA) Data-Base

Informative video indeed.
So yes, it seems the CIA supported the Tibetan guerilla forces who fought against the Chinese occupation. Well, that was the cold war...

Martin · 03-29-2008, 03:58 AM

I'll second your general way for developing the European mindset about China in general and Tibet in particular on this topic, Slarti.
A lot of what you wrote is evident for people, living in a so-called democracy. Just now, try to look at it from the China perspective which is developing full speed towards a capitalistic system while keeping their subjects under serious control. Just have a look at some postings on this and even more on the other threads about China/Tibet/Formosa. Maybe a good hint why their Govt can not allow them our kind of freedom. It would be like a free ticket for inviting Chaos with capital C.

Ok, even if some of us deplore the fact that the PRC is acting very undemocratical and has some problems with our perception of freedom: the following fact remains:
The People's Republic of China is not a democracy... and unlike a few (very many) other countries, the PRC doesn't even pretend to be a democracy.
P.S. > I like this thread. A lot of good posts that allow us to learn a bit more by looking at different angles of the topic.

AzTeK · 03-29-2008, 05:07 AM

Something that would really interest me and keeps nagging at me:

What does China want Tibet for anyways? It makes no sense.

The average altitude of the Tibet region is 4,900m - like 70% of people could probably not even live under those circumstances. It basically has no natural ressources, it basically has no economy appart from some basic farming and, recently, tourism. It's poor as hell with China having to provide 90% of the money the Tibet government uses. If Tibetans want to walk it on their own, why not let them? What does China have to gain from clinging to a region that's as productive as a desert?

Martin · 03-29-2008, 06:36 AM

Someone better informed than I might be able to answer better but here's my idea about that question:
1. Natural mineral resources. (Don't underestimate that seen the needs of the PRC)
2. Political and stragetical, mostly regarding India, even if the relations are improving today.
3. Face, face and saving more face.
4. The importance of religion in local politics, as for China religion IS politics and... on that one I do agree with them.
5. Don't send the wrong Signal to Taiwan.

Martin · 03-29-2008, 06:53 AM

BTW, here is my follow-up question: Why was the CIA so interested in Tibet?
I can be wrong about many things but nevertheless I never saw the CIA acting on behalf of basic human rights. So... why the heck they were so much interested before the ping pong diplomacy of that former US President Nixon?

Slartibartfas · 03-29-2008, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin

BTW, here is my follow-up question: Why was the CIA so interested in Tibet?
I can be wrong about many things but nevertheless I never saw the CIA acting on behalf of basic human rights. So... why the heck they were so much interested before the ping pong diplomacy of that former US President Nixon?

Cold war. That Chinese guys were communists. America feared a communist wave rolling all over Asia. I guess Tibet was just one piece of action in the attempt to "contain" communism or at least keep it busy so that it can't spread as fast anymore.

Thats my guess, of I course I could be wrong.

Slartibartfas · 03-29-2008, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin

Someone better informed than I might be able to answer better but here's my idea about that question:
1. Natural mineral resources. (Don't underestimate that seen the needs of the PRC)
2. Political and stragetical, mostly regarding India, even if the relations are improving today.
3. Face, face and saving more face.
4. The importance of religion in local politics, as for China religion IS politics and... on that one I do agree with them.
5. Don't send the wrong Signal to Taiwan.

Sounds reasonable. I would say all 5 points might be reasons why China considers Tibet important. (Even though I know too little to be able to judge point 2 really)

Slartibartfas · 03-29-2008, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin

I'll second your general way for developing the European mindset about China in general and Tibet in particular on this topic, Slarti.
A lot of what you wrote is evident for people, living in a so-called democracy. Just now, try to look at it from the China perspective which is developing full speed towards a capitalistic system while keeping their subjects under serious control. Just have a look at some postings on this and even more on the other threads about China/Tibet/Formosa. Maybe a good hint why their Govt can not allow them our kind of freedom. It would be like a free ticket for inviting Chaos with capital C.

I know India is not a model democracy, and its not the clean efficient state per se as well, but its a democracy and its at least as large and diverse as China.

So while democracy could create some new problems for China, I think its propaganda that it would cause automatically the downfall or doom of the entire country. I think the risk is not larger than under the current dictatorship as also in this current state incompetent or corrupt people could succeed in getting into power and if it turns out only if backwards that they are that way. Then China is even in deeper problems.

Quote:

Ok, even if some of us deplore the fact that the PRC is acting very undemocratical and has some problems with our perception of freedom: the following fact remains:
The People's Republic of China is not a democracy... and unlike a few (very many) other countries, the PRC doesn't even pretend to be a democracy.
P.S. > I like this thread. A lot of good posts that allow us to learn a bit more by looking at different angles of the topic.

Well, it has at least some sort of Parliament like institution for rubber stamping major decisions.

But you are correct as so far as it does not claim to be a democracy. I think however it claims to represent the interests of the people nonetheless, doesn't it?

Martin · 03-29-2008, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

Cold war. That Chinese guys were communists. America feared a communist wave rolling all over Asia. I guess Tibet was just one piece of action in the attempt to "contain" communism or at least keep it busy so that it can't spread as fast anymore.

Thats my guess, of I course I could be wrong.

I think you're right.
I just forgot about the cold war as nowadays they don't build those iron curtains anymore

... they replaced them by concrete ones in Palestine.
BTW, what kind of wall is been built between Mechico and its northern neighbour?

Sorry, different subject there.

Slartibartfas · 03-29-2008, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin

I think you're right.
I just forgot about the cold war as nowadays they don't build those iron curtains anymore

... they replaced them by concrete ones in Palestine.
BTW, what kind of wall is been built between Mechico and its northern neighbour?

Sorry, different subject there.

Some claim that the iron curtain only moved eastwards:

(the green countries will also be blue soon, and the violet ones have a special status)