The Protest

[Nh3]

Not Canada's or the USA's job to tell China what it needs regarding how it deals with internal affairs. Mature or immature, if we tell other countries how to administer their internal affairs, we open the door to them telling us the same thing.

The arrogance of the enlightened - let's tell China what they 'need'. I'm sure they'll be grateful, we're like an older, wiser, brother - and we have such an excellent history of granting independence to earlier cultures we subjugated and made part of our respective countries.

I don't understand why China does not deal with the issue of Tibet through diplomatic means and open a line of dialogue with Dalai Lama. Its the arrogance of nouveau riche China which basically show the middle finger to the rest of the world whether its human rights, piracy of copyright material or meddling with the situation in Darfur.

 

[steamer]

I didn't hear any of you lipping off ten years ago during the last crackdown on Tibetans. Oh, right - no Olympics then.

If I remember correctly, 10 years ago I had a life and did not hang around on the interweb chatting about cameras or trying to convince anyone about the rightness of the Tibetan desire for some sort of autonomy.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Besides, I love these Johnny-come-latelys. I didn't hear any of you lipping off ten years ago during the last crackdown on Tibetans. Oh, right - no Olympics then.

Fair-weather activists. Who needs 'em?

Dear Bill,

Better a fair-weather activist than someone who apparently dismisses everything that doesn't directly affect his pocket book (yet) as not being his problem, and who swallows the nonsensical Chinese party line that Tibet is a part of China.

As for long-term activism, Hidden Tibet, Roger Hicks, Element Books 1988. That's 20 years -- and it wasn't the first thing I did. Do you really imagine that those of us who care about Tibetan independence are going to turn down whatever support we can get? Even from those who are merely casually interested? Some of the latter, after all, will without doubt become longer-term supporters.

As far as I can see, you know very little about this, but whether from contrarianism or some other motive, you feel compelled to denigrate anyone who looks beyond the tip of their own nose on this matter.

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Tibet has a government in exile - a religious dictatorship.

It is clear that you know nothing whatsoever about the Government in Exile: the Tibetan Constitution was adopted by the democratically elected Government in Exile in 1991.

 

[skibeerr]

The Chinese want Tibet for the Himalayan Border and could not care less about the Tibetans.

The British had expeditionary forces in Tibet, for the same reason in the 19th and early 20th century altough the opponent was Tsaristic Russia at that time who was trying to sneak into India from the north east. Later the Russian communists planned the same with a route thru wat is now Pakistan.

Tibetans are just standing in the way.

Anybody seen any Palestine protests lately?

 

[bmattock]

I don't understand why China does not deal with the issue of Tibet through diplomatic means and open a line of dialogue with Dalai Lama. Its the arrogance of nouveau riche China which basically show the middle finger to the rest of the world whether its human rights, piracy of copyright material or meddling with the situation in Darfur.

Strangely enough, nations are allowed to run their own affairs as they see fit. We in the West have always claimed that privilege. Now, the Chinese may not have it?

 

[bmattock]

If I remember correctly, 10 years ago I had a life and did not hang around on the interweb chatting about cameras or trying to convince anyone about the rightness of the Tibetan desire for some sort of autonomy.

More of a general 'you'. China invaded Tibet (the most recent time) in 1950. Where was the hue and cry? No, it is this year that everyone takes up the banner of the poor, poor, Tibetans. Funny.

 

[bmattock]

Dear Bill,

Better a fair-weather activist than someone who apparently dismisses everything that doesn't directly affect his pocket book (yet) as not being his problem, and who swallows the nonsensical Chinese party line that Tibet is a part of China.

It's not nonsensical, Tibet is part of China. They invaded (the most recent time) in 1950, and they got away with it. Not unlike how other countries take over land and smaller countries they wish to possess. For good or ill, this was allowed to happen by the rest of the world. It is now fait accompli and a bit late to be pulling one's hair and beating their chest for the fate of the poor Tibetans.

I have no particular love for China - in fact, I fear China's rising dominance as an economic and military power. But I also know that this sudden interest in Tibet is not about Tibet - it's about China and the Olympics in Beijing. Where was this protest last year? Last decade?

As for long-term activism, Hidden Tibet, Roger Hicks, Element Books 1988. That's 20 years -- and it wasn't the first thing I did. Do you really imagine that those of us who care about Tibetan independence are going to turn down whatever support we can get? Even from those who are merely casually interested? Some of the latter, after all, will without doubt become longer-term supporters.

I did not know that, but I'm glad to hear at least one of 'us' was not a total newbie to the cause of Tibetan independence. Congratulations, Roger, you may be the only person here with a legitimate claim to have 'always' cared about the plight of the Tibetans. Most here have the same length of interest as the current situation - about two months.

As far as I can see, you know very little about this, but whether from contrarianism or some other motive, you feel compelled to denigrate anyone who looks beyond the tip of their own nose on this matter.

I know more than you think. My denigration consists of my absolute disgust over the picking and choosing of the Tragedy du Jour by the usual suspects.

I am concerned with the plight of the Tibetans. But more importantly, to me, is that the world continue to play by its own self-made rules - one of the most important being that nations do not interfere with the internal affairs of other nations. I don't want China telling us - with some apparent moral authority - how to deal with Puerto Rico. But if we (the USA) tell China how they should be dealing with Tibet, we've opened the door, haven't we? Especially if this goes beyond the usual puffery and sign-wavery and becomes more of a sword-rattlery and a sanctions imposery.

And I am entirely suspect at this sudden, two-months-old, outcry of support for the Tibetans. Seems entirely contrived.

And let's face it, once the Olympics are over, the motley crew of RFF's bleeding heart faction will go on to some other outrage to be outraged about. Their caring and concern extend mostly to what they are told on TV. You may continue to care, since you clearly cared before this current brouhaha, but most of them will be right back to selecting color-coordinated wrist-straps for their cameras.

If I seem brusque, perhaps it is my visceral response to seeing how easily people are manipulated.

 

[bmattock]

It is clear that you know nothing whatsoever about the Government in Exile: the Tibetan Constitution was adopted by the democratically elected Government in Exile in 1991.

I am quite aware of it. Now, tell me how many Tibetans voted for the government-in-exile. Oh, that's right, only those Tibetans who live outside Tibet. Very democratic.

But if we give them full credit for doing the best they can given their current situation, let's just ask who voted for the Dalai Lama, their leader. Oh that's right, he's divinely appointed, according to some monks who found him as a child.

Sorry, that is not a Democracy. The Dalai Lama is no mere figurehead, but exercises power. He seems to be a really great guy - no problem there - but even nice religious dictators are religious dictators.

Funny, funny, funny. If he were a schmuck, the outcry from the oh-my-poor-heart community would be that Tibet is no democracy and why should we care about them? But their dictator is instead a really friendly guy with goofy glasses, so hey, let's all care about this.

 

[BillP]

Strangely enough, nations are allowed to run their own affairs as they see fit. We in the West have always claimed that privilege. Now, the Chinese may not have it?

It's a noble thought, Bill, but has nothing to do with realpolitik.... And the US has always respected that "privilege"...? Or will start now? Did I miss the announcement that the CIA is to be disbanded?

Regards,

Bill

 

[Roger Hicks]

I am quite aware of it. Now, tell me how many Tibetans voted for the government-in-exile. Oh, that's right, only those Tibetans who live outside Tibet. Very democratic.

Bill, stop and think about that for a moment. How are the Tibetans living under Chinese rule going to vote?

And if you think the Dalai Lama is a 'dictator' with 'goofy glasses', I think you have pretty much summed up both your knowledge and your understanding of the Government in Exile.

 

[rxmd]

For good or ill, this was allowed to happen by the rest of the world. It is now fait accompli and a bit late to be pulling one's hair and beating their chest for the fate of the poor Tibetans.

To be honest whether or not the world accepts a fait accompli is very much a matter of the political climate of the day. For example, the independent Baltic republics of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia were annexed by the Soviet Union in 1940, and the republic of Georgia in 1921, and yet when they declared their independence in 1991 the world didn't tell them to stick with Russia where they belonged.

China is powerful and an important economic partner, so nobody will do anything substantial with regards to their Tibet policy. If the Chinese government were to collapse and the country were to break apart, reactions probably would be different. Whether or not that is particularly likely is another matter.

Philipp

 

[Roger Hicks]

Strangely enough, nations are allowed to run their own affairs as they see fit. We in the West have always claimed that privilege. Now, the Chinese may not have it?

Why should a nation like Tibet not claim it too? And why should others not support that claim? The United States might well have failed to come into being had it not been for French help. The same could be said of Greece and outside help: remember Lord Byron. Other examples are not hard to find, throughout history.

It seems to me that you are willing to write off any country that has been invaded and occupied by a large and powerful neighbour. All right, you don't care about Tibet. But why does it upset you so much that some of us do?

Is it, in fact, fear? I know next to nothing about Puerto Rico, which you choose as an example of 'internal affairs' in your own country; but if the United States is behaving badly there -- I say 'if' because, as I say, I know next to nothing -- then yes, it must surely be open to anyone to say so.

 

[bmattock]

Bill, stop and think about that for a moment. How are the Tibetans living under Chinese rule going to vote?

I didn't say they could. I said that their current government-in-exile is not a democracy, and pointed out several reasons why it is not one.

And if you think the Dalai Lama is a 'dictator' with 'goofy glasses', I think you have pretty much summed up both your knowledge and your understanding of the Government in Exile.

A dictator is an 'absolute ruler'. I did not say 'despot'. The Dalai Lama is the former, not the latter.

Please educate me about my lack of knowledge. In what way is my statement incorrect?

 

[bmattock]

Why should a nation like Tibet not claim it too?

I don't have any problem with the Tibetans pressing their claim however they wish.

And why should others not support that claim?

Because it is not our business.

The United States might well have failed to come into being had it not been for French help. The same could be said of Greece and outside help: remember Lord Byron. Other examples are not hard to find, throughout history.

True enough. And each of these countries risked war with those countries they opposed to support another. I do not think the USA should risk war with China to support the Tibetans.

It seems to me that you are willing to write off any country that has been invaded and occupied by a large and powerful neighbour.

I was not born in 1950. If I had been, I might have voiced my opposition, as I did to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. I believe the world lost it's moral authority to object to the Chinese takeover of Tibet since it waited nearly 60 years to say anything about it.

All right, you don't care about Tibet. But why does it upset you so much that some of us do?

A) I do care about Tibet. You confuse my statement that it is none of our business with apathy about the plight of the Tibetans. I profess no such apathy.

B) I am not upset. I speak plainly, and may confuse that for anger. I actually find the bleeding heart crowd amusing nearly beyond belief. If anything upsets me, it is realizing in my heart how utterly gullible, controllable, and manageable most people are.

Is it, in fact, fear? I know next to nothing about Puerto Rico, which you choose as an example of 'internal affairs' in your own country; but if the United States is behaving badly there -- I say 'if' because, as I say, I know next to nothing -- then yes, it must surely be open to anyone to say so.

I'm not aware of feeling fear regarding Puerto Rico. Interesting concept - I was just using them for an example. In other discussions, I have used Texas. Just an example.

 

[skibeerr]

As an analogie,

here in the homeland we have refugees, they are screened and interrogated to see if they are the real thing and not economical migrants. Off course a lot of them are the latter and are beeing told to leave the country.
Then ever so often a photogenic family of refugees with goodlooking kids are schlepped onto the podium and the media jumps on the case. Politicians are interviewed and it has happend they are allowed to stay.

Then my hart goes out to al the exiled ones with an ugly mug.

I am with Bmattock on this one.