In all my travels to many different Countries arround the World, I have not noticed that the UK.is hated! It's thaught of as the home of Justice and doing things because its 'Right'. At least this has been so since the 1960's. USA that had been the great Hero from WW11 started to take over the role as the International Interferer.
Just want to reiterate that this answer, Major, pretty much nailed it. But to amend this statement, the powers that be have always worked to maintain the status quo, i.e. maintain the conditions under which they've come to power & dominance. As harsh as this may sound, the US became the world's lone superpower with so & so fighting a Civil War, such & such in an economic depression, and so forth. What motivation has the US, or any other country or kingdom throughout world history, had to change the system under which they've ascended? And as far as those other countries disliking the US because of the 'status quo', I guarantee you that if the shoe were on the other foot, they'd be just as self-serving and indifferent as we seem to be. It's a simple case of 'Human Nature', that's where we are in our evolution as a species. So take the criticisms with a grain of salt.
No, its just shallow analysis that sounds catchy. For instance, the choices weren't 'supporting ruthless dictators' in a vacuum. The choices were supporting dictators that believe in capitalism, or leaving the country (pick what you example is) to a dictator/totalitarian regime that was against capitalism as it suited them. For example, Batista or Castro? Somoza or Ortega? Chiang Ki Chek (sp) or Mao? The Shah or The Ayatollah? Not much choice there. And in each case that the choice ended up being the alternative to who we supported the people suffered just as much, and the regimes were that much harder to change. In places where the capitalist choice won out, the regime changes have been much smoother, as we see throughout most of Latin America.
In the cases you mentioned you are correct, except that Ortega is by far preferable as far as freedom of speech and press goes than the Samosa regime.
Ortega's regime was responsible for murder, rape, detention without trial, and on and on. But even if you are correct, I think I make my point.
Correct, I don't try to claim that Ortega was a saint... Just that he wasn't as bad as the previous regime.
Exactly, HayesStreet. Communism\Socialism is, in terms of human history, a new concept. The US has a legacy of fighting communism\socialism, up to and including the supporting of dictators as we did in Vietnam, in order to maintain the status quo. Capitalism, or some form of such, has been the norm for the majority of recent history, and the US ascended to its current status under such a norm. And like it or not, people in Africa or Latin America, for example, were struggling before communism debuted on the world stage, yet the US didn't feel the need to change their fates (not that we really could have at the time, but still). In fact, I would argue that if communism became nothing more than a theory, today we would be as isolated as we were before WW2, as would any other country in the US's position. Appearances are everything.
Actually, in modern terms, they are about the same age (referring to socialism and capitalism) - really coming into fruition in the middle ages...both existed in much more simplistic forms in ancient times, as well...but they were very different from now.
Let me take a stab at this since there are other people interested (cohen? ). It's funny how some people dog the "communist China" for the "invasion" of Tibet. Why is Scottland part of Britain? Shouldn't US be 13 states? Did the North invade the South? Part of it maybe due to US has a proud constitution. Part of it maybe due to the short history of US sitting largely all alone on a "new Continent". But wait, wasn't there native Indians? Shouldn't at least large part of the vast west belong to them? Or should China just be confined within the Great Wall, or just along the two rivers where core civilization starts? The fact of the matter is China is a multi-ethnic country with a long history. Back to TIbet. People at Tibet are believed to be descendents of Some Chinese before Han Dynasty thousands years ago. They moved west, first nomad at Chinghai, then into Tibet. They established their kingdom, one of many in the great China area. Fast forward to Tang, Princess wenchen of Tang became wife of the tibetian king. She brought Buddhism with her. In fact, the great 5th Dalai Lama further claimed that the Tibetan King, Srong-tsan-gam-po (Songtsen Gampo), was a reincarnation of Avalokitesvara, and his Han wife, princess Wen-Cheng, was the reincarnation of the goddess Tara or Mother-savior. Even today, the palace of Dalai Lama in Lhasa is called `Potala Palace'. Note that `Potala' is the residence of Avalokitesvara which in Han Character is `Putou', and there is an island in the East China Sea with the name Putou San which is supposed to be the residence of GuanYin. When the Mongol or Yuan Dynasty collapsed, it was supplanted by a Han-Chinese dominated Ming Dynasty, which inherited jurisdiction over Yuan, including the Tibetan region. Dalai Lama is the spiritual leader of one of the branch of the Tibet buddhism, it came in power partly with aid from the central government. The central government has control over Dalai Lama's Tibet affairs at least from Ching dynasty. After the passage of Dalai Lama, a regent (sometimes, the regent was mentioned as the Tibetan King) would be appointed by the Ching Court. The first Regent was appointed in 1757 after the passage of the 7th Dalai Lama. One of the Regents was an Abbot of the Yon-Ho Monastery of Beijing. The Ching court sometimes fired the regents, in fact, one of them was arrested and sent to Hailungjian (in the Northeast area or Manchuria) in 1844. Ching emperor also gave a golden urn on which the names of Dalai lama would be engraved. Of course, Ching weakened, and Tibet was largely semi-independent. But National Government by Dr. Sun did have control over Tibet. British created the name `suzerainty' but was never acknowledged by any central government of China. National Government (ROC) later established `Commission of Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs' and Tibetan congressmen wrote the Article about Tibet in the Constitution of R.O.C.. In short, there is no such a thing as Communist China's invasion of Tibet, unless you consider change of power as another governmetn takes over as "invade". Some military tycoon in Yunnan China claimed self-ruling "independence" also, did China invade Yunnan also? For those interested in Tibet, here is an academic site from Purdue U http://omni.cc.purdue.edu/~wtv/tibet/Welcome.html
Yeah, I just re-read my post. Sorry. My point is, its all about perspectives. You see the US making a decision about capitalism\communism, I see the US wanting to maintain the conditions into which it ascended. Half-full, half-empty. And if we were to switch places with any of our critics, they'd act in the same fashion. That's the irony of hating the US, there hasn't been a kingdom or power that hasn't acted in a similar fashion.
that the point i've made here a million times before...when the countries that criticized us were at the height of their power they were raping, pillaging and plundering the world, literally. no world power has stood with so much power relative to the rest of the world...and no world power has ever checked itself more than the United States has.
I'd like to point out that even this guy's site refers to the PRC 'conquering' Tibet, which is hardly how you'd characterize some normal transfer of relations, as described by michecon. For your reading pleasure: Invasion and illegal annexation of Tibet: 1949-1951 After the military invasion of Tibet had started and the small Tibetan army was defeated, the PRC imposed a treaty on the Tibetan Government under the terms of which Tibet was declared to be a part of China, albeit enjoying a large degree of autonomy. In the White Paper, China claims this treaty was entered into entirely voluntarily by the Tibetan Government, and that the Dalai Lama, his Government and the Tibetan people as a whole welcomed it. The facts show a very different story, leading to the conclusion that the so-called "17 Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet" was never validly concluded and was rejected by Tibetans. The Dalai Lama stated Tibetan Prime Minister Lukhangwa as having told Chinese General Zhang Jin-wu in 1952: It was absurd to refer to the terms of the Seventeen-Point Agreement. Our people did not accept the agreement and the Chinese themselves had repeatedly broken the terms of it. Their army was still in occupation of eastern Tibet; the area had not been returned to the government of Tibet, as it should have been. [My Land and My People, Dalai Lama, New York, Fourth Edition, 1992, p.95] Diplomatic activity and military threats Soon after the Communist victory against the Guomindang and the founding of the PRC on 1 October 1949, Radio Beijing began to announce that "the People's Liberation Army must liberate all Chinese territories, including Tibet, Xinjiang, Hainan and Taiwan." Partly in response to this threat, and in order to resolve long-standing border disputes with China, the Foreign Office of the Tibetan Government, on 2 November 1949, wrote to Mao Zedong proposing negotiations to settle all territorial disputes. Copies of this letter were sent to the Governments of India, Great Britain and the United States. Although these three Governments considered the spread of Communism to be a threat to the stability of South Asia, they advised the Tibetan Government to enter into direct negotiations with Chinese Government as any other course of action might provoke military retaliation. The Tibetan Government decided to send two senior officials, Tsepon Shakabpa and Tsechag Thubten Gyalpo, to negotiate with representatives of the PRC in a third country, possibly the USSR, Singapore or Hong Kong. These officials were to take up with the Chinese Government the content of the Tibetan Foreign Office's letter to Chairman Mao Zedong and the threatening Chinese radio announcements still being made about an imminent "liberation of Tibet"; they were to secure an assurance that the territorial integrity of Tibet would not be violated and to state that Tibet would not tolerate interference. When the Tibetan delegates in Delhi applied for visas to Hong Kong, the Chinese told them that their new Ambassador to India was due to arrive in the capital shortly and that negotiations should be opened through him. In the course of negotiations, the Chinese Ambassador, Yuan Zhong-xian, demanded that the Tibetan delegation accept a Two- point Proposal: i) Tibetan national defence will be handled by China; and ii) Tibet should be recognised as a part of China. They were then to proceed to China in confirmation of the agreement. On being informed of the Chinese demands, the Tibetan Government instructed its delegates to reject the proposal. So negotiations were suspended. On 7 October 1950, 40,000 Chinese troops under Political Commissar, Wang Qiemi, attacked Eastern Tibet's provincial capital of Chamdo, from eight directions. The small Tibetan force, consisting of 8,000 troops and militia, were defeated. After two days, Chamdo was taken and Kalon (Minister) Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, the Regional Governor, was captured. Over 4,000 Tibetan fighters were killed. The Chinese aggression came as a rude shock to India. In a sharp note to Beijing on 26 October 1950, the Indian Foreign Ministry wrote: Now that the invasion of Tibet has been ordered by Chinese government, peaceful negotiations can hardly be synchronized with it and there naturally will be fear on the part of Tibetans that negotiations will be under duress. In the present context of world events, invasion by Chinese troops of Tibet cannot but be regarded as deplorable and in the considered judgement of the Government of India, not in the interest of China or peace. A number of countries, including the United States and Britain, expressed their support for the Indian position. The Tibetan National Assembly convened an emergency session in November 1950 at which it requested the Dalai Lama, only 16 at that time, to assume full authority as Head of State. The Dalai Lama was then requested to leave Lhasa for Dromo, near the Indian border, so that he would be out of personal danger.At the same time the Tibetan Foreign Office issued the followingstatement: Tibet is united as one man behind the Dalai Lama who has taken over full powers. ... We have appealed to the world for peaceful intervention in (the face of this) clear case of unprovoked aggression. The Tibetan Government also wrote to the Secretary General of the United Nations on 7 November 1950, appealing for the world body's intervention. The letter said, in part: Tibet recognises that it is in no position to resist the Chinese advance. It is thus that it agreed to negotiate on friendly terms with the Chinese Government. ...Though there is little hope that a nation dedicated to peace will be able to resist the brutal effort of men trained to war, we understand that the United Nations has decided to stop aggression wherever it takes place. On 17 November 1950, El Salvador formally asked that the aggression against Tibet be put on the General Assembly agenda. However, the issue was not discussed in the UN General Assembly at the suggestion of the Indian delegation who asserted that a peaceful solution which is mutually advantageous to Tibet, India and China could be reached between the parties concerned. A second letter by the Tibetan delegation to the United Nations on 8 December 1950 did not change the situation. Faced with the military occupation of Eastern and Northern Tibet, the defeat and destruction of its small army, the advance of tens of thousands of more PLA troops into Central Tibet, and the lack of active support from the international community, the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government decided to send a delegation to Beijing for negotiations with the new Chinese leadership. "Seventeen-Point Agreement" In April 1951, the Tibetan Government sent a five-member delegation to Beijing, led by Kalon Ngapo Ngawang Jigme. The Tibetan Government authorised its delegation to put forward the Tibetan stand and listen to the Chinese position. But, contrary to the claim made in the White Paper that the delegation had "full powers," it was expressly not given the plenipotentiary authority to conclude an agreement. In fact, it was instructed to refer all important matters to the Government. On 29 April negotiations opened with the presentation of a draft agreement by the leader of the Chinese delegation. The Tibetan delegation rejected the Chinese proposal in toto, after which the Chinese tabled a modified draft that was equally unacceptable to the Tibetan delegation. At this point, the Chinese delegates, Li Weihan and Zhang Jin-wu, made it plain that the terms, as they now stood, were final and amounted to an ultimatum. The Tibetan delegation was addressed in harsh and insulting terms, threatened with physical violence, and members were virtually kept prisoners. No further discussion was permitted, and, contrary to Chinese claims, the Tibetan delegation was prevented from contacting its Government for instructions. It was given the onerous choice of either signing the "Agreement" on its own authority or accepting responsibility for an immediate military advance on Lhasa. Under immense Chinese pressure the Tibetan delegation signed the "Agreement of the Central People's Government and the Local Government of Tibet on Measures for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet" on 23 May 1951, without being able to inform the Tibetan Government. The delegation warned the Chinese that they were signing only in their personal capacity and had no authority to bind either the Dalai Lama or the Tibetan Government to the "Agreement". None of this posed an obstacle to the Chinese Government to proceed with a signing ceremony and to announce to the world that an "agreement" had been concluded for the "peaceful liberation of Tibet". Even the seals affixed to the document were forged by the Chinese Government to give it the necessary semblance of authenticity. The seventeen clauses of the "Agreement", among other things, authorised the entry into Tibet of Chinese forces and empowered the Chinese Government to handle Tibet's external affairs. On the other hand, it guaranteed that China would not alter the existing political system in Tibet and not interfere with the established status, function, and powers of the Dalai Lama or the Panchen Lama. The Tibetan people were to have regional autonomy, and their religious beliefs and customs were to be respected. Internal reforms in Tibet would be effected after consultation with leading Tibetans and without compulsion. The full text of what came to be known as the "Seventeen-Point Agreement" was broadcast by Radio Beijing on 27 May 1951. This was the first time the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government heard of the devastating document. The reaction in Dromo (where the Dalai Lama was staying at that time) and Lhasa was one of shock and disbelief. A message was immediately sent to the delegation in Beijing, reprimanding them for signing the "Agreement" without consulting the Government for instructions. The delegation was asked to send the text of the document they had signed, and wait in Beijing for further instructions. In the meantime, a telegraphic message was received from the delegation to say that the Chinese Government representative, General Zhang Jin-wu, was already on his way to Dromo, via India. It added that some of the delegation members were returning, via India, and the leader of the delegation was returning directly to Lhasa. The Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government withheld the public repudiation of the "Agreement". The Dalai Lama returned to Lhasa on 17 August 1951 in the hope of re-negotiating a more favourable treaty with the Chinese. On 9 September 1951, around 3,000 Chinese troops marched into Lhasa, soon followed by some 20,000 more, from eastern Tibet and from Eastern Turkestan (Xinjiang) in the north. The PLA occupied the principal cities of Ruthok and Gartok, and then Gyangtse and Shigatse. With the occupation of all the major cities of Tibet, including Lhasa, and large concentration of troops throughout eastern and western Tibet, the military control of Tibet was virtually complete. From this position, China refused to re-open negotiations and the Dalai Lama had effectively lost the ability to either accept or reject any Tibet-China agreement. However, on the first occasion he had of expressing himself freely again, which came only on 20 June 1959, after his flight to India, the Dalai Lama formally repudiated the "Seventeen-Point Agreement", as having been "thrust upon Tibetan Government and people by the threat of arms". In assessing the "17-Point Agreement on Measures for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet" and the occupation of Tibet two factors are crucial. First, the extent to which China was violating international law when the PLA marched into Tibet, and second, the effect of the signing of the "Agreement". The law governing treaties is based on the universally recognised principle that the foundation of conventional obligations is the free and mutual consent of contracting parties and, conversely, that freedom of consent is essential to the validity of an agreement. Treaties brought about by the threat or the use of force lack legal validity, particularly if the coercion is applied to the country and government in question rather than only on the negotiators themselves. With China occupying large portions of Tibet and openly threatening a full military advance to Lhasa unless the treaty was signed, the "agreement" was invalid ab initio, meaning that it could not even be validated by a later act of acquiescence by the Tibetan Government. Contrary to China's claim in its White Paper, the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government did not act voluntarily in signing the "Agreement". In fact, Mao Zedong himself, in the Directive of Central Committee of CPC on the Policies for our Work in Tibet, issued on 6 April 1952, admitted: (N)ot only the two Silons (i.e., prime ministers) but also the Dalai and most of his clique were reluctant to accept the Agreement and are unwilling to carry it out. ... As yet we do not have a material base for fully implementing the agreement, nor do we have a base for this purpose in terms of support among the masses or in the upper stratum. [Selected Works of Mao Tsetung, Vol. 5, Foreign Language Press, Peking, 1977, p.75] http://www.tibet.com/WhitePaper/white2.html
I have to repect your reading skill, the ability to avoid question, skip history and provide us a vivid recount of affairs in two years from a Tibet Independent movement site. I'm very reluctant to pay US tax, will you support me?
Originally posted by michecon Let me take a stab at this since there are other people interested (cohen? ). Thanks for the link, michecon. Much appreciated. It is a different take on Tibet than I have read previously. It's always interesting to read both sides of the story. It's funny how some people dog the "communist China" for the "invasion" of Tibet. Why is Scottland part of Britain? Shouldn't US be 13 states? Did the North invade the South? Part of it maybe due to US has a proud constitution. Part of it maybe due to the short history of US sitting largely all alone on a "new Continent". But wait, wasn't there native Indians? Shouldn't at least large part of the vast west belong to them? Or should China just be confined within the Great Wall, or just along the two rivers where core civilization starts? The fact of the matter is China is a multi-ethnic country with a long history. You mention events that took place long ago. Does that mean that the US should invade Canada, and use Tibet as a reason why we are entitled? (assuming Tibet was invaded) Countries expanded through wars and battles for ages. That has not been acceptable conduct for quite a while now. BTW, Scotland was granted a fair amount of independence a few years back and now has its own functioning, elected parliament. Is China willing to do the same for Tibet? Back to TIbet. People at Tibet are believed to be descendents of Some Chinese before Han Dynasty thousands years ago... In short, there is no such a thing as Communist China's invasion of Tibet, unless you consider change of power as another governmetn takes over as "invade". Some military tycoon in Yunnan China claimed self-ruling "independence" also, did China invade Yunnan also? For those interested in Tibet, here is an academic site from Purdue U http://omni.cc.purdue.edu/~wtv/tibet/Welcome.html It's a stretch to claim that the site is 'academic'. That makes it seem like it is based on academic research, yet the site is maintained by 'Club for Professional Chinese Mathematical Scientists'. I sense that this group is no less biased, and possibly more biased, than HayesStreet's tibet.com. One page on the tibet.com raised some interesting points: http://www.tibet.com/WhitePaper/exesum.html Personally, I feel for the Tibetans' plight, but I feel that I am very open to the suggestion that Tibet 'belongs' in China. But the above quote seems to have a ring of truth in it, no? I get the impression that Tibet was 'colonialised' by China. All indications are that the Tibetans themselves felt they were an independent nation, and now feel ruled by a foreign power. 1.2 million Tibetans? Is that true? If so, does this really sound like a break-away province? Honestly?
Sure, just like Taiwan is a break-away province of China... Hopefully, the Chinese people can be re-united once again.
Then again, none of the previous world powers had pissing contests against another with nukes on the table as poker chips. I also have the feeling that countries are crying foul and even hypocrisy with certain decisions in our international policy. So while we raised the bar in universal rights and freedoms, we're also being criticised by that same bar. So you can't judge their opinions based on the past imperialist empires and hegemonies of the world's past because that is what the United States supposedly lifted the world out of.
How long is long? US is established 200 plus years ago. China has sovereignty over Tibet and a history of cultural, religious, etc exchange with Tibet for at least more than 300 hundred years. IS that enough? I took some length so show the history of China/Tibet issue b/c legal sovereignty is established through history of events and documents and interaction among the people. Tibet was not independent, it has people from National Gernment there, however they want to deny it. Of course, China was in constant war during the time, so the control was through mostly self-governing. Is any canadian head of state appointed by US in any history? So no, Tibet is by no mean any excuse for US to invade Canada. On a side note, When did Hawaii becomes American? In fact, Tibet (or XIzhang as we call it) is a special self-governing region in China, together with other 3 major minornity regions in China. Zhuang in Yunnan, Uwer in Xinjian, Mogol in mogolia. They enjoy a lot more self governing than other provinces in Chna. My bad, its sponsored by Tibet Study Association but the hosting person is a mathematician. But the historical facts are still there, not even Tibet.com seems to dispute. It's always easy to critisize, just like against US. When someone has to dwell on language like "own" (It's just bad English translation, it just mean China has the sovereignty. A lot of slogan language is just not good in English.) to find the evidence, it shows how weak their evidence is. Tibet has a lot of interaction with other regions in China. Of course, one should not forget Tibet is under feudal system prior to PRC where some 5% of population, a lot of them monks, owns 95% of the wealth. It's abolished by PRC. No doubt some of them fled and sang the aloudest of a anti-China free-Tibet song. What can China do right anyway? If it develops local economy, teach Han Chinese, it's undermining the Tibet culture for some people. If it preservs some region and open Tibetian school, it's exploiting/seperationism for some people. Left or right, its colonism. Well, China is a communist country anyway, why not take a free shot? The same people criticising China for encouraging the study of Han Chinese in some Rural Tibet region where education is backward forget that US require English teraching in ANY public school. There's even an article on NYT sympathizing China on this. What can I say? I have no way to prove or disprove this number. Knowing the source, it's not difficult to doubt the number not showing from the census. But talking about breakaway province and back to US internatinal policy, shouldn't US protect Tibet just like protect Taiwan, if so many Americans believe China invaded Tibet. Why not?
