Chinese’s anger and resentment about France is definitely there now. Chinese have always held the French in higher regards than other european, but I suspect they expect the Chinese government will take action against France. But as usual, how the Chinese government responds to France might be hidden from public view, but will be felt by the French government. And I doubt the boycott of French goods will go through, as the French are not really that big of a deal in the global scheme of things.

Chinese will eventually learn what Americans have long learned about the French – bunch of annoying effeminate potent self-important wussies.

April 16, 2008 @ 10:50 am | Comment

correction: I meant to say, impotent, not potent.

April 16, 2008 @ 10:52 am | Comment

they could change the chinese name for baguette, from “french bread” 法包 to “harmonious bread” 和谐包 or something. Just like the americans did with french fries.

April 16, 2008 @ 11:41 am | Comment

Considering the failed attempts of boycotting Japanese products in the past, I seriously doubt this boycott France campaign will be successful.

On an unrelated note, I found that oddly there is not much China bashing from the neocons this time. Their mouth piece Weekly Standard has had little to say about this Tibet story. Is it because Tibet is an issue of the nutty left only? Or maybe it is because Murdoch doesn’t like the Dalai?

The Chinese government can learn one lesson here. If you can not influence CNN through clever PR work, you can still buy CNN. Use the sovereign fund to purchase sizable ownership rights and get elected to the boards of the Western media companies. After that, the Chinese narrative will be well presented.

April 16, 2008 @ 11:56 am | Comment

how about renaming the Louis XIV Cognac to DL XIV.

April 16, 2008 @ 12:09 pm | Comment

“The Chinese government can learn one lesson here. If you can not influence CNN through clever PR work, you can still buy CNN. Use the sovereign fund to purchase sizable ownership rights and get elected to the boards of the Western media companies. After that, the Chinese narrative will be well presented. “

Brilliant idea!

April 16, 2008 @ 12:10 pm | Comment

how about renaming the Louis XIV Cognac to DL XIV Cognac

April 16, 2008 @ 12:10 pm | Comment

>Use the sovereign fund to purchase sizable ownership rights and get elected to the boards of the Western media companies. After that, the Chinese narrative will be well presented.

Dream on. There would be an epic sh!tstorm if they tried to pull that off.

April 16, 2008 @ 2:19 pm | Comment

Robert Thurman (famous Buddhist scholar, father of Uma) once called the Tibetans “the baby seals of the global human rights movement.” By that he meant that they are seen as overwhelmingly sympathetic and their cause as just by those in the West who are involved in human rights. This is understandable, I think – there’s a lot in Tibetan culture that is very attractive to Westerners, particularly the Buddhist spiritual underpinnings of the society. And I believe that before this rebellion, Tibetan culture and Buddhism were regarded very highly by many Chinese as well.

Cultures are never simple things and never black and white; there’s no such thing as perfection and the sort of purity that some people ascribe to Tibet; nonetheless, it is very difficult for the Chinese government to come up with a narrative to counter that of oppressed Tibetans struggling to preserve their culture against a powerful oppressor.

But rather than reacting with demands for apologies and boycotting the French, I’d be curious to know what such a narrative would look like. What is the Chinese case that some of you feel is not being fairly presented? And please realize that “Tibet is part of China!” and “Europeans conquered Native Americans” do not constitute a sympathetic or coherent narrative.

April 16, 2008 @ 3:19 pm | Comment

@Middle Finger Kingdom
“how about renaming the Louis XIV Cognac to DL XIV.”

enchantée! …. Hic… Hic….Hic

April 16, 2008 @ 3:34 pm | Comment

The Chinese have already surpassed the French qualities of pompous arrogance and self-generated superiority.

** Not bashing the French any more than usual by other Americans, Brits, Italians and Germans.

April 16, 2008 @ 3:52 pm | Comment

Otherlisa has hit on something that I too have wondered. The more protestors out there I see with signs that criticise slanted Western reporting/views about Tibet, the less I am seeing a clear message that tells Westerners exectly what they see incorrectly about the fundamental nature of the Tibet problem (the rioting, as with the peaceful protests by monks in many situations, is not the fundamental nature but is a symptom of a larger problem that no Chinese soldiers can address).

My theory as to why there is a lack of a coherant message on the part of the Chinese people/government in this is that the problem IS so complicated and because it touches on a nationalist issue — the right to inhabit the borders of the old Qing Dynasty — that questions the fundamental vitality of the party and modern China. It is extremely hard to counter good (although admittedly biased) arguments with a simple response that will turn the tide against Western sympathy for Tibet without truly, carefully, and publicly pondering the problem. But to ponder this problem in seriousness is something the Chinese government/people don’t seem ready to do.

April 16, 2008 @ 3:55 pm | Comment

Been busy, not much time to participate recently. All of what’s happening right now in the Chinese internet space was completely predictable to me. I’ve been saying for months that fucking with the Olympics is a bad idea when Spielberg and Darfur activists turned on it; now we’re seeing that multiplied by a factor of 20.

Relations between China and Western Europe has been set back at least 10 years. And I’m not talking about “official” relations… I’m talking about people on the streets. Do many in Western Europe care? No, probably not.

As far as whether the Japanese boycott has “worked”… I personally know many young Chinese who have made sure their cars/phones/computers aren’t Japanese. Has it brought these companies to their knees…? Of course not; China isn’t a big enough market yet to make that much of a difference.

The boycott of Carrefour seems misguided to me. Who cares if Carrefour goes bankrupt, after all? The real prime target is Airbus. With American/European travel down heavily due to economic downturn, Asian traffic is a bigger target than ever. Airbus should be the company going down in flames.

Relations with the US is surprisingly unscathed; it’s absolutely remarkable to me that China hasn’t become more of a campaign issue in the presidential election so far.

Wen Jiabao recently repeated a Deng Xiaoping comment, in a meeting with overseas Chinese, that now was still the time to keep our heads down and keep working hard. Glad to hear the central government still feels that way… but that era is gradually coming to an end.

And then there’s always the issue of Tibet. What’s happening there? Many Chinese are becoming more educated than ever on Tibetan issues, and it (not surprisingly) hasn’t changed any opinions. Attachment to Tibet has reached an all new level; it’s no longer about Tibet, but pissing off the French and British.

I do believe domestic policies will improve (including hopefully the removal of Zhang as party secretary of the TAR later this year)… but I also believe the Dalai Lama is all but guaranteed a death in exile, as the position he’s suggested so far is now completely unacceptable to the vast majority of Chinese.

April 16, 2008 @ 4:17 pm | Comment

I think what Thomas says is very astute.

And this raises another issue. China is a global player – a lot of what the Olympics is about is the big “coming out party,”celebrating China’s rise as a superpower.

The thing is, superpowers get criticized. They are frequently resented. The sort of thing that happened on the torch run is an expression of resentment and grievance. Some of it may be racially motivated, some of it may not be fair, some of it may be jealousy. But guess what? This is what superpowers get.

Not everybody is going to like you. Some people are going to resent you.

How China is regarded as a global player will to some extent be affected by how the Chinese government/people react to such sentiments.

Even more so, it’s about how China chooses to act on the world stage.

As an American, I’ve seen the anger and resentment engendered by my country. Some of it is due to our power and wealth. Some of it is due to our actions, which have not always been admirable.

So, get used to it. You want to be a superpower, this is what you get.

April 16, 2008 @ 4:22 pm | Comment

Thomas/Otherlisa,

You guys are approaching this issue from only one side. I agree with you guys completely that it will be difficult changing Western sentiments on Tibet, at least amongst core supporters.

But where’s the convincing Western narrative that will change Chinese sentiments on “Freeing” (= independent) Tibet? I sure haven’t heard one.

If you guys haven’t heard of Wang Qianyuan yet, you probably will… she’s a Duke undergraduate from Qingdao who, either out of incredibly smart or incredibly stupid planning, found herself on the side of the typical liberal-guilt afflicted white undergraduates (members of Students for a Free Tibet), facing off against a few hundred Chinese students.

She has subsequently been demonized with a ferocity that surprises even me. Her family’s house in Qingdao was reportedly vandalized (first allegedly with a broken window, but later allegedly with a chamber pot of poo). And all this for someone that claims to only support moderate policies in Tibet, and would never dream of supporting Tibetan independence.

And really, who’s opinion on this issue is going to prove more important in the long run? The few hundred million Western Europeans who sort of care about this when they’re not worrying about Serbia and the EU? Or the 1.3 billion Chinese ready to lynch the next person who hangs a snow lion flag in Beijing?

April 16, 2008 @ 4:32 pm | Comment

“The Chinese have already surpassed the French qualities of pompous arrogance and self-generated superiority.”

i think this is the first time i have ever agreed with you. though the average inhabitant of beijing is more pleasant on a day-to-day level than the average parisian, who appears to redefine the word arrogant.

April 16, 2008 @ 4:33 pm | Comment

@otherlisa,

Well, that’s what many Chinese netizens have been saying this week. The only other countries that potentially faced an Olympic boycott were the USA and the USSR; we’re playing with the big boys now!

As far as learning from how the USA reacts to foreign criticism… by ignoring it, and/or occasionally changing the name of common food products to get rid of the offending country?

But I do agree with you that China needs to learn to take things in the proper perspective, for our own sake. France boycotting the Beijing Olympics is like Hunan province boycotting the London Olympics; should we even care?

April 16, 2008 @ 4:41 pm | Comment

CCT, I don’t know what you mean when you say that Thomas and I are approaching this issue “from one side.” Can you elaborate?

I am a shades of gray sort of person. I don’t think that Tibet before Chinese occupation was some sort of Shangri-la Disneyland. I do think that many Westerners involved with the “Free Tibet” movement are naive and absolutist and probably big pains in the ass in how they approach their activism. As a good liberal, believe me, I see the sort of ideological purity on my side of the aisle and it’s pretty damn discouraging, not to mention irritating.

But what I’m not yet seeing is a coherent narrative from the “Chinese side” justifying the policy vis Tibet. What would you have the West do in this case? When a Wang Qianyuan is demonized by her own countrymen, how is this the West’s responsibility or fault?

You know I’ve seen plenty of “movements” in my own country, where large numbers of people act irrationally, and sometimes it just takes a little time for people to get a grip and get perspective. I’d like to think that this is the case in China right now. But I really have to wonder, given the lack of institutional support for opposition, freedom of expression and political competition.

I’m not claiming that we’ve done very well in the US lately. We have not at all, and it’s another one of these situations where I wonder if we can actually fix the problems, given how far down the road we’ve gone towards media consolidation, propaganda and special interests controlling our political process. But these things have happened in a country that actually had the political structure to mitigate said problems.

I know I’m rambling here. I guess my point is that if the Western press is not doing a good job of covering these Chinese issues, it’s really up to the Chinese people to present a counter-narrative that is coherent and truthful. But Chinese institutions do not seem designed to allow this to happen. So how is it the West’s fault?

April 16, 2008 @ 4:51 pm | Comment

But CCT, what I said was not that the Chinese people/government has to come out with a narrative that will convince Westerners or that Westerners must convince Chinese.

I said that they need to come up with a response that actually indicates that they are considering the problem.

The Tibet protesters are currently much better at getting their message across. They DO have a message: “Tibetans are repressed by the Chinese government.” It is simple and it is easy to support, even in a baised way. And while the protesters are organised with the delivery of this message, this does not mean that Chinese people need to be convinced by that message either. They don’t necessarily have to be. The Tibet protesters know that it is not necessary to convince the Chinese to gain a worldwide PR coup. Simply by addressing that problem in front of the world, they are earning kudos from those who want to see the problem solved. Yet where do Chinese actually address the problem really?

I feel that Chinese speak with many voices on the issue, but they never really get to the heart of the matter. There is a mix of finger pointing (“look at what you guys have done in YOUR past”), of chest thumping (“Tibet is just ours. Historically it has been ours so we have rights”), of boasting (“look how well our liberation has gone. the Tibetans now can read!”). All of this shows Chinese opinions on the issue, true enough, but none of these messages actually address the unhappiness of the Tibetans. And the world wants to at least see some narrative that shows the Chinese are serious about solving the problem.

Admittedly, the Tibet protesters have an easier job. It is easier to complain about a problem then solve it. But if the Chinese came back with something like: “We know Tibetans are unhappy, but we are drawing up plans to work with all interested parties (including the Dalai Lama – it is impossible to cut him out of the solution, and they know it. He is too important for Tibetans) to alleviate the problem in our own way”, they would rob many Tibet protesters of much of their thunder, and buy themselves time.

I personally dont feel the Chinese have given themselves much wiggle room to be flexible to the concerns of the Tibetans without appearing to give in to foreigners. This is the nationalist corner they have painted themselves into. And this is why I said that Chinese are not yet ready for the kind of soul searching that coming up with a unified narrative that addresses the problem would require. Addressing the problem is, in itself, inflammatory within China. It is a mess of a situation.

Now I am rambling.

Of course, Tibet would have to be open to the press to judge this sort of thing,

What would be a coherant message? If someone could unify the register of discourse coming out of China along the lines of “We know you (Tibetans) are unhappy and we are investigating why. We’re investigating why they are unhappy

April 16, 2008 @ 5:51 pm | Comment

Boycotting French products? So no more Beaujolais or Camembert for Chinese people? That’s gonna be hard for my in-laws, but it saves me the trouble of sending all those CARE packages week for week.

On the other side, I’ve been considering a boycott of Chinese products, recently. Not because of the human rights situation or because of Tibet or because of any political reason, but a friend of mine has been attacked by a few drunkards in a bar in Shanghai. Those drunkards weren’t Chinese, they obviously were foreign tourists, actually the Chinese owner and the Chinese staff of the bar did their best to protect my friend and he managed to get out of there with only a scratch and a few bruises, but still I think that bar should be boycotted from now on, since they allowed the whole incident to happen in the first place. Actually, since it happened on Chinese soil, I think all Chinese products should be boycotted.

April 16, 2008 @ 7:19 pm | Comment

According to Sun Bin, the reason for the boycott is the belief that a major shareholder in Carrefour financially supports the Dalai Lama. So from that angle it is logical.

Not that I agree with it, natch

April 16, 2008 @ 8:01 pm | Comment

Yes!! All self righteous Chinese quickly LEAVE France and show your support for a government you didn’t vote for and taxes you without representation!!!

Vive la Chine!!

April 16, 2008 @ 8:56 pm | Comment

@CCT

Or the 1.3 billion Chinese ready to lynch the next person who hangs a snow lion flag in Beijing?

Never invoke the entire population of any country to prove that a cause is important. First of all, it trivializes the cause. Secondly, not all Chinese have the point of view, but those who have a dissenting voice on Tibet in China these days usually shut up. Especially after the sickening persecution of Chang Ping and Wang Qianyuan.

April 16, 2008 @ 9:20 pm | Comment

On the issue of the Tibet protests in France, what exactly was the country supposed to do? Arrest all protestors for “offending China”? Rip down banners put up by the mayor of Paris?

I really hope that this is not an indication of any trend. China has to grow up and accept that many countries out there have rule of law and free speech/a right to protest. They cannot suppress such rights just to please China. Yet if China/Chinese people expect foreign states to do just that (maybe not today, perhaps tomorrow) then foreign relations with China are going to go right down the tubes.

I hope this boycott doesn’t get off the ground/fizzles out.

April 16, 2008 @ 10:35 pm | Comment

Below is an opinion article from Elliot Sperling on the Tibet sovereignty issue. He concludes that the claims of the Tibetan nationalist are a bit strong than those of the Chinese government.

So far in the debate I have not seen any arguments about the basic legal rights involved in the issue of sovereignty and no serious and studious analysis of the sovereignty or legal rights of Tibetans or Chinese to the Tibetan land. I am in agreement with the Tibetans who want their own government control of the area, whether partial like autonomous region or full like a free Tibet. I think it is bad form and worthless to say the Chinese have the right to sovereignty because 800 years ago the Mongol Dynasty (Yuan), not a Chinese dynasty, controlled Tibet for several hundred years, (which then disappeared and exerted no control or authority over the Tibet region thereafter and likewise with the Manchu dynasty (Qing) which gave up its governing authority over Tibet and China completely and was defunct. The Manchu people (mansu) are not Han Chinese.

Mr Sperling claims the Republican government of China never claimed sovereignty over Tibet. The Tibetans ruled Tibet without interference or claim of China through out the Republican era and until 1951. Only after New China was established, and the new government clearly proclaimed by the victorious Communists was that claim made and enforced by guns by the PRC.

I am bothered by the claims of present day China
because I see Tibetans as a distinct people, with a different culture than the Han, and other minorities in China, a different history, and different physical characteristics than the Chinese . When New China (PRC) invaded Tibet and took it over, the Republic of China (ROC) was a member of the UN and was on its Security Council and was a signatory to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I believe when PRC took over the place of the ROC in the UN, the PRC did subscribe to all the conditions of membership as all other members and became a party to the Declaration of Human Rights. In those UN papers there is a right of people to self-determination which has not been accorded to the Tibetans, unless of course, you want to say that fighting against an invader, being killed, wounded, capture and/or subjugated is “self-determination.

Not only do I think the Chinese claims are superficial, based on information I have found, I think they are specious. I also think that much of the youth of China are being directed by the CCP to make their fuss and threats.

I welcome challenges to the Mr. Sperling’s opinion and to my arguments.

I do not welcome nasty, personal comments. Stick to issues. Nasty comments will probably get seriously nasty comments right back

Op-Ed Contributor
Don’t Know Much About Tibetan History

By ELLIOT SPERLING
Published: April 13, 2008
Bloomington, Ind.

FOR many Tibetans, the case for the historical independence of their land is unequivocal. They assert that Tibet has always been and by rights now ought to be an independent country. China’s assertions are equally unequivocal: Tibet became a part of China during Mongol rule and its status as a part of China has never changed. Both of these assertions are at odds with Tibet’s history.
The Tibetan view holds that Tibet was never subject to foreign rule after it emerged in the mid-seventh century as a dynamic power holding sway over an Inner Asian empire. These Tibetans say the appearance of subjugation to the Mongol rulers of the Yuan Dynasty in the 13th and 14th centuries, and to the Manchu rulers of China’s Qing Dynasty from the 18th century until the 20th century, is due to a modern, largely Western misunderstanding of the personal relations among the Yuan and Qing emperors and the pre-eminent lamas of Tibet. In this view, the lamas simply served as spiritual mentors to the emperors, with no compromise of Tibet’s independent status.
In China’s view, the Western misunderstandings are about the nature of China: Western critics don’t understand that China has a history of thousands of years as a unified multinational state; all of its nationalities are Chinese. The Mongols, who entered China as conquerers, are claimed as Chinese, and their subjugation of Tibet is claimed as a Chinese subjugation.
Here are the facts. The claim that Tibet entertained only personal relations with China at the leadership level is easily rebutted. Administrative records and dynastic histories outline the governing structures of Mongol and Manchu rule. These make it clear that Tibet was subject to rules, laws and decisions made by the Yuan and Qing rulers. Tibet was not independent during these two periods. One of the Tibetan cabinet ministers summoned to Beijing at the end of the 18th century describes himself unambiguously in his memoirs as a subject of the Manchu emperor.
But although Tibet did submit to the Mongol and Manchu Empires, neither attached Tibet to China. The same documentary record that shows Tibetan subjugation to the Mongols and Manchus also shows that China’s intervening Ming Dynasty (which ruled from 1368 to 1644) had no control over Tibet. This is problematic, given China’s insistence that Chinese sovereignty was exercised in an unbroken line from the 13th century onward.
The idea that Tibet became part of China in the 13th century is a very recent construction. In the early part of the 20th century, Chinese writers generally dated the annexation of Tibet to the 18th century. They described Tibet’s status under the Qing with a term that designates a “feudal dependency,” not an integral part of a country. And that’s because Tibet was ruled as such, within the empires of the Mongols and the Manchus. When the Qing dynasty collapsed in 1911, Tibet became independent once more.
From 1912 until the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, no Chinese government exercised control over what is today China’s Tibet Autonomous Region. The Dalai Lama’s government alone ruled the land until 1951.
Marxist China adopted the linguistic sleight of hand that asserts it has always been a unitary multinational country, not the hub of empires. There is now firm insistence that “Han,” actually one of several ethnonyms for “Chinese,” refers to only one of the Chinese nationalities. This was a conscious decision of those who constructed 20th-century Chinese identity. (It stands in contrast to the Russian decision to use a political term, “Soviet,” for the peoples of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.)
There is something less to the arguments of both sides, but the argument on the Chinese side is weaker. Tibet was not “Chinese” until Mao Zedong’s armies marched in and made it so.
Elliot Sperling is the director of the Tibetan Studies program at Indiana University’s department of Central Eurasia Studies.

April 17, 2008 @ 12:12 am | Comment

People can boycott their hearts out- nothing is forcing them to buy things they don’t want. But as some have implied, hasty and anger-fueled boycotts pay little heed to the depth of what they are really asking for.

http://tinyurl.com/4sfsot
Those buildings? Designed by a…Frenchman! Gasp!

http://tinyurl.com/4dzg58
Oops! Some French splittism at work here too. Better stick to ground transportation.

http://tinyurl.com/57t959
Who turned out the lights? These damn Frenchmen are everywhere! God forbid they help us reduce our reliance on coal power. This proves they are in league with the DL clique.

For the sake of China’s industrial infrastructure, let’s hope the boycott remains at the pointless and superficial level (don’t buy evil cheese from Carrefour!). Although I’ll give credit where credit is due, I know some Chinese people wish Paul Andreu’s monstrous National Egg was boycotted from the very start. That thing is just creepy.

April 17, 2008 @ 12:49 am | Comment

they could change the chinese name for baguette, from “french bread” ·¨°ü to “harmonious bread” ºÍг°ü or something.

hahaha

April 17, 2008 @ 1:14 am | Comment

The Chinese have already surpassed the French qualities of pompous arrogance and self-generated superiority.

Get real, Americans are by far the most arrogant, pompous twats on the face of the planet. The reason why America hates France is because France will not quietly take it up the ass like Britain does, even though they tie for second place when it comes to condescension.

I’m sure the reason why you hate Chinese people is because they’re blissfully unaware of the fact that Americans fully expect to be treated like “white gods”, as you say, wherever they go.

What is the Chinese case that some of you feel is not being fairly presented?

That China is competing with two major geopolitical powers (EU, U.S) and that it needs resources. The fact that China hasn’t ethnically cleansed any resource rich areas (or bombed a country half to death like Iraq) shows that, while the CCP is evil, they are morally superior to America.

Taking only one bit of the whole picture (the dispossession of Tibetans) is biased. Globalization, the nature of realpolitik, and other things are more at work than any sort of “Han” racial bias. I doubt any fenqing would tell you that though, they will probably just spew the party line and make all of us look like retards.

You want to be a superpower, this is what you get.

I don’t think Chinese people want to be world police, that can be America’s job. Iraq and Afghanistan are the World Police’s Rodney King.

April 17, 2008 @ 1:27 am | Comment

“Taking only one bit of the whole picture (the dispossession of Tibetans) is biased. Globalization, the nature of realpolitik, and other things are more at work than any sort of “Han” racial bias. I doubt any fenqing would tell you that though, they will probably just spew the party line and make all of us look like retards.”

@Ferin
I thought you were an American?

April 17, 2008 @ 1:45 am | Comment

Oy vey. Ferin, I asked for a response that was something other than “You are WORSE!” Care to try again?

April 17, 2008 @ 2:01 am | Comment

I mean “all of us” as in “ethnically Chinese” people (to most Americans, all Asians are Chinese), because of the tendency of Americans to judge all people based on their race or religion.

April 17, 2008 @ 2:03 am | Comment

Oy vey. Ferin, I asked for a response that was something other than “You are WORSE!” Care to try again?

It’s not just “you are worse”. America threatens the survival of not only Chinese people but everyone on the planet. China needs control of Tibet’s resources to compete with America and Europe and to survive.

Once America tones down its global aggression and Europe its cultural genocide and economic imperialism (their terms, not mine. just used in a Europe -> World context and not Han -> Tibetan) China will have more leeway to start rapidly dismantling the CCP.

April 17, 2008 @ 2:06 am | Comment

@Ferin
Well if that’s your opinion, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
I still don’t know what resources in Tibet you’re talking about though.

April 17, 2008 @ 2:23 am | Comment

Sure, boycutting of the french goods will not last long.
But it is safe to say that the damage is done, the relationship has been set back at least 10 years.

Thomas/Otherlisa:
The problem from the chinese side is that the issue of Tibet is so complex. It is less about the human rights more about the history and national sovereignty. So there is really no simple message to put out, other than saying that “Tibet is part of China”.
“Free Tibet” supporters in the west are mostly young and naive folks who don’t care and don’t want to spend time to learn about the issue. How are you going to explain such a complex issue to those ppl who doens’t know the background information?
By the end of the day, this is an issue that can only be solved between Tibetan and rest of the Chinese, not by couple hundred thousand westerners.

April 17, 2008 @ 2:28 am | Comment

I still don’t know what resources in Tibet you’re talking about though.

Water is one of them. The rest you can google for..

April 17, 2008 @ 2:29 am | Comment

“But what I’m not yet seeing is a coherent narrative from the “Chinese side” justifying the policy vis Tibet. ”
============
Personally, I believe ppl can have a view on something based on all kinds of different reasons. To have 1.3 billion ppl all have the exact same voice and exact line of reasoning might not be a good thing.

“What would you have the West do in this case?”
==============
Simple, to look at the both sides of the story. Western media should know that both “free-tibet” and dailai camp are political entities, thus their views are obviously biased. Instead of just reporting the whole issue purely based on one side of the story, they should also do their homework, listen and study the chinese side of the view. This is the basic rule of the journalism
Western media should be better than this.

April 17, 2008 @ 2:34 am | Comment

Hi, Pete
The thing is that Mr. SPERLING’s arguement for Tibet independence is quite weak actually. The key in his article is “When the Qing dynasty collapsed in 1911, Tibet became independent once more.” However this has been proved to be very wrong. No one wanted argue with you because this is a really really old topic which has been disputed for years in all kinds of Forums.
As he stated himself, Chinese sovereignty over Tibet was very well documented officially in the history.
However his claim for Tibet sovereignty was based on some “Chinese writers”. At most, this can only be treated as secondary evidence. It is nothing comparable to the official documents.The more problematic conclusion from this weak evidence is that “Tibet became indpendent AUTOMATICALLY!” No Chinese writer wrote that. It is just his or some westerner’s inference. When the Qing dynasty collapsed in 1911, Tibet DID NOT became independent AUTOMATICALLY. In the great civil war era, many parts of China became the autonomous regions controlled by Warlords. Some even claimed their independence actually, including CCP’s little Soviet in Jiangxi province. In many ways, Tibet was just like that. One very important clue is that Tibet had no foreign relationships diplomatically during that period whatsoever. There is no official documents showing the local Tibetant government intended to eastablish this kind of relationships with foreign governments as well. Furthermore, Da Lai met with Mao after CCP took the power, but before CCP army entered Tibet. He agreed that Tibet was a part of China. Only after he realized he would not securely excisize his power as the biggest slave master in the world, he changed his position. Free Tibet? Believe it or not, Tibet was freed by Commies! No human rights in Tibet? They can have 3 children in the family, but other Chinese can only have one.

By the way, some update:
Da Lai is gonna to hand his homework to his supervisor: famous neocon figure Paula Dobriansky in Michigan, in this week. Da Lai is just dry powder made with western goverment’s money. Everything is clear?
Now you know why Dalai is supporting the Iraq war?

April 17, 2008 @ 2:41 am | Comment

@Ferin
Alright, let’s see what google comes up with.

If we can trust the People’s Daily on this;
“Tibet’s major exports include cloth, pottery, animals, wool and daily-use industrial goods. Its products imported are mainly rice, cooking oil, jewelry, wrist watches and daily necessities. ”

“However, Tibet’s import and export volume has remained small, compared with other autonomous regions and provinces. Tibet’s trade volume stood at 160 million US dollars, making up only 0.02 percent of the country’s total and less than one-tenth of the country’s average. ”

http://tinyurl.com/5mht4j

This website, http://tinyurl.com/5gbkwc, stresses the hydro-electric and geothermal potential of Tibet. Geothermal energy is not practically exportable, and the hydroelectric goes with the water.

Thing about the drainage from the Himalayans into China is that it isn’t really a voluntary export is it? You couldn’t just divert the Yangtze even if you wanted to.

I remain sceptical about the economic argument for the continued occupation of Tibet.

April 17, 2008 @ 2:52 am | Comment

The Chinese narrative

Someone, like otherlisa, asked people here to put forward the Chinese narrative on the Tibetan issue.

For this you have to look into the Chinese national psychic which differs significantly from that in the US. The Americans view their history through the lens of an independence movement against an oppressive colonial power; the Chinese on the other hand see their recent history as a struggle against the Western nations and Japan to preserve their ancient civilization and their territories inherited from the last Qing dynasty.

The Tibetan separatists and the CIA instigated the 1959 uprising to weaken the Chinese state very much like what the British did during the Opium Wars. In the recent decades the separatist forces covered their real motives with the insidious rhetorics of human rights and religious freedom.

Who is clever enough to turn this to a “baby seals” type metaphor?

April 17, 2008 @ 3:05 am | Comment

There’s also uranium, gold, iron ore, lithium, oil, natural gas, potassium, and copper. Worth a few trillion at modest estimates.

Tibet also has great potential for wind and solar power.

It doesn’t justify imperialism, nothing does, but that’s the world the West has created.

April 17, 2008 @ 3:22 am | Comment

Who is clever enough to turn this to a “baby seals” type metaphor?

That’s correct; Westerners always portray the “lucky recipients” of their “aid” and “compassion” as helpless, infantile, somewhat retarded, and in need of someone to feed them, clothe them, and clean up their poop.

Baby seals don’t fuss if you extract billions of barrels of their oil behind their backs either.

April 17, 2008 @ 3:24 am | Comment

One thing about this whole Carrerfour boycott is that if it is in response to the protests in Paris, what kind of a message does that send to the 64 million Frenchmen who did not take part? Who’s really hating on whose country here?

April 17, 2008 @ 3:59 am | Comment

@serve the people
“The Tibetan separatists and the CIA instigated the 1959 uprising …”

Some people tend to use the magic word “CIA” to justify any conspiracy. May I remind you that the predecessor of the CIA the OSS was active in China?

“Among other activities, the OSS helped arm, train and supply resistance movements, including Mao Zedong’s Red Army in China and the Viet Minh in French Indochina, in areas occupied by the Axis powers during the Second World War… ”

So you see. Mao Zedong was also a conspirator.

In time of need a people under menace will turn for help to anyone willing to give it to them, the same way as the CCP in WWII.

April 17, 2008 @ 7:46 am | Comment

My question is:

Why are Tibetans so angry? Doesn’t their religion teach not to be violent? Doesn’t their religion teach to detach oneself from worldly things? Doesn’t their religion teach that all things, including their own culture, is impermanent?

If only the world went this way… instead, now we’re inheriting a world filled with blind hate from both sides… we’re inheriting a vicious cycle wherein Tibetans hate Han Chinese and Han Chinese hate Tibetans… and Uighurs… and Westerners… and everyone not Han. Do not make the dragon angry. All it will do is burn the village down. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

April 17, 2008 @ 8:51 am | Comment

@ecodelta

You are right that the US and China were allies during the Second World War. Then they became enemies, and there were the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the less significant Tibetan Insurgence.

However these things were in the past. Nixon and Mao decided to put these histories behind. Since then, the Chinese people have had no bitterness towards the Americans on these issues. It was a fair game. Let’s forgive and forget.

What is irritating is that in the past two decades the politicians in the US congress and their nutty left advocates have decided to revisit this geopolitical rivalry before Nixon’s visit, and create a revisionist history of good vs evil, a story of the brutal Chinese oppressing the ”baby seal” like Tibetans (I really like this metaphor. Thank you, otherlisa, for bring it to this blog). They condemn China for the human rights and religious freedom problems in Tibet, while conveniently forgetting that the CIA helped create these problems in the first place.

The shallow cable news networks, such as CNN, never bothered to study the root of these problems, but prefer spicing up their programs with ”goons” and ”thugs” rhetoric.

It is this hypocrisy that annoys Chinese people.

April 17, 2008 @ 9:02 am | Comment

@Serve the People

It is this hypocrisy that annoys Chinese people.

Do you have any idea what it is like to be an obvious non-Han Chinese in China when the PRC government has decided to play up nationalism? Probably not. It’s not just a question of seeing things on TV that annoy you. It’s a question of having to answer to the question WHO ARE YOU? WHERE ARE YOU FROM? DO YOU AGREE WITH “US”? every day. So, having experienced that, I have no idea why people are complaining about supposed anti-Chine coverage in media right now.

April 17, 2008 @ 9:16 am | Comment

Finally, a Han Chinese admits that Tibetans have actual grievances, and not just the “Dalai Clique”. Progress.

April 17, 2008 @ 9:17 am | Comment

I’m referring to Sib’s comment.

April 17, 2008 @ 9:18 am | Comment

Has anyone denied it? You need to stop hanging around boards where the words “chink” and “chinkfag” are thrown around and maybe you will attract fewer brainless nationalists.

The CCP does not represent the Han Chinese in any way whatsoever, they are victims just the same as Tibetans. Both Han Chinese and Tibetans have grievances.

April 17, 2008 @ 10:24 am | Comment

@ferin,

Lurkmoar, the racism on *chan boards is often deeply ironic and is equal-opportunity, don’t take it too seriously… 🙂

Re: Han Chinese, I’d like to think you’re right about the Party not representing the Chinese, but I see a lot of red flags being unfurled across the world, surely not all by CSSA and CCP officials/members…

April 17, 2008 @ 10:35 am | Comment

SOme guy, maybe they are not thoughtful enought to realize that flag is of the CCP. Every country has a flag, and so I dont blame them for waving it around, a lot of them truly want to be proud of their country and are not aware of the evil deeds of the CCP…

April 17, 2008 @ 10:40 am | Comment

but I see a lot of red flags being unfurled across the world, surely not all by CSSA and CCP officials/members…

They are retarded. I can’t believe anyone would think that that flag represents Chinese civilization, people, culture, anything. It’s still a shock to me when I see anyone raise it.

April 17, 2008 @ 10:52 am | Comment

“Re: Han Chinese, I’d like to think you’re right about the Party not representing the Chinese, but I see a lot of red flags being unfurled across the world, surely not all by CSSA and CCP officials/members…”

Well, it is the national flag of China. Though I prefer the hammer & sickle flag, myself.

April 17, 2008 @ 10:55 am | Comment

@Snow:

That would be a legitimate explanation, IF it weren’t for the fact that until about a decade ago, many if not most Overseas Chinese communities displayed the white sun flag to show their patriotism. The choice to display the red flag is always a conscious one.

April 17, 2008 @ 11:09 am | Comment

There is much more irrationality to refute.

http://tinyurl.com/6qyk38
The invasion of the robotic thugs

The attacks on the �horrible, ominous, retarded� Chinese men guarding the Olympic flame are historical prejudice repeated as farce.

April 17, 2008 @ 11:17 am | Comment

Oppps. Posted it in the wrong topic.

April 17, 2008 @ 11:19 am | Comment

Since this is an open thread, let’s turn to something lighter: like National Public Radio coming to Chengdu. The blog is a bit like a wide-eyed travelogue but it rekindled my desire to visit this city, something I’ve been meaning to do for years.

April 17, 2008 @ 12:38 pm | Comment

Duke Chinese student becomes a target. Parents home in China vandalized.

http://www.dukechronicle.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticle&ustory_id=04a0696d-adc3-4498-9ff2-c2d76ef852c0

April 17, 2008 @ 12:58 pm | Comment

@ ferin

“I mean “all of us” as in “ethnically Chinese” people (to most Americans, all Asians are Chinese), because of the tendency of Americans to judge all people based on their race or religion.”

Your comments all over this board alone are full of anti-anyone but Han and I doubt all other Asians like being lumped in with Chinese.

April 17, 2008 @ 1:07 pm | Comment

This is what I wrote to a comrade of mine:

The think what happened recently has very dangerous consequences as they gave a boost to both Western prejudice/racism and Chinese nationalism. I am very concerned, I really am. The people who tell the truth about Tibet are usually academics, but their voices are simply not heard.

I fear we haven’t seen the end of all the racist violence.

…

Chinese nationalism is as dangerous as any other form of nationalism, unfortunately—Especially when it’s fueled by Western racism.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/us/
17student.html

The girl is from my home town, I even recognize her parents’ apartment. Though this is, in my opinion, a biased account of what happened, it nevertheless illustrate just how irrational and hateful things will get in the coming days.

So in conclusion, things are getting out of hand.

April 17, 2008 @ 1:07 pm | Comment

Just an afterthought from the flag waving comments,

NO MATTER what the CCP says, and no matter how many (unless the number is all) Chinese make a show of voicing the party line on any issue, UNLESS THAT NUMBER OF PEOPLE IS ALL, WE WILL NEVER KNOW WHAT THE CHINESE PEOPLE THINK. The reason is too obvious for people to guess, and they cant seem to really observe this fact… People are terrified. Anybody know why theres no dissent in north korea? Terror. People can tell me all day long that the cultural revolution is in the past and that this and that is soo different but whoever says that has no clue and was born and raised within the party line, or else they would know the real situation for people who dare to stray from the officially accepted thoughts.

The CCP fabricated a culture of forced unity, of elliminating natural behaviour and thought and replacing it with “harmony” as they call it.

Do you think being overseas protects Chinese people from the communist thought police? When Chen Yonglin defected in Australia, the first thing the immigration dept did was call up the CCP and rat him out. When some embassy guy defected in Canada, the stupid gov’t sent him to the CCP!!! Even Falun Gong people are not well protected cause of the economic spell that gov’ts are under.

My point is that until the CCP stops making free thought and speach a crime, we will never ever know what Chinese people really think (unless there is a wave of ultra bravery on the part of Chinese people or unless the Chinese people get some support from countries who supposedly care about human rights.)

How is anyone supposed to take seriously any opinion of people who will be tortured for thinking otherwise? A culture of propaganda, what the heck?!

When the Chinese people can grow the balls and self respect to say DOWN WITH THE CENTRAL PROPAGANDA DEPARTMENT, WE WANT FREEDOM OF THOUGHT . That is when their voices will have some validity.

I mean look at that poor girl in America who had poo thrown on her house in China cause she is considerate towards the Tibetan cause. Under this constant pressure of mass hate incitement and a (CCP) culture that excuses any form of evil as long as it is consistent with the party line, ugh…

April 17, 2008 @ 1:49 pm | Comment

Jinhan,

No need to worry, this thing is far from getting out of hand. It’s unfortunate that what happened to her happened. She’s perhaps a little too naive and didnt know how to handle the situation properly.

I’ve lived in the US long enough to know that, for this first time, China and the Chinese people are finally making an effective pushback to the West’s bias attacks on the Chinese government and policies. What we are witnessing now is more of a coming out party of the Chinese people and government’s response to Western attacks, which in hte past, have gone on with no particular responses from China and its people.

If anything, the Chinese people are making a statement to the West that, going forward, the rules of global political engagements are changing and will no longer be dictated by the West anymore.

It’s what Americans (dearly cherished) calls: standing up for yourself.

Chinese people are beginning to stand up for themselves in the world, and I’ve been waiting my whole life to see this happens. It’s finally happening.

You have to remember, China’s rise is about re-writing some of the rules of global geopolitical engagements. And you’re beginning to see them happening now.

April 17, 2008 @ 1:49 pm | Comment

Chinese arent standing up for themselves, theyre standing up for that evil party. I mean, maybe Im overly pessimistic, but why cant they stand up for themselves IN China? They really sell out in China and dont eat poop for so many years cause theres the promise of future harmony. How many Chinese does the party have to kill before the Chinese people realize who is the REAL ANTI CHINA FORCE?

I think its cool if Chinese people speak up more, they are very quiet and its great to see them in the spotlight (- : I agree that if the media does an injutstice, the people lied about or treated badly can voice their opinion, peacefully and rationally. That is great, keep it up, but please be rational, not making grand assumptions about the West being anti China.

Also, dont you think its odd that the Chinese are up in arms about the Western media when they are well aware that their own state run media lies to them constantly?

Do you think this might be a case of brainwashed people working as tools for a massive propaganda machine?

But on the other hand I do think media in general should be more responsible and more clear. They play a big role and they ought to treat themselves with seriousness and dignity, which they do not. Its all pretty interesting, I hope some issues actually get adressed, I know that if this irrational name calling keeps up, the next thing in the western media will be coverage of the issue of indoctrination of Chinese with CCPism…. It’ll be like in blogs but bigger…

April 17, 2008 @ 2:02 pm | Comment

Chinese arent standing up for themselves, theyre standing up for that evil party. I mean, maybe Im overly pessimistic, but why cant they stand up for themselves IN China? They really sell out in China and dont eat poop for so many years cause theres the promise of future harmony. How many Chinese does the party have to kill before the Chinese people realize who is the REAL ANTI CHINA FORCE?

I think its cool if Chinese people speak up more, they are very quiet and its great to see them in the spotlight (- : I agree that if the media does an injutstice, the people lied about or treated badly can voice their opinion, peacefully and rationally. That is great, keep it up, but please be rational, not making grand assumptions about the West being anti China.

Also, dont you think its odd that the Chinese are up in arms about the Western media when they are well aware that their own state run media lies to them constantly?

Do you think this might be a case of brainwashed people working as tools for a massive propaganda machine?

But on the other hand I do think media in general should be more responsible and more clear. They play a big role and they ought to treat themselves with seriousness and dignity, which they do not. Its all pretty interesting, I hope some issues actually get adressed, I know that if this irrational name calling keeps up, the next thing in the western media will be coverage of the issue of indoctrination of Chinese with CCPism…. It’ll be like in blogs but bigger…

April 17, 2008 @ 2:03 pm | Comment

“When the Chinese people can grow the balls and self respect to say DOWN WITH THE CENTRAL PROPAGANDA DEPARTMENT, WE WANT FREEDOM OF THOUGHT . That is when their voices will have some validity.”

In other words, their opinion isn’t worth shit UNLESS they agree with the West.

How typical. This is the kind of “bandit’s logic” that goes unchallenged around here.

By that logic, I can also say, American people’s opinion ain’t worth shit unless they decide to renounce capitalism and their sham “democracy” and liberate themselves from the ignorance imposed on them by their government.

Until then, Americans are subhumans and their voices are to be ignored.

“No need to worry, this thing is far from getting out of hand. It’s unfortunate that what happened to her happened. She’s perhaps a little too naive and didnt know how to handle the situation properly.”

I don’t really care about her. She’s gonna do fine after this interview she had.

But Chinese nationalism will keep on growing so long as people like Snow are still discriminating against them. And when does that stop? Right wingers can easily exploit this and whip up a fascist movement.

Likewise, Western imperialists will also use this to encourage racist confrontation, or perhaps eventually, an imperialist war.

April 17, 2008 @ 2:06 pm | Comment

>China’s rise is about re-writing some of the rules of global geopolitical engagements

Having seen what the Newer World Order might look like, those among us who care about our freedom will try and stop it from coming about. For me, as much as I might feel sorry for the Tibetans (and the Chinese people as a whole), at the end of the day, this is all about my freedom. A more powerful China, from what I can see, is incompatible with that freedom.

April 17, 2008 @ 2:11 pm | Comment

“”””In other words, their opinion isn’t worth shit UNLESS they agree with the West.””””

Jinhan, are we having a language issue, are you feeling okay today? I do not know why you have found this hard to understand but I do not mind to repeat the logic in what I was saying…

My poin IS NOT that if they dont agree with me, or ‘the west’ that it is wrong, that would be very illogical (unless I was a supreme deity er something….) My point is that their thoughts are controlled by propaganda which is backed up by terrorism. How can people take their opinions seriously if their opinions parrot the CCP and thinking otherwise would land them in a hellish place of torture and mass hatred against them?

Do you know what I mean? I want the Chinese peoples opinions to be valid and I want them to decide for themselves. If they decide CCP is good, then I will consider their opinion valid, BIUT ONLY IF IT IS THEIR REAL CHOICE and not because the CCP controls the information they can access and brainwashes them.

That is why my position in terms of eliminating the CCP is fairly moderate, I would say, only get rid of the lying. Down with the propaganda department that make fools of people and conrtrols them through though policing. Once that is gone, then the people can be restored to thinking human beings. Jinhan, are you opposed to people being allowed to think for themselves?

April 17, 2008 @ 2:21 pm | Comment

Some guy has a very valid point. Personally I am afraid of living in a gulag. I dont think I know anyone who would want to live in a gulag.

Chinese people: If you want A LOT A LOT less criticism and Chinaphobia from the rest , get rid of the thought polic and get rid of the torture gulags. We see that your people are targeted for persecution because they think this or believe that. If the Chinese people condemn this communist policy of inciting hate against innocent people and eliminating perceived political threats who are innocent, then the ‘west’ will like the Chinese people more. If the Chinese people are perceived by the ‘west’ as agreeing with these psycho policies of violent repression (Falun Gong, rights activists, religious people, historical facts, freedom to say the truth…) then is it not normal that the ‘west’ should not really feel so good about that stuff?

April 17, 2008 @ 2:32 pm | Comment

“Jinhan, are you opposed to people being allowed to think for themselves?”

No, I’m opposed to the having one group of slaves attack another group of slaves condescendingly and sanctimoniously.

They both live in fucking chains!

“Most enslaved are those who falsely believe themselves to be free”. What both the Chinese and Americans need to do is to *break their own chains* instead of pointing the finger at each other.

And yes, free-thinking might be just the thing needed to be introduced in both societies.

April 17, 2008 @ 2:35 pm | Comment

A more powerful China, from what I can see, is incompatible with that freedom.

and it’s this kind of prejudicial and one-sided thinking that perpetuates the conflicts between China and the West. You’ve been indoctrinated, brainwashed and propagandized by western lieberal thoughts that only one singular social-political, mainly Democracy, can and will dominate and rule the world. You’ve failed to contemplate the Chinese idea that there can exist a multitude of social-political systems in the world, whereby the utter respect for each country’s politcal system will assure a highly probability of peace on Earth. And China’s rise is the attempt to proof that. Of course, you, with your arrogance of the idea that Democracy is the only and sole ruling social-political system of the world, can’t bear the thought that there’s a viable and successful alternative to a democratic system.

Relax, you can have all your freedom of speech and human rights you want, just stop invading poor countries to take their resources. Oh wait, you can’t, cuz there would be no democracy and freedom if you don’t have a well functioning economy based on the exploit of other countries’ resources.

April 17, 2008 @ 2:36 pm | Comment

I didn’t miss the Foreign Ministry’s comments about how the West needs to “respect” China if it expects to be permitted free access to Tibet again; clear evidence that the CCP, in an ideal world, wishes to control what is said about it, both within and without the country.

Who is to say that if China were to grow in power and not suffer a financial or political crisis in the next few decades that Beijing would not use its’ increasing financial and by that stage military leverage to do just that?

My fear is that if nothing is done, we may find ourselves living in a global Singapore-like “respectful” political climate. Something we must prevent from happening, ever, at literally all costs. For an authoritarian China, even a “soft” one, was to become the new hegemon would be a fate for the world which we must do everything, and I mean everything, in our power to stop. Even if it would mean great economic dislocation and hardship in the short- or medium-term.

April 17, 2008 @ 2:52 pm | Comment

Some guy,

so you saying that this Tibet issue and attacks on China have no valid basis, and are purely tactics intentionally deployed by the West to hamper China’s rise then? Or as you to say, to stop China at any costs? So you saying what the CCP and Chinese peole are saying aout you and the West is correct then?

If so, then the Chinese people rest their case.

April 17, 2008 @ 2:58 pm | Comment

>so you saying that this Tibet issue and attacks on China have no valid basis

No.

>deployed by the West to hamper China’s rise then?

Possibly, unless you or I work for the CIA, we can hardly be certain, can we?

>If so, then the Chinese people rest their case.

And what case is that?

April 17, 2008 @ 3:01 pm | Comment

The case that the West will keep China down by deploying whatever means necessary, whereby the Tibet issue is one of the tactics.

Read this, this will smarten u up:
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_3173.shtml

April 17, 2008 @ 3:06 pm | Comment

I know there are many Westerner on this blog always pontificating about what China should be or how China should be changed. I agree with some and disagree with others.

However, I am always puzzled by your interest. I am currently working in the US but I would never think of creating a blog commenting on how the the American citizens should organize their own government.

The sad truth is that even if a point is valid, if it is communicated through non-Chinese channels, it is will lose credibility in Chinese eyes. For any politician, your number one qualification is probably your love for your country. In the current environment, even if a certain liberal ideal is proper for China, it will not be effective because of its foreign taint.

Personally, I have always believed in the Western tradition of freedom of speech. It is frustrating to be an effective advocate to my fellow Chinese when this concept is part of a packaged used by Westerners to attack the Chinese government.

April 17, 2008 @ 3:15 pm | Comment

“Well, it is the national flag of China. Though I prefer the hammer & sickle flag, myself.”

Tovarisch 😉

April 17, 2008 @ 3:43 pm | Comment

I wanted to comment on what I’ve heard from some Chinese people (and Korean people too actually) who say that Chinese/other Asian people would rather be subservient to the system and be well-fed than have human rights.

I’m not sure if anyone has heard that arguement before, but my rebuttal of this arguement is that human rights and the right to be well-fed are not mutually exclusive. In fact countries which enforce protection of human rights usually have well-fed people anyway.

April 17, 2008 @ 3:52 pm | Comment

@ x:

I understand you perfectly, but be serious. Do you really expect us to empower and appease your government beyond all reasonable limits on the basis that if we appear unthreatening enough, this will prevent Chinese from percieving the Republican form of government and freedom of speech as a foreign imposition? As far as I can tell, the stronger the Chinese government becomes, the weaker the argument for the Western political and social system becomes. After all, the CCP will tell themselves, should China adopt the Western political and social system if it is percieved that the existing one is responsible for China’s success? On the contrary, the best way of ensuring the dominance of the current world order is by preserving the power of the countries that form and uphold this order, and weaken or destroy those that do not.

April 17, 2008 @ 3:57 pm | Comment

Correction: “After all, the CCP will tell themselves, *why* should…”

April 17, 2008 @ 3:58 pm | Comment

Some guy,
you wrote: As far as I can tell, the stronger the Chinese government becomes, the weaker the argument for the Western political and social system becomes. After all, the CCP will tell themselves, should China adopt the Western political and social system if it is percieved that the existing one is responsible for China’s success? On the contrary, the best way of ensuring the dominance of the current world order is by preserving the power of the countries that form and uphold this order, and weaken or destroy those that do not.

EXACTLY!, that’s the whole point of China’s rise. As far as I’m concerned, you should never object to anyhting about China and its government. Anything you say is self-contradictory. You’ve made your stand very clear, and you are just on the other side of the same coin. You wish global domination by the West through the sole and only social-political system, and the CCP are here to tell you that, No, democracic system is only one form of social-political system.

So taken from this perspective, who’s being more absolute and dictatorial? Shall I even argue that the CCP believes in pluralism and you believe in absolutism?

April 17, 2008 @ 4:05 pm | Comment

“As far as I can tell, the stronger the Chinese government becomes, the weaker the argument for the Western political and social system becomes. After all, the CCP will tell themselves, should China adopt the Western political and social system if it is percieved that the existing one is responsible for China’s success?”
=================
This is EXACTLY the point.
Every country is different, every country has different background/culture/level of development…Every country should find a system that fit them the best.

what makes you believe the western system is the best system and should be universally adopted regardless the local condition?

Isn’t the right to choose its own path also a form of human right ?

April 17, 2008 @ 4:49 pm | Comment

The important thing to me is MY freedom. If the emergence of a powerful non-democratic China is a threat to MY freedom, then I think it should be prevented from doing so. Case closed. Although what happens in Asia is of interest to me, I am really only concerned about how it impacts ME. How it affects you is an afterthought, and I make no apologies for it.

April 17, 2008 @ 4:57 pm | Comment

western-Eastern? Freedom-absolutism?

What we see is black and what you see is white.

One world one dream?–Yes, that’s only a DREAM . Just from this blog I can realize it is impossible to have “one dream.”

April 17, 2008 @ 6:04 pm | Comment

The Hypocrisy and Danger of Anti-China Demonstrations
by Floyd Rudmin

We hear that Tibetans suffer �demographic aggression� and �cultural genocide�. But we do not hear those terms applied to Spanish and French policies toward the Basque minority. We do not hear those terms applied to the US annexation of the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1898. And Diego Garcia? In 1973, not so long ago, the UK forcibly deported the entire native Chagossian population from the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia. People were allowed one suitcase of clothing. Nothing else. Family pets were gassed, then cremated. Complete ethnic cleansing. Complete cultural destruction. Why? In order to build a big US air base. It has been used to bomb Afghanistan and Iraq, and soon maybe to bomb Iran and Pakistan. Diego Garcia, with nobody there but Brits and Americans, is also a perfect place for rendition, torture and other illegal actions.

When the Olympics come to London in 2012, the Dalai Lama and Desmond Tutu will certainly lead the demonstrators protesting the �demographic aggression� and �cultural genocide� in Diego Garcia. The UN Secretary General, the President of France, the Chancellor of Germany, the new US President and the entire US Congress will certainly boycott the opening ceremonies.

The height of hypocrisy is this moral posturing about 100 dead in race riots in Lhasa, while the USA, UK and more than 40 nations in the Coalition of the Willing wage a war of aggression against Iraq. This is not �demographic aggression� but raw shock-and-awe aggression. A war crime. A war on civilians, including the intentional destruction of the water and sewage systems, and the electrical grid. More than one million Iraqis are now dead; five million made into refugees. The Western invaders may not be doing �cultural genocide� but they are doing cultural destruction on an immense scale, in the very cradle of Western Civilization. Why is the news filled with demonstrators about Tibet but not about Iraq?

And as everyone knows but few dare say, �demographic aggression� and �cultural genocide� can be applied most accurately to Israel�s settlement policies and systematic destruction of Palestinian communities. On this, the Dalai Lama seems silent. Demonstrators don�t wave flags for bulldozed homes, destroyed orchards, or dead Palestinian children.

The Chinese Context

The Chinese government is responsible for the well-being and security of one-fourth of humanity. Race riots and rebellion cannot be tolerated, not even when done by Buddhist monks.

Chinese Civilization was already old when the Egyptians began building pyramids. But the last 200 years have not gone well, what with two Opium Wars forcing China to import drugs, and Europeans seizing coastal ports as a step to complete colonial control, then the Boxer Rebellion, the collapse of the Manchu Dynasty, civil war, a brutal invasion and occupation by Japan, more civil war, then Communist consolidation and transformation of society, then Mao�s Cultural Revolution. Such events caused tens of millions of people to die. Thus, China�s recent history has good reasons why social order is a higher priority than individual rights. Race riots and rebellion cannot be tolerated.

Considering this context, China�s treatment of its minorities has been exemplary compared to what the Western world has done to its minorities. After thousands of years of Chinese dominance, there still are more than 50 minorities in China. After a few hundred years of European dominance in North and South America, the original minority cultures have been exterminated, damaged, or diminished.

Chinese currency carries five languages: Chinese, Mongolian, Tibetan, Uigur, and Zhuang. In comparison, Canadian currency carries English and French, but no Cree or Inuktitut. If the USA were as considerate of ethnic minorities as is China, then the greenback would be written in English, Spanish, Cherokee and Hawaiian.

In China, ethnic minorities begin their primary schooling in their own language, in a school administered by one of their own community. Chinese language instruction is not introduced until age 10 or later. This is in sharp contrast to a history of coerced linguistic assimilation in most Western nations. The Australian government recently apologized to the Aboriginal minority for taking children from their families, forcing them to speak English, beating them if they spoke their mother tongue. China has no need to make such apology to Tibetans or to other minorities.

China�s one-child-policy seems oppressive to Westerners, but it has not applied to minorities, only to the Han Chinese. Tibetans can have as many children as they choose. If Han people have more than one child, they are punished.

There is a similar preference given to minorities when it comes to admission to universities. For example, Tibetan students enter China�s elite Peking University with lower exam scores than Han Chinese students.

China is not a perfect nation, but on matters of minority rights, it has been better than most Western nations. And China achieved this in the historical context of restoring itself and recovering from 200 years of continual crisis and foreign invasion.

Historical Claims

National boundaries are not natural. They all arise from history, and all history is disputable. Arguments and evidence can always be found to challenge a boundary. China has long claimed Tibet as part of its territory, though that has been hard to enforce during the past 200 years. The Dalai Lama does not dispute China�s claim to Tibet. The recent race riots in Tibet and the anti-Olympics demonstrations will not cause China to shrink itself and abandon part of its territory. Rioters and demonstrators know that.

Foreign governments promoting Tibet separatism and demonstrators demanding Tibet independence should look closer to home. Canadians can campaign for Qu�bec libre. Americans can support separatists in Puerto Rico, Vermont, Texas, California, Hawaii, Guam, and Alaska. Brits can work for a free Wales, and Scotland for the Scots. French can help free Tahitians, New Caledonians, Corsicans, and the Basques. Spaniards can also back the Basques, or the Catalonians. Italians can help Sicilian separatists or the Northern League. Danes can free the Faeroe Islands. Poles can back Cashubians. Japanese can help Okinawan separatists, and Filipinos can help the Moros. Thai can promote Patanni independence; Indonesians can promote Acehnese independence. New Zealanders can leave the islands to the Maori; Australians can vacate Papua. Sri Lankans can help Tamil separatists; Indians can help Sikh separatists.

Nearly every nation has a separatist movement of some kind. There is no need to go to Tibet, to the top of the world, to promote ethnic separatism. China is not promoting separatism in other nations and does not appreciate other nations promoting separatism in China. The people most oppressed, most needing a nation of their own, are the Palestinians. There is a worthy project to promote and to demonstrate about.

Danger of Demonstrations

These demonstrations do not serve Tibetans, but rather use Tibetans for ulterior motives. Many Tibetans, therefore, oppose these demonstrations. Many Chinese remember their history and see the riots in Lhasa and subsequent demonstrations as another attempt by foreign powers to dismember and weaken China. There is grave danger that Chinese might come to fear Tibetans as traitors, resulting in wide spread anti-Tibetan feelings in China.

Fear that an ethnic minority serves foreign forces caused Canada, during World War 1, to imprison its Ukranian minority in concentration camps. For similar reasons, the Ottomans deported their Armenian minority and killed more than a million in death marches. The German Nazis saw the Jewish minority as traitors who caused defeat in World War 1; hence deportations in the 1930s and death camps in the 1940s. During World War 2, both Canada and the USA feared that their Japanese immigrant minorities were traitorous and deported them to concentration camps. Indonesians fearing their Chinese minority, deported 100,000 in 1959 and killed thousands more in 1965. Israel similarly fears its Arab minority, resulting in deportations and oppression.

Hopefully, the Chinese government and the Chinese people will see Tibetans as victims of foreign powers rather than agents of foreign powers. However, if China reacts like other nations have in history and starts systematic severe repression of Tibetans, then today�s demonstrators should remember their role in causing that to happen.

Conclusion

The demonstrators now disparaging China serve only to distract themselves and others from seeing and correcting the current failings of their own governments. If the demonstrators will take a moment to listen, they will hear the silence of their own hypocrisy.

The consequences of these demonstrations are 1) China will stiffen its resolve to find foreign influences inciting Tibetans to riot, and 2) the governments of the USA, UK, France and other Western nations will have less domestic criticism for a few weeks. That is all. These demonstrations can come to no good end.

Floyd Rudmin can be contacted by email.

April 17, 2008 @ 6:17 pm | Comment

noam chomsky said:
The beauty of the democratic systems of thought control, as contrasted with their clumsy totalitarian counterparts, is that they operate by subtly establishing on a voluntary basis-aided by the force of nationalism and media control by substantial interests- presuppositions that set the limits of debate, rather than by imposing beliefs with a bludgeon. Then let the debate rage; the more lively and vigorous it is, the better the propaganda system is served, since the presuppositions (U.S. benevolence, lack of rational imperial goals, defensive posture, etc.) are more firmly established. Those who do not accept the fundamental principles of state propaganda are simply excluded from the debate (or if noticed, dismissed as “emotional,” “irresponsible,” etc.).

This is how westerners get brainwashed. The difference is that chinese people have learned not to trust CCTV and xinhua news, but westerners are willing participants and pushers of their govts’ propaganda. They swim within the limits of the ponds set by their masters, and they don’t even know it.

April 17, 2008 @ 7:05 pm | Comment

Two questions, for you, MEF:

Where is Noam Chomsky?
And where is Hu Jia?

There’s your difference.

April 17, 2008 @ 7:13 pm | Comment

If the emergence of a powerful non-democratic China is a threat to MY freedom, then I think it should be prevented from doing so.

How is China going to affect Britain’s “freedoms”.. unless you mean your freedom to invade other countries at will for oil.

I’d be more worried about Sharia if I were you.

April 17, 2008 @ 11:19 pm | Comment

The CCP’s insistence that CNN, a private broadcaster, apologise after one of its’ commentators called them what they are (thugs and goons) is a good sign that the CCP would like to control what is said about it, both outside and within the country. I don’t doubt that if China’s power was to continue to grow, the country would put more and more pressure on the foreign media to conform.

It’s interesting that you mention fundamentalist Islam; I personally noticed the similarity between the Chinese government’s insistence that we “respect” them (not that they’ve done anything to deserve it) and the insistence on the part of some Muslims that Westerners express exaggerated respect for their religion to the extent that criticism is essentially not to be tolerated.

April 17, 2008 @ 11:36 pm | Comment

@X
“However, I am always puzzled by your interest. I am currently working in the US but I would never think of creating a blog commenting on how the the American citizens should organize their own government. ”

I think creating a blog to comment on the American political system and American culture would be a damn good idea. I’d be very interested to see the different opinions Mainland Chinese might have on our civilisation.

@Jinhan
I am, in my own perception, as free a man as has ever existed since the dawn of agriculture, but if you insist that we are ‘in chains’ consider that some of us might have found happiness in slavery (“don’t open your eyes, you won’t like what you see, take it from me…” ;)).

And consider that the post-apocalyptic New Zion of the working classes that will arises from the ashes of our irredeemably sinful world, maybe just as much a cage as our current one? What say you, comrade?

April 17, 2008 @ 11:47 pm | Comment

is a good sign that the CCP would like to control what is said about it

Yeah, it’s kinda like coalition forces deciding who gets killed, who loses their home, whose kid dies, who is without water, who is without electricity, etc.

Stop trying to disguise your nationalism as standing up for your rights when they obviously aren’t threatened. You’re probably more threatened at this point by capitalism, which is what drove CNN to bow down and apologize. China’s only real weapon now is their money.

April 17, 2008 @ 11:54 pm | Comment

CCP brainwashed overseas Chinese into mate mongering commies (such as the ones who want to kill Grace Wang) and who take the party line on Falun Gong etc. Wherever they are, they are brainwashed, they still read the CCP Daily Poo inspired knockoffs, they still think motherland equals evil communist religion of violent harmony and they still have motives that are weird, contrived and indctrinated by the CCPs religion. Take all the people who fit into this description OUT OF ALL OTHER COUNTRIES, and maybe we could then back down. Is anyone threatened by North Korea? No (except for the nuke factor) and the reason is because they stay in their hole, they build their hellish paradise and live in it, hey, who cares! But China no. You do not realize the way that some people around the world are basically unofficially joining the party through economic ties. They take loyalty to the party so they can get more money ad they screen employees for dissidence, they rat out dissidents, they deport dissidents.

Do you realize the massive PR campaign that the CCP is around the world? The Chinese New Year Spectacular has Falun Gong content (a theatre show) and the CCP has sent letters to all important people around the world coercing them not to atttend, often it works, often it backfires. In Austrailia, I heard that most of the polititians who received this warning letter were inspired by it to go and see the show…..

Every government knows from these types of notices that if they meet Dalai Lama then ‘ good relations will be negatively affected’ all sorts of threats on all osrts of issues. This clout is heavier than the people who want good values and freedoms. So, I thin it is normal that people wish for China to either -get rid of that sick brainwash party- get out of our countries business (except economic trade)- get your people out or let them be normal and stop feeding them some CCP religious propaganda…….

If CCP can influence Mr. Harper in Canada (which thankfully I think Mr. Haper is above) then whats next?

I am ot suggesting to get the Chinese out of Canada and for China to become like North Korea, but it would be at least better than spreading that stuff all over. The ideal would be to OUST THE CCP just like any rotten dynasty, RENEW CHINA and become good.

You dont have to loose face and copy some western stuff, I dont think this democracy stuff is necessary. Look really hard, study Cinese history, all of it and follow the Way of the sages.

April 18, 2008 @ 12:56 am | Comment

Also I will ad one thing that is, I love the Chinese culture, and if China returns to being Chinese I will gladly welcome you people to take over my country and my land, you will have my personal welcome to spread the Chinese people throughout the earth. If you practice the tolerance and wisdom of the olden scolars and follw natures virtues, I will say you are wonderful.

I give my word that whichever Chinese person makes the best effort to fix China, I will be their personal slave for the rest of my time on earth. I will work for that person (no sex) for only bread and water and I wont complain, I will be happy for it. I am just making the point that China is not the CCP and its not cool, but it could be if Chinese people would just be free to be Chinese and not damn slaves of some pipedream barrel of a gun marxist stuff.

April 18, 2008 @ 1:02 am | Comment

I don’t quite get your point, Ferin. China is what drove CNN to apologise, not “capitalism” in an abstract sense. Seems fairly clear to me.

April 18, 2008 @ 1:07 am | Comment

I think Ferin meant that they’re not really sorry, and apologized because the CCP always threatens ‘relations’ (trade deals) when they want to impose their commie coercion..

I dont remember how the apology went, but I have to disagree because it did sound legitimate, they didnt take back that the CCP is goons and thugs, they just clarified that they did not mean Chinese people were as such. I believe the apology was truthful…

Ferin has a good point though, its not like America is so perfect and we have in the west a major problem of practicing religious capitalism as in worship of materials and degraded values, and he is right, that fact does contribute to our collapsing under the CCP all too often.

Also, we tend to not want a big huge war, and that could be another reason for cowering under that regime (same and the people inside China dont want to be slammed, nobody does)

But I dont think these reasons apply for the CCN apology, they stood by what they said and took back the part that was out of line (and they should never have been so sloppy to insult China as if the CCP and its 50-70 million followers represent all Chinese people)

Take for instance the people who slam Grace Yang, they ARE thugs and goons, would anyone like to contest that?

April 18, 2008 @ 4:18 am | Comment

@ Stinky finger kingdom:

“After all, the CCP will tell themselves, should China adopt the Western political and social system if it is percieved that the existing one is responsible for China’s success?”

Western expertise and money is responsible for China’s success. The CCP just made China filthy and keeps people down to enrich local bosses.

Burn China Burn!

April 18, 2008 @ 6:54 am | Comment

CCP: ooo, you hurt china feering, you aporogize!

CNN: yes massa, please give us market access, we won’t wrong you again massa

April 18, 2008 @ 9:08 am | Comment

Hey, Ferin, theres gotta be a bright side to all this right? (- :

April 18, 2008 @ 2:18 pm | Comment

The whole Free Tibet thing has a pretty yucky taste to it. Back when they were in power, the aristocrats in exile certainly did nothing to improve Tibetan living conditions. Now that the Chinese have came in, forced them out, and done it for them, they are claiming culture and freedom. Culture and freedom are such pretty words that ring true, especially when you already have food, clothing, housing, and a basic education. When people have bodily fulfillment, then they can seek spiritual ones. The problem I see with those aristocrats (not necessarily their descendants, though they seem to be in the same boat), is that when they ruled, they could not even guarantee bodily fulfillment or minimal spiritual fulfillment for the Tibetan people. So now that the Chinese have basically done it for them, they are claiming that they can grant higher level spiritual fulfillment?
Get me a government from the real Tibetan commoners who won’t try to build themselves a throne with gold and jewels. I’m sick of hearing the slick and the stupid political propaganda from both sides.

April 19, 2008 @ 8:53 am | Comment

@snow
Actually, if you are a woman you would positively HATE traditional Chinese society. Confucius said plenty of good stuff, but his one comment lumping women and “xiao ren” (ignoble people) together as “hard to feed” (live with) basically have kept Chinese women kitchen/bedroom bound for thousands of years and still have much effect, even to this day. I have seen my grandma’s half-bound feet. Her feet were released half way through, but the damage done still made my skin crawl and my stomach lose its contents (omg that was *so* impolite >.@snow
Actually, if you are a woman you would positively HATE traditional Chinese society. Confucius said plenty of good stuff, but his one comment lumping women and “xiao ren” (ignoble people) together as “hard to feed” (live with) basically have kept Chinese women kitchen/bedroom bound for thousands of years and still have much effect, even to this day. I have seen my grandma’s half-bound feet. Her feet were released half way through, but the damage done still made my skin crawl and my stomach lose its contents (omg that was *so* impolite >.@snow
Actually, if you are a woman you would positively HATE traditional Chinese society. Confucius said plenty of good stuff, but his one comment lumping women and “xiao ren” (ignoble people) together as “hard to feed” (live with) basically have kept Chinese women kitchen/bedroom bound for thousands of years and still have much effect, even to this day. I have seen my grandma’s half-bound feet. Her feet were released half way through, but the damage done still made my skin crawl and my stomach lose its contents (omg that was *so* impolite >.@snow
Actually, if you are a woman you would positively HATE traditional Chinese society. Confucius said plenty of good stuff, but his one comment lumping women and “xiao ren” (ignoble people) together as “hard to feed” (live with) basically have kept Chinese women kitchen/bedroom bound for thousands of years and still have much effect, even to this day. I have seen my grandma’s half-bound feet. Her feet were released half way through, but the damage done still made my skin crawl and my stomach lose its contents (omg that was *so* impolite >.<). Even nowadays, in some of the more secluded places where "traditional cultural values" still persevere, girls are kept at home and away from schools. For that alone, I resent him, even if he should take maybe only half of the blame (it's the disgusting politicians that came after that raised him from Sage to Saint status and embraced all of his "teachings" word for word). The Chinese culture I appreciate is the type from pre-Han dynasty, before the politicians, catering to the ruling class's interests, made Confucius the predominant voice. The "hundred competing voices" era, mostly during the "warring states" era, was marked by so many wise people and so many theories it seemed so dazzling. There were those who wanted to rule by law (but unfortunately excluding the ruler and advocating very strict punishment); there were those who advocated living simply, naturally, kindly, without aggression (they practiced martial arts and engineering for the purpose of defense only, but were unfortunately duped into being meat shields); there were those who strove to be one with nature, one with the universe (but unfortunately were only concerned with the enlightenment of one's self); etc. One problem with the CCP, as far as external perception is concerned, is that politically motivated perceivers only perceive the worst, and completely turn a blind eye to the good things they have done. You could argue that people only see what they want to see. You could also follow the saying that good news never leave the doorsteps and bad news travel a thousand miles overnight. The reason the Chinese still tolerate them, other than the fact that the Chinese are traditionally an extremely tolerant people with regards to their government (food + shelter = happy), is probably because they get to live with it and experience the good with the bad.

April 19, 2008 @ 9:36 am | Comment

Well, I am not one of those political perceivers.. Actually you can call me a spiritual perceiver if you wish.. So when I look at the CCP, I look at how they treat the land, how they treat people and how they treat themselves, spiritually…

Because I look at things in terms of moralism, I make things simpler for my perceptions, because that is my belief, that the moral of things is the heart of the matter and the most significant.

So I would say that China is in a big mess and it doesnt have to be, it can be better and the CCP is a bad religion and the Chinese should not follow it anymore…

There are so many details surrounding better, worse, moral… but I am really not political, just want whats right, I agree with those ancient scholars who want to be natural and harmonious (the real meanning) and the CCP is the opposite of that.

The benefits of China over the last little while have come from the CCP being less CCP in terms of economy, so the labour of the people has payed off for them a bit, but they still get raped financially by the party and would be more prosperous and WAAAAYYYYYY more healthy if they follow some different principles.

I would say, let nature take its course, let the truth be told and let justice sttle the score. No need to cling to that party, China is great, so why do they need such crappy party to treat them like beasts? No need at all.

April 19, 2008 @ 12:06 pm | Comment

If You Want a Free Tibet, Know What You��re Fighting For
By Christina Liu
PUBLISHED APRIL 16, 2008
Free Tibet. If it is not ubiquitous now, it will be by tomorrow morning. The flyers and headlines are everywhere. I hear them everyday, from the television, from across the table. They are questions of independence, of righteousness, and of humanity. Columbia Students for a Free Tibet, in conjunction with NYU, staged a protest last week in support of the cause. Another event is already set for later this week. The Columbia Web site featured a link last week to a professor specializing in Tibetan affairs. The Dalai Lama recently graced the cover of Time. CNN.com featured over 100 articles relating to Tibet in the last month alone.

In light of recent violent confrontations between the Chinese army and Tibetan citizenry, the Western world has offered its support to the Buddhist territory. While the conflict in Tibet has been ongoing for some years, escalating acts of violence have forced it into the international limelight. Student groups and media outlets demand independence for a place and a society of which they have little understanding. The associations are only natural. What could a monk seek but peace��what could a religious figure preach but love and acceptance?

Many Western supporters of the Tibetan cause identify the Dalai Lama as a figure to be revered, and with good reason. The Dalai Lamas have taken care to craft an image of monastic bliss. The 14th Dalai Lama was even awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989.

Yet while the Dalai Lamas have received much praise over the years, the history of the title is far from pristine. One Dalai Lama has admitted to having sex with a hundred men and women, knowing all the while that he had AIDS. His predecessor was abusive, forcing his students to perform acts against their will. The public praise and the private follies of the Dalai Lamas of the past and present construct a troublesome and hypocritical image of the Tibetan leader.

Supporters and protesters brazenly argue for the Tibetan people��s right to live under their own rules and beliefs, but these beliefs are not all peaceful. Ritualistically, women were seen as impure, inferior, and a temptation for monks. Many monks participated in the dismemberment of female bodies. As a result of these beliefs, orders of nuns were often unable to develop, and remain subordinate even today.

Until recently, the Tibetan legal system was plagued with cruel and unusual punishment. Since killing was forbidden, jailors often resorted to torture. Prisoners could serve any number of punishments, including the loss of the eyes, tongue, and other limbs. Major monasteries also contained dungeons comparable to those of the Middle Ages, often decorated with human limbs. As the legal system functioned on wealth and status, an offender charged with murder could provide the surviving family with monetary compensation, allowing the wealthy to escape a physical sentence.

While the teachings of the Dalai Lama promote peace, the history of Tibet itself is far more sinister. The clash itself remains complicated and ambiguous. Both sides rely heavily on the use of historical facts as the foundation of their arguments: Tibet should be independent because it has always been so. Tibet should not be independent because it has never been so. China dates sovereignty over Tibet back to the Yuan Dynasty. Tibet, on the other hand, believes that China stole their independence in the 1950s. The differing views lead to violence and riots that have no doubt incited much suffering and pain.

Whether Tibet deserves independence is up for debate. What is not, however, is having a complete understanding of the side one takes. The effects of this dispute make one thing brashly clear. Suddenly, freedom is not a prized value but instead a knee-jerk reaction. In the Western nations�� hasty move to remake the world in the name of freedom and democracy, we find that people often suffer more than they gain. The international community is still buzzing in the aftermath of the Iraqi invasion. ��Freedom must be had,�� the US government cried as it charged into the Middle East. No one is charging this time, but the battle cries can be heard loud and clear.

The central conflict lies between China and Tibet, but the moral conflict rests with foreign supporters of Tibetan independence. We, as outsiders, have the responsibility not to unwittingly follow the banner of liberation, the same banner that led us so recently into the Middle East. Columbia Students for a Free Tibet address each other as ��freedom fighters.�� The insurgents in Iraq also share this revered name. While America remains knee-deep in the atrocities of Iraq, we seem no more hesitant to cry for freedom. In the Iraq war, our ignorance was imposed. With Tibet, our ignorance, to whatever degree, will be deliberate.

Independence alone does not put right those who fight for it. The complications of Iraq and similar situations prove that ideals of liberation and independence demand careful consideration. Using them blindly as banners unnecessarily jeopardizes lives, and devalues what should be our most prized possessions. The invasion and subjugation of Tibet may not be justified, but neither is unquestioning support of a society yet to be fully understood. It is simply not enough to know what one is fighting against, but also what one is fighting for. Whatever side of the line we choose to fall on, we should choose with understanding.

The author is a Columbia College junior majoring in American studies.

April 19, 2008 @ 4:45 pm | Comment