The Hypocrisy and Danger of Anti-China Demonstrations

For the Chinese Communist Party, democracy means "socialist democracy," a democracy which represents the interest of the general public but not the interest groups supporting the one performs best in an election exercise.

It does not mean "absolute democracy" and it certainly does not mean "one person one vote" as in the Western nations.

That sytem would end up in a terrible consquence for not only all her citizens, should bad leaders were in power. We have seen that in morden Chinese history.

Either the western style or the current system applied in China has its short comings. Since we have good leaders now and walking in a path of speedy growth , we are not in a rush to push ourselves into danger with a drastic change.

From my daily observation, the steps of change inside Mainland China has been speeden up every year. I believe we shall find our own way in between the above two in about ten to fifteen years time through safe steps, and a lot from our traditional values would be incorporated.

I play on the global perform, travelling a lot in Mainland China and have experience staying long enough for understanding in quite a number of countries. I read through reports on happenings from various corners in this Global Village to take care of my investments and I am equipped with four languages.

I find that applying 'one person one vote' is so simple to be understood by all while sticking to socialist democracy is an easy choice for those in power. Not many are of a belief like me, that the 7,000 years collection in Chinese Culture may become a new element to mix with the above two for a new chemical.

The leaders of China are trying. Give them time, as long as the majority of our fellow citizens are enjoying a raise in living standard and sense of safty.

Compromise - is the word we learn from our traditional values.

We are in a big time in history, watching the evolution of a new way.
Give them more time, my fellow residents in this Global Village, please.
After 200 years of continual crisis and foreign invasion, we have good reasons to move in safe steps concerning the well being of 1/4 of the global population.

US's "human rights" standard is: other nations must live the way US live its own, otherwise it is legitimate to bomb it.

Counties the U.S. has bombed for that:

Korea and China 1950-53 (Korean War)

Guatemala 1954

Indonesia 1958

Cuba 1959-1961

Guatemala 1960

Congo 1964

Laos 1964-73

Vietnam 1961-73

Cambodia 1969-70

Guatemala 1967-69

Grenada 1983

Lebanon 1983, 1984 (both Lebanese and Syrian targets)

Libya 1986

El Salvador 1980s

Nicaragua 1980s

Iran 1987

Panama 1989

Iraq 1991 (Persian Gulf War)

Kuwait 1991

Somalia 1993

Bosnia 1994, 1995

Sudan 1998

Afghanistan 1998

Yugoslavia 1999

Yemen 2002

Iraq 1991-2003 (US/UK on regular basis)

Iraq 2003-05

Afghanistan 2001-05

Plus
Iran, April 2003 -- hit by US missiles during bombing of Iraq, killing at least one persdon {2}

Pakistan, 2002-03 -- bombed by US planes several times as part of combat against the Taliban and other opponents of the US occupation of Afghanistan {3}

China, 1999 -- its heavily bombed embassy in Belgrade is legally Chinese territory, and it appears rather certain that the bombing was no accident (see chapter 25)

France, 1986 -- After the French government refused the use of its air space to US warplanes headed for a bombing raid on Libya, the planes were forced to take another, longer route; when they reached Libya they bombed so close to the French embassy that the building was damaged and all communication links knocked out.{4}

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, May 13, 1985 -- A bomb dropped by a police helicopter burned down an entire block, some 60 homes destroyed, 11 dead, including several small children. The police, the mayor's office, and the FBI were all involved in this effort to evict a black organization called MOVE from the house they lived in.

Them other guys are really shocking
"We should expect conflicts in which adversaries, because of cultural affinities different from our own, will resort to forms and levels of violence shocking to our sensibilities."
Department of Defense, 1999 {5}

The Targets
It's become a commonplace to accuse the United States of choosing as its bombing targets only people of color, those of the Third World, or Muslims. But it must be remembered that one of the most sustained and ferocious American bombing campaigns was carried out against the people of the former Yugoslavia -- white, European, Christians. The United States is an equal-opportunity bomber. The only qualifications for a country to become a target are: (1) It poses a sufficient obstacle to the desires of the American Empire; (2) It is virtually defenseless against aerial attack.

The survivors
A study by the American Medical Association: "Psychiatric disorders among survivors of the
1995 Oklahoma City bombing":

Nearly half the bombing survivors studied had an active postdisaster
psychiatric disorder, and full criteria for PTSD [posttraumatic stress
disorder] were met by one third of the survivors. PTSD symptoms were
nearly universal, especially symptoms of intrusive reexperience and
hyperarousal.{6}

Martin Kelly, publisher of a nonviolence website:

We never see the smoke and the fire, we never smell the blood, we
never see the terror in the eyes of the children, whose nightmares
will now feature screaming missiles from unseen terrorists, known
only as Americans.

NOTES
1. The Nation, September 26, 1994, p.304

2. RFE/RL Newsline, April 9, 2003 (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty is a "private" international communications service in Europe and Asia funded by the US government.)

3. Washington Post, January 1, 2003, Australian Broadcasting Company, January 1, 2003, Agence France Presse, September 19, 2003

4. Associated Press, "France Confirms It Denied U.S. Jets Air Space, Says Embassy Damaged", April 15, 1986

5. U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, "New World Coming" (Phase I Report), September 15, 1999, p.3

6. Journal of the American Medical Association, August 25, 1999, p.761

This is a chapter from the book Rogue State: A Guide to the

World's Only Superpower, by William Blum

the usual suspects
http://tinyurl.com/3pj23s

I am just extremely troubled with the idea of Western (or white non-Muslim dominated, whatever) countries can step into another country with tanks and claim this is a good thing to help people there, while at the same time questioning China's having Tibet as a part of it, which apparently has been like that for several hundreds of years.
So, Western (or white non-Muslim dominated, whatever) countries always set the rules for others ? They are just shameless to throw words like "genocide" on China while they are committing it to the largest scale now and in history. It is not fair.

smear campaifn
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8697

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubZbp28696Q

Is this your so-called "Human Rights" or "Free Iraq"??? No one can be as shameless as American governors!!! By now, Americans in Iraq have killed 1.3 million Iraqi citizens and then the shameless government says it's the soldiers' honour & America is proud of you?!?!?

CNN reports negatice news about China everyday. but they did not note that Wall Street sold the Bank of China 10 Billion dollars of fraudulent AAA mortgages that defaulted???!!!

ipfreak
**in fact, i am wondering, why most of those actively pushing this "independence of tibet" are non-tibetans. in all around the world, in those pro-independence protests, most of protesters are non-tibetans**

""The International Campaign for Tibet, based in Washington, is now a more powerful and effective force on global opinion than the Dalai Lama's outfit in northern India. The European and American pro-Tibet organizations are the tail that wags the dog of the Tibetan government-in-exile," French wrote
http://www.workers.org/2008/world/anti-china_0424/

ipfreak
**personally i doubt there are 125,000 or 130,000 tibetan exiles. i think the number should be far less than that. the number of 130,000 is the number they use for asking money from the west**

2006, this may shed some light on the "refugee" phenomenon, often cited as evidence of persecution of tibetans,
http://www.peoplesreview.com.np/2006/141206/detail/n2.html

"Bottom line: China has signed at least two treaties with Tibet in the last century. "

treaties? in words of chinese, treaty is translated into chinese words pronounced as "teayeu". that is for between tow countries.

the then dalai local administration had something in chinese words "sheding" with the central government, which is similar as agreement. usually for something between two parties (like those between KMT and CCP during the civil war time), between central government and local government, or between two local governments. for instance, to build a bridge crossing a bay between two provinces in china, both provinces negotiated a deal and had multiple "shedings" for various issues such management, land deals, construction responsibilities, funding distributions, all of issues.

dalai and his "tibetan government in exile" love to play words. a while ago they released statement in both english and chinese, of course, again, they played the words. english version sounded it was statement issued to another country. the chinese verison sounded like it represented ethnic tibetans to all of other ethnic groups, under the context of one china.

"I am unaware of any **natural** connection between Michael C de Walt and the Tibet government in exile or any of their agencies."

in fact, i am wondering, why most of those actively pushing this "independence of tibet" are non-tibetans. in all around the world, in those pro-independence protests, most of protesters are non-tibetans, obvioulsy 10%~20% of them were hired guns for hourly rate or daily rate. why? working for cia? british intelligence agency? even with those tibetna protesters, you can tell they are professional protesters. obviously someone paying them flying around the world to stage protesting. one can easily see this via those pictures captured by the press: they are the same group of people. the training is also the same: violent struggling with cops/security pernonnels, came out all kind of stories that can't be verified, crying when the time and cameras are ready.

personally i doubt there are 125,000 or 130,000 tibetan exiles. i think the number should be far less than that. the number of 130,000 is the number they use for asking money from the west.

ascott April 26th, 2008 11:40 pm

.../...
China has signed at least two treaties with Tibet in the last century. No nation seeks treaties with a region within itself or with possessions. Treaties are only made between two separate nations. (No one has given me an example of a treaty between two parties/regions within the same nation.)
----------------------------------------

ASCOTT are you ignorant or you just pretend to be one!

How could you write such thing?

I suppose you are American!

How many treaties did the US government sign with the various "indian" nations of America and how many treaties did the US government respected to this date? And talk about genocide (physical or cultural) how many native Americans are there now compared to their numbers before the Europeans came? How many of them still speak Navajo, Apache, Sioux fluently?

Please find other arguments to present.

Please do learn your own history.

On What the Chinese have done to Tibetan culture, I feel it is only natural: in the way of how this world, the human race evolves. A more advanced, not necessarily perfect, social/economical system takes over a less advanced one, inevitably with its people and culture. It is only against the Nature and human rights if this process is deterred. There are always conflicts between preservation and development, and what has been left out is what we call history. If you want examples like for better New Zealand and its diminishing Maori culture, or for worse US and its Indian culture.

Also, thanks Floyd Rudmin for the great article.

If you would like to see what the Chinese have done to Tibetan culture today, check out these videos on youtube. It's like they're not Tibetan but Chinese.
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=EthnickCleansing

A friend re-directed me back here.

It seems that I omitted a word in one of my posts. Correction:

I am unaware of any **natural** connection between Michael C de Walt and the Tibet government in exile or any of their agencies.

(That is to say, he was not a part of the Tibetan government, nor was he a Tibetan that escaped into India. His taking up the cause did not stem from any natural bias.)

Bottom line: China has signed at least two treaties with Tibet in the last century. No nation seeks treaties with a region within itself or with possessions. Treaties are only made between two separate nations. (No one has given me an example of a treaty between two parties/regions within the same nation.) China's signing of treaties with Tibet was a de facto admission that Tibet was a separate nation. Any nation not objecting to either treaty, (the last at gun-point!), has given de facto recognition to Tibet's standing. There is no need for formal reecognition. (Anyone demanding native rights here in the U.S. approves of that last statement: there was no formal recognition of most of the native groups.)

There is your hypocrisy. More? China was quick to complain about treaties made under duress, claiming that they ought to be seen as invalid. What greater duress is there than sending an armed party, backed by the government's threat military invasion, in order to force a government to sign a treaty.

Troskyite adventurism. The Chinese government complained of it bitterly - but I suppose that only applied to moves against China.

These are the only arguments that are accepted in court: what has been a nation's standing in the past. Not allowed: arguments against their religion(s); arguments against their internal policies; arguments against their foreign policy; arguments against any individual or group of individuals within the nation. Those have nothing to do with whether or not the nation was an independent/autonomous polity.

Yes, a lot of hypocrisy is involved in the Tibet question - and not the least of it from China.

My apologies once again to any honest future honest readers for the inadvertent mis-direction concerning De Walt.

No apologies whatever to the anti-Tibet propagandists, whose posts following my last one I have not read - nor will I read: their agenda is clear, and their overwhelming reliance on attacks against the Tibetan religion and form of government, (neither of which I necessarily approve), is something I find highly objectionable - and particularly in light of China's oft-repeated rejection of foreign criticism of their own internal policies. (Hypocrisy again.)

No, there is no further reason for me to return to this forum, taken over by individuals with a national agenda and no substantial logical or legal argument.

I am returning to Attenborough's lengthy documentary of birds. (I am finding birds increasingly preferable to humans these days.)

From: Yxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 8:58 PMTo: 'Rxxxxxxxxxx'Subject: RE: Tibet
Rxxx, I listened to an NPR program about the situation in Tibet this morning and the dialog was fascinating.
The first thing that surprised me was that we had normal Americans (however sympathetic to the Dalai Lama ) acknowledging that normal Han Chinese were targets of violence from the militant Tibetans but this "was a reasonable and understandable reaction to the Chinese government's policies". If the civilians had been Israelis and the militants were Palestinian, or civilians anywhere else for that matter, would any Americans sided with those who at other times would be called the terrorists?
The Chinese government has tried to develop the Tibetan economy, maybe with the thought that wealthier Tibetans would be happier and less religious and separatist. The crowning achievement of this was the railroad to Tibet (a very expensive engineering feat given the mountains to scale) that some people hope to extend to India one day. (The Indians are very interested too.) This railroad is creating much new economic opportunity as well as more immigrants from outside Tibet . This railroad was cited by the one of the NPR panelists as one of the new Chinese offenses that forced the civil unrest. This was the second thing that surprised me. When I hear the complaints from other remote low economic activity areas, the complaints are usually the opposite: "The local economy is stagnant, there is no future here for our kids, we need the government to do something to help the local economy." This is the one time when the locals apparently don't want a better economy.
In the past, when I thought about Tibet , I used to have an anti communist knee jerk, wishing freedom for the "oppressed" Tibetans. I also wished independence for Taiwan because the PRC was communist and anti freedom. I don't think of the PRC like that any more. China is a country going through tremendous changes and with a government that is firmly in charge. This will probably change over time, but for now it is good to have a government that can do what is right, to build infrastructure, and not always have to worry about opinion polls and getting re-elected. I have talked to many Indians who wished they had a government like the Chinese. If you imagine that China was the US and Tibet and Taiwan wanted to secede, you probably would be less sympathetic to the secessionists. At least Lincoln was.
I now view the Tibet issues as an inferior economic system being unable to defend itself against a stronger economy that is taking over what looks like unclaimed or at least under exploited territory. It is less extreme, but it is the same process that wiped to the Native American culture. Historically China started controlling Tibet in the 1200s. (The Mongols who conquered China in 1271, the Yuan dynasty, took Tibet in 1244. China has exercised some control over Tibet ever since, so the Chinese claim to rule Tibet is more ancient than any border in Europe . The only time Tibet had real self determination was between 1913 and 1951 because British interventions and China 's internal turbulence and civil wars (and WW2 and Japanese invasion). When China reasserted itself in 1951, it gave Tibet Proper special autonomy but some outlying areas in the east, closer to populated China , were treated as China Proper which meant "full land redistribution" communist style. This was opposed by the old local land owners (aristocrats and monasteries) who rebelled. The rebellion spread to Lhasa but was crushed in 1959. This is when the Dalai Lama left.
From what I can tell, Tibet was not a good place to be in 1951. Most people were serfs and there were even slaves, signs of a very poor and backwards country. For the average Tibetan in Tibet Proper, things only got better when the Dalai Lama left and full land distribution was implemented in Tibet Proper too. It is always possible to play an "us versus them" game, just look at the "ethnic cleansing" in old Yugoslavia , and the same happened in Tibet . While the average Tibetan benefited from the Chinese takeover, both economically and from a human rights perspective (imagine how strange it is to think of the PRC as the bringer of human rights, but it is true!), it was always easy to find Tibetans resenting the Chinese. To me, this is the main reason I have changed my view on Tibet and China . It seems to me that it makes perfect sense that Tibet stay part of China and as time goes on becomes more and more integrated. The main opposition to this inevitable trend is the old elite. This elite pushed a self serving and backwards way of life that was completely non competitive with the rest of the world. The normal way of fixing Tibet would have the oppressed majority kick out the old oppressors on their own, including predictable problems such as some level of anarchy and economic hardship. (This may happen in neighboring Nepal , even though Nepal is much more advanced than Tibet was.) China 's takeover avoided that necessity, but because of our support for the old regime there is always a ready loudspeaker for, and instigator of, any local discontent. It helps that the current Dalai Lama is very charismatic and that Tibetan Buddhism is non violent and attractively philosophical. The crass truth is still that people want to use religion as a divisive (us versus them) and non progressive political force. Would we be as sympathetic if the Tibetans were Islamic?
I'm certain that the upcoming Olympics are part of the reason for the current unrest. China views the Olympics as a coming out event, and views a possible boycott as a disaster. Everybody knows that the Chinese response to any challenge will probably be more muted than it will be after the Olympics . I have even heard rumors that the Dalai Lama himself encouraged the initial demonstrations this week as "our last chance for independence".
While I like the Dalai Lama as a person, I can't support him as a political leader because a) I prefer not to mix religion and politics, and 2) I can't support the politics of the Dalai Lama regardless of how good PR he gets.
Sorry for writing such a long and preaching response to something that probably seemed like a no-brainer gesture in support of an "oppressed" people. Please let me know if you think my arguments have any merit.
Please say hi to Jxxx and everybody else!
Yxxxxxxx

"I know who Van Walt is working for. That is an idiotic retort. What you are saying is that anyone who would take up the cause is to be dismissed for that reason."

not exactly. never read his book, but even with few articles he wrote (online), he could not give out any evidence that support his theory of the independent country of tibet.

nobody disputed that brits got their hands on tibet affair between 1912 and 1950. but even the brits could not openly propose this "tibet independence", historically or nowadays, let alone recognize this so-called the "tibetan government in exile".

"I have gone out of my to to show my lack of anti-Chinese feelings. Still, I am harrassed by absurd posts."

absurd posts? did i say you "anti-chinese"? i don't recall and i didn't see that either. yes, obviously i am anti "anit-china", "pro-tibet-independence" campaign.

"All you (and several other posters) can do is to repeat anti-Tibetan propaganda."

anti-tibetan? for what? tibetans in china are chinese and they are our brothers and sisters. why should i be anti-my brothers and sisters?

propaganda? i made my own research and arguments on the claims of both the population of tibetan in exile and so-called genocide of 1.2 millions of tibetans. i don't see you respond any of them. i asked for the list of countries ever recognized "the country of tibet", so far you being invasive.

"You have made not a single logical argument."

hmmm, if you could not answer or offer evidence to negate any of my posts, and now accuse me being no logic?

"The invasion of Tibet is no more than Trotskyite adventurism."

that is political statement, not a intellectual debate.

"What is the Chinese for 'troll'?"

that is typical nowadays internet retorting. was that a typical american useless answer for the meaning of "troll"?

discard

ipfreak

I know who Van Walt is working for. That is an idiotic retort. What you are saying is that anyone who would take up the cause is to be dismissed for that reason.

I have gone out of my to to show my lack of anti-Chinese feelings. Still, I am harrassed by absurd posts.

All you (and several other posters) can do is to repeat anti-Tibetan propaganda.

You have made not a single logical argument.

The invasion of Tibet is no more than Trotskyite adventurism.

The End.

What is the Chinese for 'troll'?

The Myth of Tibet Genocide
Jump to Comments

by Terminator

Dalai Lama and the Tibet Government in Exile, as well as the western media have never presented any solid evidence or disclosed any reliable source to support their repeated accusation that the Chinese government killed 1.2 million Tibetans between 1949 - 1979. On the contrary, almost all academic scholars and many pro-Tibet advocaters have found that the accusation does not stand on any basis and is even laughable.

One of the main argument of the Exile group to support their genocide allegation is that there were around 6.3 million Tibetans in 1959, and the Tibetan population hardly increased after 30 years. In their 1996 whitepaper "Tibet: Proving Truth from Facts", the Exile group claimed that based on a 1959 Chinese government newspaper report, there were 6,330,567 Tibetans in China. The number is broken down into 1,273,969, 3,381,064, and 1,675,534 in three different areas (TAR, Kham, Amdo) of the so-called Great Tibet. [1] However, a scrutiny of the data shows that these three numbers are the exact same numbers published in 1954 by the Chinese government over the above areas. And these numbers referred to the total population of the three areas (including Tibetan, Han, Muslin, etc), but not the Tibetan populations. [2]

In fact, the total Tibetan population back 1950s was about 2.5 - 2.7 millions according to numerous academic studies, the Chinese national census, and even Tibet government itself. For example, on November 11th, 1950, in an appeal to the United Nations to stop China's takeover of Tibet, the Tibet government stated "a weak and peace loving people, hardly exceeding 3 million". [3] It is impossible that by the end of 1959, the Tibetan population increased to 6.3 million.

A glance at the documents released by the Tibet Government in Exile, one can clearly see a trend that it favors vague data from the newspapers over serious scientific records from academic studies, population census, and historical records.

Therefore, Professor Sautman, a reseacher specialized in studying Tibetan populations, concluded, "What I think these articles show is that there is no evidence of significant population losses over the whole period from the 1950s to the present. There are some losses during the Great Leap Forward but these were less in Tibetan areas than in other parts of China. Where these were serious were in Sichuan and Qinghai, but even there not as serious in the Han areas of China. There are no bases at all for the figures used regularly by the exile groups. They use the figure of 1.2 million Tibetans dying from the 1950s to the 1970s, but no source for this is given. As a lawyer I give no credence to statistics for which there is no data, no visible basis." [4]

Professor Goldstein also rejected the allegation: "… the exile leadership … continued to attack Chinese policies and human rights violations in Tibet, often going beyond what the actual situation warranted; for example, with charges of Chinese genocide." [5]

Professor Sautman did an extensive and in-depth study on the literature of Tibetan population. In his 2001 paper, he used indisputable data to reject the allegation made by Dalai Lama and the Tibet Government in Exile. For example, "Figures (detailed breakdown of the 1.2 million number) at this level of specificity are meant to impress, but the emigre approach to numbers is quite elastic. In a 1990 book widely circulated by the Tibet Government in Exile, the number of famine victims is given as 343,000, not 413,000. In 1991, the Dalai Lama stated that 200,000 Tibetans had died from starvation, less than half of what had originally been claimed. These discrepancies are not surprising; some of the statistics are based on citation to documents that do not contain the figure at all, or have not been made public by the emigres… Other figures employed in the claim of 'demographic annihilation' derive from interviews with Tibetan refugees in India. Such informants are not likely to be reliable. Lois Lang-Sims, a leader of the pro-TGIE Tibet Society of the UK, wrote that statements of refugees examined in the years after the Dalai Lama arrived in India have 'an extreme and inevitable unreliability'" [6]

Professor Sautman's study is independently confirmed by Professor Goldstein, Co-Director of The Center for Research on Tibet, "One likely factor is that the accounts offered by Tibetan refugees (and apparently also a few individuals in the TAR) are exaggerations or fabrications told to foreigners to garner sympathy and support for the 'Tibetan cause'… In other words, they were inclined to represent the current situation negatively…. many Lhasa Tibetans harbor deep-seated anger and hostility toward the Chinese, which colors their perception of the current situation and sometimes leads to distortions, exaggerations, and fabrications." [7]

Michael Parenti wrote this in his book "Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth": "The official 1953 census–six years before the Chinese crackdown– recorded the entire population residing in Tibet at 1,274,000. Other census counts put the population within Tibet at about two million. If the Chinese killed 1.2 million in the early 1960s then almost all of Tibet would have been depopulated, transformed into a killing field dotted with death camps and mass graves–of which we have no evidence. The thinly distributed Chinese force in Tibet could not have rounded up, hunted down, and exterminated that many people even if it had spent all its time doing nothing else." [8]

Even Free Tibet Compaign director Patrick French said the allegation has no basis: "the Free Tibet Campaign in London (of which I am a former director) and other groups have long claimed that 1.2 million Tibetans have been killed by the Chinese since they invaded in 1950. However, after scouring the archives in Dharamsala while researching my book on Tibet, I found that there was no evidence to support that figure." [9]

http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=238441...

Hezuo, Gansu Province – For decades, the Beijing government had recognized the Dalai Lama as its sole negotiating partner in Tibetan affairs. For the officialdom, it was simpler to deal with a single person -- the "pontiff" of Tibetan Buddhism – to control the entire ethnic population. The façade of Tibetan unity was convenient to both sides but now it has unraveled, and it's the endgame for the Dalai Lama.

By ordering the monks of his Gelugpa or Yellow Hat sect to hold peaceful rallies on the 49th anniversary of the Chinese invasion, the Dalai Lama -- unwittingly -- ignited pent-up emotions among Lhasa residents. Scenes like the head bashing, stoning and kicking of a prostrate bicycle owner arose from popular grievances against runaway price inflation and perceived discrimination against Tibetans in their own land. Such cruelty, regardless of past injustices, has nothing to do with Buddhist teachings but arises from the human condition.

Unfortunately for the Dalai Lama, the loyalists in his once-powerful organization inside Tibet are being selectively investigated, arrested and detained for causing the violence. The Beijing government has repeatedly stated that only a small minority of Tibetans loyal to the Dalai Lama were involved in the protests. Whatever its legal flaws, there's more than a grain of truth in the official assertion.

Amid the mayhem and anarchy, a decisive factor in the Tibetan equation has gone practically unnoticed: Key major players did not join or support the protests:

-- The Panchen Lama, a top prelate of the Gelugpa or Yellow Hat school, second in rank only to the Dalai Lama himself, has spoken in no uncertain terms against the rioting and instead backed the government.

-- Leaders of the Nyingma and Sakya schools, as well as the native Bon religion, did not endorse the protests and are tight-lipped about the wave of arrests.

-- Laymen with the re-ascendant Kagyupa or Black Hat school, are furious with the Dalai Lama after being targeted by Gelugpa supporters during the horsemen's raid on the Hezuo local district office in south Gansu and in several counties in Sichuan Province.

In this negative light, the rallies by the Gelugpa monks seemed a desperate bid to reassert the Dalai Lama's authority by accusing their Tibetan rivals of being "collaborators" and presenting themselves as the "resistance." Due to the unintended violence, however, the Yellow Hats find themselves as the odd man out. Following the crackdown, rival sects are moving to dismantle the remnants of the Gelugpa organization, which had the monopoly of power over the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) and other districts as recently as five years ago.

If the façade of Tibetan unity was convenient, it now no longer serves.

In January 2000, the Chinese view of the Dalai Lama started to undergo a radical change during the affair known as the "Flight of the Karmapa" - covered in a documentary by Nachtvision. The Karmapa is the head lama of the Kagyupa, or Black Hat school, which ruled Tibet until the reign of the 5th Dalai Lama began in 1642.

At the turn of the millennium, the teenage Karmapa, born Ogyen Trinley Dorje, began a secret journey from his seat in Tsurphu monastery, west of Lhasa, to Sikkim in north India to recover the mystic Black Crown of the Kagyupa. In the bid to strengthen his nomination against other contenders, the Karmapa rode horseback on a tortuous path through the frozen wilderness of Nepal's Mustang region. At the 4,500-meters altitude Thorong-La Pass, he was separated from his Nepalese Kagyupa guide and whisked aboard a mountain-rescue helicopter. He soon turned up under virtual house arrest near the Dalai Lama's headquarters in Dharamsala, India.

As told by his guide, the Venerable Gyaltsen Rimpoche, nicknamed the "Tall Manangi," the Ogyen Trinley had to retrieve the charismatic crown because "in Lhasa the Karmapa was rising and becoming more popular, so the Gelugpa did not like it and the situation was becoming dangerous for him." Only the magic talisman could turn the tables on the powerful Yellow Hats.

In the eyes of many Kagyupa monks, the Karmapa has been abducted by the Dalai Lama's exile government and remains a hostage to the senior leader of a rival sect. The Black Hats responded furiously with demands to Beijing that Gelugpa monks should be stripped of their control over the Tibet province budget and other privileges.

Feeling sorely betrayed by the Dalai Lama, who had earlier backed the appointment of Orgyen Trinley as Karmapa, Beijing consented to the Black Hat's harsh demands. Thus ended the Yellow Hats' monopoly on power inside Tibet. Since then, the local governments of many Tibetan zones have been taken over by laymen loyal to the Black Hats. Hezuo, the scene of the horsemen's well-publicized raid, is the site of the Kagyupa's Milarepa Shrine. Horses were used in the attack because the raiders came from the Xiahe district, the stronghold of the rival Gelugpa's Labrang Monastery.

This realignment of sectarian power in Tibet, which can be compared with the Protestant Reformation in Europe, is only now coming to light in public discourse after the Lhasa riots. A People's Daily editorial, titled "No return to old Tibet" (March 18), stated: "the political exile (Dalai Lama) has continued his rule with an iron fist that smashes any challenge to his power from anyone or any sect. . . . Local Tibetans have managed their affairs well without his interference."

In private, many exiles across the Himalayas, including former Khampa guerrillas who fought the Chinese army in the 1960s, recount disturbing allegations of the Dalai Lama's security team's involvement in the murdering of his critics by poisoning and bombing. This dark side of intra-Tibetan intrigue is yet to be factually uncovered before world opinion.

In an ultimate irony, the only person who can prevent the coming demolition and disgrace of the Gelugpa school is Gyeltshen Norbu, the Beijing-appointed Panchen Lama.

The Panchen Lama probably won't rush to their defense, not after pro-Dharamsala lamas lobbied furiously against Beijing's attempt to appoint the young lama as a delegate to the National People's Congress, held in early March, arguing that he was not yet 18 years of age. To avoid controversy, Beijing reluctantly conceded, even though the official birth date of Gyeltshen Norbu was February 13, 1990, making him 18 and eligible.

The Panchen Lama is likely to receive Buddhist VIPs at the Beijing Olympics. An audience and blessing from the bright young monk will certainly win international support for his confirmation of the next reincarnation of the Dalai Lama. It is the traditional custom for the Panchen Lama to confirm the reincarnated Dalai Lama and vice versa. By contrast, high-ranking monks have scoffed at the Dalai Lama's idea of forming a committee to elect a successor.

The recent uprising in Lhasa, despite its grim pathos, is a reminder of the tragic 1959 insurrection that resulted in the deaths of thousands of Tibetans. In both cases, the 14th Dalai Lama badly miscalculated the divisions among his own people, Beijing's strategic determination, and the moral hypocrisy of the international community.

In the Buddhist view, all things come full circle. In the 17th century, the 5th Dalai Lama called in a Mongol general to overthrow the Karmapa's theocracy. Today, the Karmapa's men are ousting the Gelugpa power structure. Ceaseless change is unstoppable, taught Sakyamuni Buddha. Thus, attachment only results in suffering – our attachment to wealth, power, pride, respect and, most of all, to love, the meanest vice yet highest virtue of human existence. Not even his bitter opponents can dispute the deep love of His Holiness the Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso for his homeland, Tibet. How difficult it must be now, to let go.

"As far as I know, Van Walt is a specialist in international law. He practices international law."

maybe you should check it more carefully who really he is and what he is working for!!!

he is one of those "free tea-bag" campaigners!!!

invasion? hmm, you never give me the list of the countries that recognized tibet as a independent country, in history or now (recognize this "tibetan government in exile").

To the whole lot of you recent posters:

I don't care about Buddhism: a nation's religion is not relevant. (I've got a government filled with crazy people that think that religion is important in making decisions about an entire group of people - and I find it sickening.)

I keep reading the Dalai Lama did this or the Dalai Lama said that. But did I? Did I invoke the name of the Dalai Lama?

Ipfreak objected to the site (I think) to which I linked. But he/she didn't seem to want to see that the other iste has nothing to do with them. I also said I won't be given grief over the site: they didn't write the book. Got it? They didn't write the book. Of course they want to post it, because it agrees with their viewpoint, but, last time: they did not write the book.

I'm told to be open-minded, but an entire book written by an international lawyer was dismissed out of hand.

qazwsxc

I never said the sites were without value - nor did I say that I would not read or listen to the Chinese viewpoint.

What I said was: when I read something by either side in a dispute, I remember that what they say is necessarily biased. That's any side in any dispute.

If you want to believe it is all based on anti-China feelings, that's your priveledge - but that belief isn't based on anything that I said.

Ipfreak

Van Walt a 'free tea-bag campaign'?

As far as I know, Van Walt is a specialist in international law. He practices international law.

The link was to a short summary from his book. As I said, it's impossible to link to a book.

Why don't you look at a copy for yourself? Or are you worried that you'll read something you don't like?

ipfreak

Now it's genocide you want to talk about?

Funny, everything but the question of invasion.

ann curry, interview with dalai lama. you can see the transcript, he had hard time to swallow the numbers(from the spokesmen of the "tibetan government in exile"); from 1000, down to few hundreds, then 141, now the old man started choking, just could not give a straight answer. have a laugh...:)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24073087/

"DALAI LAMA:

--this must come out. And accept that. And then, realistically approach these problem. So, therefore, I think for, to the central government, I think, there's some independent type of investigation. What is going on? What went wrong? I think it is very very useful to help central government, to know the reality.

ANN CURRY:

China says about 20 people were killed during the arrests in Tibet. You just said, hundreds, you believe, were killed? This is information you're getting?

DALAI LAMA:

Uh-huh (AFFIRM). Oh, I-- I mean, you see, the-- I-- I think, maybe when Chinese say, I can only, autonomous region of Tibet, maybe. I don't know. I don't know. But it seems, you see, they-- outside the the autonomous region of Tibet, this area very remote. And many don't, deh, what's it called, what's say, normantic (PH), very remote area. So, I really very much worry, as-- what's-- what is happening in this area?"

The data of the first national census for the population was published in 1954. The overall population for china (including Tibet) was 601,938,035. Among them, Tibetans were 2,775,622. Back then, Dalai Lama administered Tibet local government reported to the Bureau of Census of the central government in Beijing with the number of 1 millions. The rest of 2,755,622 lived outside of Tibet (later TAR).

The data of the second census was published in 1964. The overall population was 723,070,269. The Tibetan population was 2,501,174. This time it was done by the central government (Dalai administration had exiled to the in India in 1959)

There was discrepancy of over 250,000 between the data of the first census (2,755,622) and the data of the second census (2,501,174). From the data, they seemed to be quite accurate. Where did those 250,000 people go? Died (any reasons)? Or never existed before?

One thing noticed is that the overall population in China had grown over 122 millions for the 10-year period (1954-1964). It was 1.17% (roughly) of population growth rate overall, which seemed to be normal back then. But instead, Tibetans has 1.12% (roughly) of negative growth rate during that period? And more interestingly, by the 1990, the number of population of Tibetans suddenly jumped up to 4,593,330, that is 1.86% (roughly) of growth rate for Tibetans. What was happening? Tibetan version of sex revolution?

One possible explanation was that there were not 1 millions Tibetans in TAR region (though not officially existed in 1954) reported by the Dalai local administration, far less than 1 millions. So the number of 2,755,622 from the first censure was incredibly inaccurate due to the gross exaggeration of then Dalai local administration.

Now let's take look at the myth of the "genocide" of 1.2 Tibetans. According to the Tibet government exiles, after the rebellions of 1959, 1.2 millions Tibetans were killed. So if it was true, even with the number 2,755,622 from 1954, 1.5 million survived. But, by the 1964, according to the second census, the Tibetan population was 2,501,174.

Wow, 5-years period, 1.5 millions Tibetans made 1 millions babies? Even with 0% of infant mortality, geees, sex machines? Like hens lay eggs?

Aonther argument was that there were 6 millions of Tibetans in 1949 (so claimed by the Tibetan government in exile). Then the discrepancy between the number of 2,775,622 (the data from the first census in 1954) and the data of 6 millions (so claimed by the Tibetan government in exiles) should be 3.25 millions. Remember, the so-called Dalai uprising was in 1959, not in 1954. Where did hell those 3.25 millions (actually should be more, with the base of 6 millions, gotta have a bit more growth between 1949 and 1954) Tibetans go? Can't be killed by the communists, right? Otherwise, Dalai could not have sat with Mao in Beijing for the short lived "honey moon" between them.

With the data from the second census of 2,501,174 (1964), used the based number 6 millions (claimed by the Tibetan government in exile), assume 0% growth rate, then the discrepancy grew even larger. So Chinese government killed 3.5 millions of Tibetans? If so, why Dalai Lama claimed only 1.2 millions killed? Covered up for his enemy?

Dalai had his Nobel Peace prize with that magic number 1.2 millions. Maybe he saves that rest of the numbers for two more "Nobel Peace Prize" in the future?

You be the judge!!!

to ascott April 23rd, 2008 8:12 pm

gees, so this "free tea-bag" campaign is your only source for information? maybe i should call dalai lama by myself....

wasting time ..

sile

Yes, sorry my post was rather curt, but I was responding to you: interesting points about Tibet's brand of Buddhism - but not relevant to the question of whether Tibet ever was or ought to be seen as a free and independent nation, from my perspective.

That various changes were made proves what, exactly? Many religions or sects were changed to suit whoever was in power. You seemed to be implying some sort of illegitimacy. (That's the context for my use of the word 'wrong.')

My comment about reading sources other than governmental ones referred back to your first sentence. If I want to decide who I believe in any dispute, I try to be careful not to limit myself to what is written by the main parties in the dispute. I have, however, read what are purported to be statements from the Chinese government. Please note that the book to which I refer above is not written by anyone from either side.

A reference I hesitated to post:

http://intellibriefs.blogspot.com/2007/07/china-why-scholars-are-revisit...

It's a product of SAAG.org - and I half expect that it will be dismissed for that reason.

It is difficult to find articles that one side or the other will not dismiss because they are seen as biased.

I was just told not to cite the BBC - no, not by you. I'm not certain exactly why, but it appeared that the BBC doesn't offer a satisfactory view of Taiwan.

Defined borders: well, it's been many years, but I do remember seeing Tibet on maps, and I do not recall it being depicted as a part of China. (These are pre-1959 maps that I am referring to. Wish I had one at hand.)

Also, I can be very simplistic: if Tibet were a region of China, why would China have had to send in an armed contingent that threatened military invasion - and why demand a treaty? Have you ever heard of a nation moving national forces into one of its own regions and demanding a treaty? I'd be very curious to learn about it.

Treaties are international instruments - or, at least, I have never heard of any that weren't.

I apologize, but I'll have to beg off soon. I have to admit that I am feeling at a disadvantage: I suffered a fairly nasty injury a short time ago. Sitting in one spot is difficult - but so is stretching or lifting. So I can't sit (comfortably) at my computer for very long, nor can I unpack my library: there won't be any place to put my books until I get my bookshelves re-assembled. (I've been weaving around stacks of carton boxes for nearly three months.)

It took some hard thinking to come up with Dr Van Walt's name, and actually it is Michael C van Walt van Praag, but the shorter form works in google.

I avoid doctors (physicians) whenever possible. A chiropractor was of limited help. Now I am trying to decide whether to go to another chiropractor or try an acupuncturist. First I have to figure out what credentials indicate what level of qualifications an acupuncturist has, so I can decide whether to consult the one whose office is nearby - or whether I'll have to go downtown. (Lucky for me, I don't suffer from the common American fear of needles.)

Well, my point is, I am trying to utilize limited computer time for personal health research.

I will check in later: I'd be interested to read your response - but, unfortunately, 'later' could mean more than just a few hours from now.

The Status of Tibet, by Micheal C van Walt van Praag

It's difficult to offer sources that are books: you can name them, but you can only link to a seller.

I searched for Michael C van Walt:

short summary:
http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/freetibet/background/when_not.txt

Also found at:
http://tibet.dharmakara.net/tibethistory.html

Don't bother trying to give me a hard time about the second site. They didn't write the book.

Google his name.

Who asked about the UN? Are you forgetting that China holds a veto in the UN? That's a neat argument: Tibet is not an idependent nation because the UN has not declared it so - but the UN cannot declare it so, because China has veto-power. (Rather like the nonsense one runs into when the US or Russia have vested interests in something being denied validation by the UN.)

Ascott,

"sile
You seem quite capable of reading and writing English.
Why don't you read a few sources other than the Chinese government's? (I don't read only what my government says.)"

--- I quoted from what I found in BBC, Fox News, Times online, and DL's own website. Or maybe you classify them as sources from Chinese government.

"Do you really think it is for outsiders to tell other people what religion they ought to believe, or that some of its sources are 'wrong'?
Boy, and I'm the one who's told that I believe that I am superior?!"

--- Are these responses to my post? I never mentioned religion or wrong sources or superiority. Maybe you mixed me for someone else cause you quoted 'wrong' as if it is from my post. I said the information some sources provide may be nothing but the truth, but I happen to know a crucial part of the story they wouldn't mention, and I'd like to see evidences that this crucial part is a fabrication. But it seems this topic does not interest you.

--- If your questions are to me, I really can't follow your logic so I am incapable of more discussions.

"You people are becoming tiresome. Why don't you search 'Tibet' and find some references (not written by China)?"

lol, interesting, i wasn't one who made that statement. as far as i know and my research shows, no country in this world ever recognized tibet as an independent country.

by the way, i don't read only the information from any government. i read information from any sources, make my own judgments.

sile

You seem quite capable of reading and writing English.
Why don't you read a few sources other than the Chinese government's? (I don't read only what my government says.)

Do you really think it is for outsiders to tell other people what religion they ought to believe, or that some of its sources are 'wrong'?

Boy, and I'm the one who's told that I believe that I am superior?!

nanji2003
ipfreak
etc

You people are becoming tiresome. Why don't you search 'Tibet' and find some references (not written by China)?

jenson

'Ideolgical superiority'? Please give a specific example.

TV? I rarely watch TV. In fact, I moved nearly three months ago, and I still haven't bothered to set up my TV. (It might also interest you to know that I neither have nor intend to get cable or satellite service: far too much garbage. Nor do I have a big screen TV: mine is only 13 inches, or 33 centimeters, as measured diagonally - I don't how you measure TV screens in China.)

CNN? Never cited them. Never would. The BBC? Well, they have won awards, and what I read from the BBC is usually different than what I read about CNN. (That's read about - as in read what others report they heard/saw on CNN.) How about the Christian Science Monitor? (They don't write from a Christian perspective: they do not represent those fanatics you probably hear about.)

Taiwan? What's your problem with the BBC's reporting on Taiwan? Other Chinas? To what other Chinas do you refer? Without specifics, I am left with the impression that what you have against the BBC is that they don't agree with China's position on Taiwan.

You seem to be under some misapprehensions.

Western prejudice? That's fairy prejudicial in itself. Are you sure that all westerners are prejudiced or feel superior? Then I have to ask you: Have you ever been to the United States? Have you ever been to Chicago, where I live? There are many Chinese people here, people who came recently and people whose families came here generations ago. There are people from all over Asia here. (In my neighborhood, there are a fair number of Koreans.)

No, you're wrong: I don't feel superior. If you read my post, you will see that I said that there are differences (big generalization) in the east/west ways of seeing some things, like whether my honor depends on my family's honor or my nation's - but I did not say that my way of seeing things is better, only that it is mine. I wasn't trying to teach anyone how to think, I was only explaining how I think.

I don't like most modern movies or television programs. No, Hollywood doesn't portray foreigners accurately, but Hollywood doesn't even portray Americans accurately. The majority of the people I know are not like the people I see in movies.

If I say that I don't like that the Chinese government did something, I am not saying anything at all about the Chinese people. (I'm not even making judgments about the Chinese government in general.) I've said that before. I don't know how else to say it.

I often hear that the Chinese feel inferior, or they feel that we think they are inferior, because China's industrialization came later than ours. I don't know whether it is true that there are many Chinese who believe that they are judged as 'inferior' because of that. If you read my post, you read where I said that we all need to give up ideas about superiority and inferiority.

Yes, so China industrialized later. That doesn't prove anything except that China industrialized later. (It can be interesting to learn the reasons why a nation hesitates to move in a particular direction, or why they readily move in another, but it doesn't *prove* anything.)

Yes, I've seen some stupid movies: the Chinese were waiting for the Europeans to come and bring them enlightenment. Really, do you think any educated westerner believes that nonsense?

If the Chinese had to wait for the Europeans to enlighten them, how is that China already had a long history of literature well before the first European arrived? How is it that China had a formal system of medicine that was already old when the first European arrived? I may not be able to name the dynasties, but I know enough about China's history to know that the culture is very ancient - and just a few centuries ago my own country didn't even exist. (I also happen to admire celadon pottery.)

By the way, thanks for the noodles, but I sometimes wish your ancestors had kept the gun powder to themselves. (Unfortunately, my ancestors weren't satisfied to use it just for fireworks.)

I am not George Bush: I don't want to bring democracy to the world. I believe that a people will develop their own brand of democracy *when and if* they decide they want it. There's no reason to think that any given people should want democracy. Perhaps they want something different. Why not?

You see, my whole argument is that people ought to be allowed to develop and change in whatever direction they choose. I want my nation to develop in the direction that is best for us. That doesn't mean that I want your nation to develop in the same way. If you want to, then point yourselves in that direction and go for it. If you want to follow another path, then point yourselves in *that* direction and go for it.

I don't believe that it is the business of any nation or any people to decide what is best for another nation. I don't like it when my government does it. I don't like it when your government does it. I don't like it when any other government does it.

Do I need to go to China, in order to believe in inviolate national borders?

The history of Buddhism? What relevance does that have to Tibetan independence?

I never defended any of Tibet's internal structures: not politica, social, religious, economic - none of them. However, I do not have to like a nation's internal workings, in order to decide that it should not be invaded. (Did you read my posts?) How would you feel if another nation decided that your government or your society needed improvement, and that that gave them reason to invade and 'liberate' you - that is, try to change you to be like them? (It may be difficult to imagine, because China is so large and so powerful, but think about it for a bit.) Judging by your post, I would bet that you would be outraged. (And it would be justifiable.)

It is for the Tibetans to decide whether, how, and when they wish to change their own culture. It isn't for anyone to decide that the culture is oppressive and use that as an excuse to invade. (And, really doesn't this smack of Trotskyite adventurism?)

I said it before: I make the distinction between the Chinese government and the Chinese people. I have never said a single word against the Chinese people, yet I get defensive responses.

No, I haven't ever been to China, but I have often thought it would be great to go. I am beginning to wonder, though: would I constantly run into people who want to lecture me about how everything China does is correct and beyond questioning? (We've got more than enough people here who think the same thing about the US. I wouldn't want to go to the other side of the world, only to have to deal with the same kinds of attitudes.)

ascott:
I forgot to add that between 1800 to 1945, China was called sick man in Asia so she can't force any superpower nation to acknowledge a land that don't belong to her. And on the contrary, UK, Russia, Japan each took a land from China. Other countries took some land as rentals. So if even these countries acknowledge that Tibet within China's border, what's the invasion comes from?

to ascott:

"Tibet's borders were internationally recognized, as were China's. In such case, there is no justification for invasion."

by which country? or un? please offer the links, proofs or anything that can back up your statement.

ascott:
your finding about internationally recognized tibet (independent) border is interesting. Do you have some materails about that? Because if you would like to see, I could show you tons of maps dating between 1800 to 1945 from many countries from US, UK, India ... showing that tibet within China's border. And I heard no government around the world at that time claim tibet was a independent country or they have a embassy in tibet (UK and then India had a consulate in Lhasa and Nepal might had a same but not embassy).
Do you have some prove that between whatever time to 1950 that tibet is INTERNATIONALLY recognized as a country with a national border?
Thanks.

ascott,

One question, What is the core of Tibetan culture? Complete devotion in buddhism, right? Buddhism is heavily involved in every corner of Tibetan culture. What is the consequence of returning to original Tibetan culture for common Tibetans? The spiritual leaders will have absolute control on people's spirits. What is the next consequence after people's spirits are controlled by a small group of people? Since you claimed you are not ignorant, I assume you know what this would mean to an ordinary tibetan. You must do not like going back to live in dark ages in Europe, so for what reason you think the tibetans would like to go back to dark ages? Are you the God of the tibetan minority living in China and know what they feel about their lives today?

To Ascott:

I found a lot of assertive statements in your posts. Although I don't see much supporting evidences listed, I am sure you have read plenty to form your pretty strong opinions on the so called 'Tibet issue'. And thank you for sharing them with us.

But may I ask if you can read Chinese or Tibetan? And if not, may I suggest the possibility, without any intention to offend, that the historical facts you have read, though possible nothing but the truth, are not the whole truth?

An example. Yesterday I was interested in finding the details of the reincarnation process of Tibetan lamas. I typed in 'identify the next dalai lama' and 'choosing process next dalai lama' in Yahoo and I opened several top links containing details, including BBC, Fox News, Times online, and DL's own website. According to all of them, "it has traditionally been the office of the High Lamas of the Gelugpa tradition and Tibetan government to choose the Dalai Lama."

And they never mention, or hint/doubt the existence of the crucial step that makes this process and the final chosen boy legal, the Golden Urn System, which was implemented in 1792 by the Qing government, per the request of the Tibetan high officials, to resolve disputes among different sides supporting their own candidate. Basically Qing government's representative needed to be in Lhasa to make sure there was no dirty trick involved. The boy became the recognized lama only after the Qing emperor approved the validity of the entire process.

DL somehow doesn't remember the presence of Mr. Wu Zhongxin from Central government of Republic of China in 1940, with whom he has talked to, received presents from, took photo with, and sat side by side above all others in his recognition ceremony. Nor could he remember his previous lives when each time there was a judge from Beijing.

The original related historical documents, I believe, are archived in the Forbidden Palace Museum in Beijing. I found Mr. Wu's reports and memoir on line, but maybe unfortunately to you, they are in Chinese.

Please let me know if you find evidences to suggest this crucial step is a complete fabrication and never happened since 1792.

Now assuming this is true, you sure can still insist Tibet has always been an independent country. But I'd like to know what kind of independent country it is, when its highest leader's being legal or not is decided by another government.

I have found other interesting historical facts (e.g., the origin of the snow lion flag), but I don't want to force them on you. I am sure you are not ignorant and have the ability to make your own judgments. Just a friendly reminder that you may want to watch your information sources.

--- An ordinary Chinese belonging to the Sh'er ethnic group of south China

Fishingbear

Your first point is an absolute non sequitur.

I'm getting tired of repeating myself: if you'd read my earlier post, you would see that I have no intention of debating ancient history.

Is there a land that is currently occupied by descendents of the original inhabitants? How far back in time do you want to trace migration paths?

Tibet's borders were internationally recognized, as were China's. In such case, there is no justification for invasion.

If you want to debate ancient history, that's fine, but it is outside the scope of this argument.

As I wrote before: what is long past is past; it cannot be undone. All we can deal with is the future.

allstonpowers

To the best of my recollection, I never mentioned 'democracy.'

I said that independent nations' borders are expected to be repected. That is the current standard. Some world leaders may not like it, and some ignore it, but it is an accepted tenet of international organizations.

1. I prefer the name Xizang rather than Tibet and hereinafter.

2. To honour the author not in his opinion but the attitude toward facts and evidences. In China,in no case do we challenge our opponents'personality. It's regarded as heavy offense, impolite and insultancy. Those guys who suspect his identity as a Chinses agent is IRRESPONSIBLE. I am really CURIOUS that is this the way young westners are educated to defend their voice freedom and express the opinions?

3. To Ascott

Please do not cite any source from BBC, CNN or RTL which bankrupted their credibility and objectiveness in Chinese, that includes HK,Taiwan and overseas Chinses. These media propogandas filter Chinses positive news and show the negative and demonized to you. Ask yourself, have you ever been to China? Or have you been to Xizang Province? I am afraid that the asymmetric information makes a barrier for westerners to Chinese.

It is advisable to read some scholar literatures and historical facts rather than staring at TV fast food programs. Follow those recommendations from Professor Rudmin.

Thanks to western medias' over-concern, quite a few young Chinese were brought up with romantic fantasies and justic aspirations toward western media democracy while skeptic to the authority's official journals. But now...

In my perspective, BBC and CNN lost their flagships on voice freedom because what I have seen is completely negative and reports on so-called "riot" were DEFINITELY NOT true as they described. They fabricated and resized photos to serve their purpose. An ambulance with red cross emblem was described as military truck. Nepalean police was mislead to Chinses military. Are they blamed to editors'collective ignorant or "slight mistakes"?

Isn't it also called "Hypocrisy"!

HARD EVIDDENCES ARE HERE: Http://ww.anti-cnn.com everything in english forum

4. Please do not practise ideology superiority. I can feel western's prejudice to former East Europe and Russia, you know, Hollywood producers are used to describe them as mafias, extremists or prostitutes.

5. Interestingly, Dalai Lama is a Mongolian title which means "Grand wisdom as sea wide and sky high". Title of Dalai Lama was inherited in the "Yellow Hat School" which was one of four branches in Xizang Buddism, called "Xizang Mi Zong". Although it is catagorised in "Da Chen Buddism School", conventional Chinese monks are de-socialized who doesn't involve into political issues. Temple's primary income is from donation. In comparison, Xizang monks had architected themselves on top of pyramid who have power to explain the law at their convenience. Literacy only covers monks and aristocracy on an unbelieveable 5% low.

Xizang was once a clerical society where power were gathered on Monks, hence governmental offices were replaced by monastries. Ironically, some of the liberated (from Dark Ages, doesn't apply to Americans) westerners are suppoting the religious "regime"

Were they merciful? No! Their every insane ritual required two complete kids'skin peeled alive and one head skull served as a "holy bowl". Isn't it hypercratic for Dalai Lama to talk about human rights in public as a defender?

There filled with internal conflicts in monastries. To smooth the situation, In Qing Dynasty, Emperor Kang Xi published a new act called "Gold Bottle Draw". The boy with a lucky draw would be Dalai Lama with an unshakable position that nobody could threat him which is accreditted and protected by central government.

6. Thanks to Xizang exile "government" I have learnt a new English word "serf" (sorry for my volcabulary coz its only my second languange). However this word is far from enough to describe the cruelty that serfs had suffered. Serfs in Xizang didn't have any freedom and regarded as part of owners' treasure. Generally a owner's guest will be invited to rape a few female slaves to show his hospitality. Any resistance from serf incurred to death or taking off their eyes as a " merciful punishment".

7. i am just wondering how ASCOTT thinks about European's middle ages which was featured by "theocratic polity". Didn't you realize that Dalai Lama is trying to restore of a clercal state, where once 5% percent superstructure(monks and aristocracy) ruled 95% serfs

source and references will be supplemented later...or u can just visit the forum in http://www.anti-cnn.com

To Ascott, two points:

"The negatives of Tibetan government before the Chinese invasion are an unrelated problem. There are a lot of countries that have despotic governments: that does not give outsiders the right to invade and take them over. (If you'd read all my posts, you would not suggest that I was defending the pre-invasion Tibetan government or social system."

1. If I follow your logic, should Tibet gives up most of its own land because according to historian "The earliest Tibetan historical texts identify the Zhang Zhung culture as a people who migrated from the Amdo region into Western Tibet." Are you also suggesting people in north America and Australia should all go back to Europe, or Africa since we were all from Africa?

2. The source of information is totally different between yours and others. There are nothing you can discuss with the other if two of you trust different sources.

To ASCOTT and IPfreak,

I'm afraid that the debate between you two suffers from a big logic loop hole. When you two do not share a common presumption, there will be no end for this debate. This is more like a debate between two people that one believes in God while the other believes in evolution. The evolution guy ask for proof from the God believer while the God believer says you don't need proof. Here, the presumption by ASCOTT is that human rights, freedom and democracy is the world standard value. He is not applying any double standard whatsoever. This is semi-idealism. Mr. IPfreak, however, is still believing in powerplays between countries deep inside, even though he tries to take in the world peace concept. I personally lean toward Mr. IPfreak. Although we should promote a peaceful world as much as we can, there is no way to reach totoalarism (should I say communism instead?). That is just against human nature. Human beings are biological organisms. Selfishness is the nature. Our nature does not only make us fighting each other for resources but also push us to destroy the earth, making us the cancer for this planet.

ascott,

I see you are open minded. If you could take time to read some Tibetan/Chinese language web forums, I bet you will change lots of arguments in your posts.

It does not take a political scientist to realize although you are progressive, the mind set you present by your posts is deeply a Western one. By applying your Western mind set on the Chinese problems, surely you are going to misunderstand and be misunderstood. What the wrong thing is, your governments does not stop at words, it go for harming people physically.

"More to the point, is what the Tibetans think. If the Tibetans thought they were liberated, why did they resent the invasion, and why do so many still resist? They certainly don't talk as though they feel that they were liberated."

source? don't give me that information from the so-called "tibet government in exile" or bbc.com (have you heard the saying "don't be like bbc"?). how many tibetans do you know? please, again, not those who never been to tibet, those who are offspring of those lords/nobles in india. my analysis (see my first post for this topic) on the claim made by the "tibet government in exile" has showed the numbers of tibetan exiles were grossly exaggerated.

the whole argument you based on is that tibet was an independent country and so far you refuse to question that assumption and take look at the history. if so, please give out your historical information to back up that belief.

if you stick with that, then you might ask why the hell no one in the world ever recognize the so-called "tibet government in exile". why there was no map showing tibet was an independent country? why did cia have to do the operation secretly?

brits started the "independent tibet" in later 1800s (as a part of strategy of "divide and conquer"), even brits could not openly support this idea.

btw, some of tibetans (most of them are those exiles and lamas) want to have an independent state is totally different from that tibet was an independent country.

btw, fyi, there are 6 millios of tibetans. how many of them involved this march event? this time was well planned, well coordinated and well executed by the tibetan exiles (actually those behind the scene are mainly non-tibetans, working with tibetan exiles, you can easily find that information). so far as less than 5,000 inside of china, according to the information from china side. so let's double the numeber 10,000. this event had been planned for few years (conceived in 2001 right after china was granted the olympics), if the "oppressed" tibetans was longing for the "freedom", where did those "freedom" longing tibetans go? why most of them on the street (03/14) were lamas?

i am waiting for you to produce your evidence.

Sorry, WHOEVER, but i set no standard by myself. It is the current international standard: national borders are expected to be inviolate. (I criticize my own government's invasion of Iraq, so I am consistent.) Are other nations' leaders and citizens following **my** standard, when they also object to China's invasion? You are being foolish. The standard is not mine at all.

(And I certainly did not brag: I did not claim to be an authority, but rather stated that I did read some articles about the subject, and what I read refuted what the patronizing poster to whom I responded had said. Saying that I am not completely unread or unknowledgeable is hardly bragging.)

Tibetans who live in China are not the principal issue.

The negatives of Tibetan government before the Chinese invasion are an unrelated problem. There are a lot of countries that have despotic governments: that does not give outsiders the right to invade and take them over. (If you'd read all my posts, you would not suggest that I was defending the pre-invasion Tibetan government or social system.)

More to the point, is what the Tibetans think. If the Tibetans thought they were liberated, why did they resent the invasion, and why do so many still resist? They certainly don't talk as though they feel that they were liberated.

I've already said, social and cultural evolution must come from within. There must first *be* a Tibet, and then one can worry about helping the Tibetans reform their government, but only if they choose to do so and want outside help, and only in the ways that they choose.

The way to improve a people's lot is not by invading their nation and annexing it, then dictate how they ought to change, and extinguishing their culture.

A poster had addressed me in a condescending fashion, and I responded like terms. That was the reason for the tone of my response to that poster: re-read the first sentence, where I indicated it. What the devil was the reason for yours?

There is nothing totalitarian about anything that I stated. (Quite the contrary. How does advocating freedom even begin to suggest totalitarianism?) That is your own defensiveness showing through.

If you think my country is truly democratic, you haven't been reading what those other posters here (that you supposedly admire) have been writing. My government is becoming fascist, more fascist every day. Neither party represents the people: they represent the corpor