Tibet, the devil's advocate asks...

[MRC_Hans]

First, let me say up front that I in no way condone the ways the Chinese government abuses human rights, in Tibet or elsewhere.

However, the recent crisis and it's international reactions have left me a little puzzled.

In two places (Iraq, Afganistan), Western countries have recently entered a country (one of them with a UN mandate), to topple local governments with military force. Instead we try to instate a form of government to our own liking (democracy). We absolutely won't have these countries revert to religious states.

Now, in Tibet, China has entered, with military force, to instate their form of government, and to keep away a religious government.

This is partly, but only partly a devil's advocate question, but please remind me:

Why are various Islamic religious leaders per default bad guys, but the Dalai Lama is per default a good guy? Why would we support the Dalai Lama in reinstating a religious state in Tibet?

Hans

 

[JoeEllison]

First, let me say up front that I in no way condone the ways the Chinese government abuses human rights, in Tibet or elsewhere.

However, the recent crisis and it's international reactions have left me a little puzzled.

In two places (Iraq, Afganistan), Western countries have recently entered a country (one of them with a UN mandate), to topple local governments with military force. Instead we try to instate a form of government to our own liking (democracy). We absolutely won't have these countries revert to religious states.

Now, in Tibet, China has entered, with military force, to instate their form of government, and to keep away a religious government.

This is partly, but only partly a devil's advocate question, but please remind me:

Why are various Islamic religious leaders per default bad guys, but the Dalai Lama is per default a good guy? Why would we support the Dalai Lama in reinstating a religious state in Tibet?

Hans

Because Tibet doesn't have any oil?

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Wasn't Iraq's government fairly secular (for that part of the world) prior to the invasion?

 

[JoeEllison]

Wasn't Iraq's government fairly secular (for that part of the world) prior to the invasion?

Yep. Osama Bin Laden hated Iraq almost as much as he hated America.

 

[mrbaracuda]

Why are various Islamic religious leaders per default bad guys, but the Dalai Lama is per default a good guy? Why would we support the Dalai Lama in reinstating a religious state in Tibet?

I wouldn't say per default but the Lama doesn't support the research of chemical, biological and maybe nuclear weapons or doesn't do enough to prevent certain places becoming breeding grounds for terrorists?

OH TRICKY QUESTION HANS!

 

[Beerina]

Regardless of how well it's going, we went in to install freedom. China is not going in to install freedom.

Next question?

 

[fuelair]

First, let me say up front that I in no way condone the ways the Chinese government abuses human rights, in Tibet or elsewhere.

However, the recent crisis and it's international reactions have left me a little puzzled.

In two places (Iraq, Afganistan), Western countries have recently entered a country (one of them with a UN mandate), to topple local governments with military force. Instead we try to instate a form of government to our own liking (democracy). We absolutely won't have these countries revert to religious states.

Now, in Tibet, China has entered, with military force, to instate their form of government, and to keep away a religious government.

This is partly, but only partly a devil's advocate question, but please remind me:

Why are various Islamic religious leaders per default bad guys, but the Dalai Lama is per default a good guy? Why would we support the Dalai Lama in reinstating a religious state in Tibet?

Hans

Unless my listening and reading skills have suddenly suffered massive deterioration, the Dalai Lama does not support the reinstatement of same and has held that position for a number of years.

 

[Puppycow]

Why are various Islamic religious leaders per default bad guys, but the Dalai Lama is per default a good guy? Why would we support the Dalai Lama in reinstating a religious state in Tibet?

Hans

I think it's partly left-over animosity toward communism from the Cold war.
Let's not forget that we supported both Saddam and allies of Bin Laden back in the day. Because they were once enemies of our enemies. Now I don't mean to compare the Dalai Lama to these former allies of convenience, but I do agree that we should be more skeptical of him.

 

[Puppycow]

Unless my listening and reading skills have suddenly suffered massive deterioration, the Dalai Lama does not support the reinstatement of same and has held that position for a number of years.

True. But it may be that some people, including people in Tibet, don't realize that.

For the record, what does he want, if anything?

 

[Loss Leader]

Why are various Islamic religious leaders per default bad guys, but the Dalai Lama is per default a good guy? Why would we support the Dalai Lama in reinstating a religious state in Tibet?

I don't agree with your premise.

Some Islamic religious leaders are seen by the US as bad guys but some are not. Some Middle eastern secular leaders are seen as bad guys but some are not. Some countries that the US sees as bad have nothing to do with Islam and some do.

Saddam Hussein was a secular leader who despised religious fundamentalism. Iran is a fundamentalist state. Saudi Arabia, our ally, has a very religious bent. Israel is a fairly secular place. North Korea has nothing to do with Islam whatsoever. Can you support your statement that the US has a "default" position against religious leaders?

 

[H3LL]

This situation is bugging me a little mainly because my history and facts may be a bit off.

I would appreciate corrections where applicable but will be less than sympathetic to rhetoric along the lines that "military action hurts people, so it's bad". I know this.

I wouldn't consider any religious leader to be "a good guy" right from the off. People who know my posts should also know that I find no redeeming qualities whatsoever in any organised religion. That's just how I think. Don't waste your pixels on that topic for my sake. I'm unlikely to change my opinion just yet.

Things that puzzle me and what I consider so and would appreciate a more knowledgeable assessment are:

The whole thing seems to me to also be a matter of historical perspective.

Western thinking seems to think poor little Tibet wants to re-instate its little country and return to some Shagri-la idyll while looking at only the last 1-200 years.

From the Chinese perspective, which goes back several thousand years, returning Tibet to independence involves giving a feudal overlord (the Lama) most of south China.

The Lama and his predecessors ruled one of the last remaining feudal societies in the world. An 'idyll' that was rejected in Europe some time ago with the population divided into lords (Lama & co) and serfs. I fail to see how this is a desirable society, if true.

The previous 'serfs' had little or no running water, electricity, communications, infrastructure or medicine. I also fail to see how this is desirable, if true.

Finally, I find the rhetoric of the press a little odd and repeated (in a manner) in the OP.

The suggestion that Chinese military has 'entered' Tibet, to me, makes as much sense as saying the US military has 'entered' California or the the UK military has 'entered' Cornwall. It implies that California and Cornwall, although once independent are still independent - They're not - However many people would wish otherwise.




A personal anecdote: I would trust the Chinese media about as far as I could spit a fridge. One incident that I saw was curious.

They showed several western news webpages with images of the "heavy military presence" dragging "victims" into trucks. Plain to see but perhaps invisible to western eyes were the Chinese characters for "ambulance" on the truck and "nurse" on the personnel's armbands. Not technically incorrect (military ambulances and a victim of injury) but only the terminally naive would believe that the intention was to show an action of mercy. One could be lead to believe that the western press, in this case, was as politically bias as the Chinese press always are. The truth, I will never know.

ETA: I found a Chinese news source for the above before I'm asked. Read into it what you will. What's true? I haven't a clue. Still an anecdote as far as evidence IMHO.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

True. But it may be that some people, including people in Tibet, don't realize that.

For the record, what does he want, if anything?

http://www.tibet.com/index.html

 

[Wolfman]

Personally, I think that a much better comparison than MRC_Hans' example would be our treatment of native peoples in North America, South America, Australia, New Zealand, etc. Giving those people greater autonomy is a good thing...but nobody is seriously considering returning their lands to their control, and giving them independence as separate sovereign nations.

In fact, China has a far greater historical claim to "ownership" of Tibet than Europeans (or their ancestors) have to any of these countries. The only real difference is that we conquered them a few hundred years ago, while the Chinese only did it (or more accurately, did it again) about 50 years ago.

I'm all in favor of greater personal freedoms, decreasing human rights violations, greater autonomy for distinct ethnic groups, etc. But it is sheer hypocrisy, in my opinion, to be screaming about freedom for Tibetans, unless we are ready to offer the same thing to the various cultures that we have conquered and subjugated over the years, and are continuing to do up to the present day.

And in regards to history -- yes, the system under which Tibetans lived prior to the Chinese takeover were far from the idyllic paradise that people seek to portray. There was a tiny group of people in control, who lived lives of opulence and comfort, and who had access to education. The vast majority of the population were serfs, controlled by a strict religion that caused them to sacrifice most of what they produced to their superiors. Education was almost non-existent. (As an example, literacy rates in Tibet have grown from under 5% in 1950 to around 85% or 90% today).

The reality is, Tibet's never going to be an independent nation (or at least, not in our lifetimes). The Dalai Lama has accepted this fact. The focus should be on pressuring China to improve human rights, and grant greater freedoms, within the framework of being a part of China.

 

[H3LL]

The focus should be on pressuring China to improve human rights, and grant greater freedoms, within the framework of being a part of China.

I'm really starting to hate you being right so often and saying it so well.

I doubt that this will ever happen while the Dalai Lama's considerable fortune, comfort, influence and opulent lifestyle is entirely dependent on him maintaining a different stance.

I can't see the Pope doing what is right or humane anytime soon either.

I vote WM for Dalai Lama and Pope.

Problem solved.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Behind this dramatic capture of the world's attention are three young women from British Columbia, who have spent much of the seven years since China won the Games organizing thousands of international volunteers and hundreds of Tibet-related organizations into a six-month campaign of stealth activism intended to humiliate China before an international audience. [...]

Their biggest plans, however, are for August, when Beijing will be on every TV station and the front page of every publication. "We are determined to have non-violent direct action in the heart of Beijing, inside the Games, every day," Ms. Tethong says.

"We know that Tibet won't be free in September, but we want the next generation of Chinese leaders to know that this occupation is very costly for them, that its cost to their reputation outweighs any benefits. That's what we want to accomplish this summer."

How three Canadians upstaged Beijing

There are hints all around that the current action by exile-Tibetans and some folks in Tibet is, at least partly, a U.S. financed attempt of another 'color revolution.' Some of the clues are collected below.

Tibet Uprising and U.S. Government Grants

 

[dudalb]

Well, for one thing Buddhism has a history of tolerence unlike Islam and the other western religons.
Trust Childlike empress to find a way to blame the US for the whole mess.

 

[Uzzy]

I doubt that this will ever happen while the Dalai Lama's considerable fortune, comfort, influence and opulent lifestyle is entirely dependent on him maintaining a different stance.

I suppose it's a shame for your point that the Dalai Lama has a stance not too far from Wolfman's point. His stance is..

Asked by an audience member why Tibet is not seeking a fully free independence from China, the Dalai Lama said that Tibet “is economically very difficult, although spiritually very highly advanced. But the spiritual alone cannot fill our stomach so for that reason if the Chinese government provides us a meaningful autonomy, self-ruled, then it’s in our own interest to remain within the People’s Republic of China as far as economic development is concerned.”

Source

I've got a link on Tibet.net that talks about the 'Middle Way, as the Tibetans call it, but it's currently unreachable for me. If that has anything to do with the organised cyber attacks on Tibetan NGO websites I don't know.

The comparison between Tibet and the aboriginal people of Australia and the native Americans seems appealing, but is flawed. Firstly, the people living on the land now were not even born now when the land was taken from the natives, so removing them from the land to give back to the original inhabitants would be a crime just as bad as the original act. Secondly, when the aborigines or the native American's want to discuss reparations, compensation or politics, we listen and often give them what they want. Native American reservations have the right to form their own governments, enforce and create laws and set taxes, for instance. Something close to what the Dalai Lama wants, actually.

This is quite different to the Chinese policy, which is to shoot any who objects to Chinese rule (Hegemony or Death, anyone?). They do not even talk to the Dalai Lama, instead choosing to call him a terrorist. They even try to shut down the opposition websites, preventing them getting their message out.

Back in 2001, the Liu Jingmin, vice president of the Beijing Olympic bid committee said that the Olympics would help the development of human rights in China. Amnesty International reports that there is 'little sign of improvement'. I see these protests as a reminder to China that if they want to enjoy the prestige of holding the Olympics, they should start acting like respectable members of the international community and stop acting like thugs and bullies. Talking to the Dalai Lama would be a good start.

 

[H3LL]

I suppose it's a shame for your point that the Dalai Lama has a stance not too far from Wolfman's point. His stance is.

As with most religious leaders, it is often difficult to know what they are saying or what they mean. Their business is deception, obfuscation, mobile goalposts and lies. If the Dalai Lama said water was wet - I would check.

Does the following allude to ambitions outside of the 'current' borders of Tibet?

His Holiness said, "I believe the recent demonstrations and protests are a manifestation of the deep-rooted resentment not only of the Tibetan people in the so-called Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR), but also in the outlying traditional Tibetan areas now incorporated into Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan and Yunnan provinces, where there exist substantial communities of ethnic Tibetans."

Source

I don't think this is suggestive of closeness to Wolfman's point.

He (Lamaman not Wolfman) says one thing one moment and something else another. It's not as if he is going to be voted out of office for changing (or is he?).

His Holiness most definitely has expressed a desire for a "free Tibet". I've always read that as "free Tibet from China", not free for Tibetans - the serfs get their old masters back.

As to how big this "free" Tibet is to be - That's anybody's guess.

I could be wrong.

But His Holiness lies, the Chinese media lie and the western media lie.

The few Tibetans I've met are not particularly impressed with the old way, don't like western interference, do like the modern infrastructure but don't like Han.

I don't know?

.

ETA: I'm somewhat sitting on the fence throwing stones at the Dalai Lama - If that makes sense. This is an issue that is extremely difficult to find reliable sources on and quoting pro-Dalai Lama websites does not seem to be one of them. Tibetans I've met have been very nice - but not in Tibet.

 

[H3LL]

Yet another double post

 

[mrbaracuda]

Anyone else who got a PM from.. well, buddha himself?
I was a little confused but I think this is a sign. I should become a Buddhist or something. I guess.

Re: Mrbaracuda
Hi,
I'm new here, how's it going?

"Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: it transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural & spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things as a meaningful unity" - Albert Einstein

---
buddha
http://stephanie.1sweethost.com

If anyone dares to click the link down there; tell me whether or not Stephanie is hot. Thanks.