I don't think Tibet's self determination is any less important than the ones you cited. We probably shouldn't get into the Israeli/Palestinian debate, but for the purposes of this discussion I'll say that I would be as angry if Obama dismissed Palestinian leaders indefinitely out of the need to negotiate with Israel. I'm absolutely not a fan of what Russia pulled in Chechnya -- although like Palestine this is convoluted because I am often accused of supporting terrorist acts by independent movements when I support their end goal. I support their ends, but not the means they use to achieve them. And I do not think Tibet has reacted in anywhere near the same fashion as separatists in Palestine, Chechnya, or Ireland to use another example. There are not Tibetan separatists bombing Chinese administrative buildings that I know of -- although I will admit that this could possibly be due to China's effectiveness at suppressing potential attacks. From what I've seen they make their statements through nonviolent protest.
there have been some attacks carried out by individuals that i've heard before. i can't confirm it though. but nothing like others you've mentioned. it could also be that some of the people don't feel as oppressed as those other places due to economic gains. you never know. some of these stuff you can't just believe what you hear online. you have to live there to experience it. why don't you give it a try and travel there sometimes and see for yourself? if anything, it will benefit the local economy.
I wouldn't mind living in Asia at all. I'm not sure China would be my first choice however. I also don't think you necessarily have to live somewhere to opine on it. I never lived in South Africa, but I'm perfectly comfortable saying apartheid was wrong. Never lived in Post WWI Germany or Post WWII Russia, but I can comfortably say that Nazi and Stalinist reactions didn't help things.
it's not as bad as you think. and it's no where near as bad as those you've mentioned. you will probably experience major culture shock anywhere in asia. i couldn't even get used to it these days. anyways, people are not treated horribly as you think. i had many friends who don't even speak any chinese and lived there for years. they all liked it. if you stay in big cities like shanghai.
I have spent time in Shanghai, Taipei, Hong Kong, and Beijing. In total I have spent probably a month in China/Taiwan. I do like it. It is an amazing place. I do not think that China and the United States are as far apart as people think. I think China began (in the 1950's) with a Communist/Socialist political system and slowly developed economic Capitalism. I think the US started with economic Capitalism and is gradually becoming "Socialist." A few important caveats. I am well aware that I am grossly oversimplifying and making a general point. I do not disapprove of the US's gradual movement towards a strong federal government (which began the day we adopted the Constitution btw -- the Alien and Sedition Acts make the Patriot Act look like the First Amendment. Or look up the Whiskey Rebellion sometime). Far from it I think it was directly responsible for our rise to global preeminence. If we had stayed a disjointed Confederacy with dozens of different currencies and a neutered national government with no ability to fund basic necessities like defense and roads, we would have long since been run over by a stronger opponent.
Not to personalize the thread (more making a point), but as I mentioned earlier I have a Taiwanese stepmother who has taken us to China multiple times to visit her father and siblings that never immigrated. Her answering machine is in Mandarin. I have celebrated Chinese New Year for over 15 years, half my life. Family gatherings are bilingual, and the predominant language is often Mandarin. Please do not assume that I am ignorant of the culture.
If this is really the case then why doesn't the PRC agree to a referendum on autonomy? For that matter if so many Tibetans are happy with the PRC why not allow the Dalai Lama back since his word won't convince Tibetans?
I have raised this before that one of the key differences between Tibet and many other independences movements is that the leader has consistently preached non-violence. There are violent Tibetans and Tibetans who preach violence but the Dalai Lama isn't one of them. For his trouble the PRC has continued to marginalize him. I have never understood why the PRC doesn't agree to negotiate with the Dalai Lama when they could gain much while losing next to nothing. As long as they continue to marginalize him though there is no telling what the next generation of Tibetan leaders will be like.
PRC will never let go their power. the other thing is the trust issue. i don't think anybody in PRC trust him at all. because in the 50's, he wa super friendly with PRC and was even a member of people's congress. he even wrote poems to praise chairman Mao. and PRC was very high on him and the other lama. they felt betrayed. i don't think anybody trust him on anything he says anymore.
If 20 years from now the PRC is the leading economic and military power would you be fine for the US surrendering self-determination to the PRC?
Indeed. The Native Americans "peacefully" gave up their land, liberty, and livelihood and "peacefully" decided to live on reservations because they know that's the best for them. Excuse me for not believing that the US today is founded on an unwavering devotion to human rights and the love of democracy. Japanese workers often work overtime on their own will. Chinese workers for state companies read newspapers and sip on tea for the majority of their time at work. Chinese government is the most corrupt among the oriental countries. Government officials make policies purely for self-interest and it's all a buddy-buddy system where everyone's in it to make a buck. You obviously have no clue what communism is about on a practical level as opposed to the theoretical. Chinese people care about self-interest on a level that is actually pretty appalling to me as an American. As for the government, Chinese government can pass blatantly bad laws the same way the Bush administration could pass such horrors as the Iraq invasion and Patriot Act. It's not about Communism, but rather POWER.
Might want to actually read the thread before you respond. Asked and answered wrt Indian treatment. It's pretty obvious I don't defend it. Nor am I a fan of Bush. heaven knows where you pulled that from.
You might want to reread my original response. You said one cannot condone Chinese actions towards Tibet because it's considered conquest. My response is that ALL powerful nations today came about due to conquest. And that you cannot single out China simply because you don't like them. And instead of answering my question, you made some weird remarks about Utah!? I just find it weird that any American would be annoyed at historical conquest of another country. China has ruled over Tibet for longer than the existence of USA. And America is probably the biggest "empire" in the world today with military bases through the world, as well as heavy-handed interference in the Middle East, Central America, and South America. Then why do you equate the Chinese government with the Chinese people? You obviously see such a distinction when it comes to the US government and Americans. Yet you can't make such a distinction when it comes to another country.
China allowed Tibetan autonomy during the entirety of their "rule" until they invaded in the '50's after a brief period of Tibetan autonomy for the first half of the century. I already said I don't approve of US actions in prior centuries or this one (look up the Phillipines War and get back to me). I don't know how many times you want me to repeat myself. I won't again. Why on earth am I ONLY allowed to condemn American actions? And I have no idea what you are even trying to say wrt me confusing the Chinese Gov't with their people in a way I don't with Americans. Yet again you force me to repeat myself. For Christ's sake pay attention. America and China are not as far apart as people think. There are people in China today that condemn their government's treatment of Tibet -- I support them.
Actually on rereading the thread the only times I even referred to the Chinese people were when I said the concept of personal liberty is predominantly a Western one and that Asiatic cultures are much more likely to prefer sacrificing liberty for harmonious brotherhood. To this your only response was "Japan is worse." I also pointed out that human rights are more than solely food and water. There may be someone conflating posts about the Chinese government with attacks against the Chinese people. It ain't me though.
I'm not sure how you'd infer that. Tibet could benefit from Chinese occupation by (1) subsidy -- more tax money invested in the region than extracted, just like we see happen with some states in the US, (2) better technology/business, (3) network effects of being in a large economy without barriers. If the PRC were to be the leading economic and military power, it will likely be due to size, not efficiency. They'd be unlikely to subsidize the US territory, would not bring technology or business practices that could create a substantial benefit over what we produce ourselves, and could not produce much network benefit because the US is already well-integrated in the world economy and a large physical barrier could not be erased. That'd be like saying Germany would be better off if it was subsumed by America. They have a very efficient economy and government. We could not bring any great benefit there. Maybe I'm showing my ignorance of Tibet, but I don't think they run an efficient economy, have any engines of innovation, or are well-connected in the world economy. Those things aren't easy to achieve if you don't have them.
I for one am a little sick of the condescending attitude of some nations that they have to modernize their neighbor's economy and what not. I'm pretty sure the US could institute better economic and technological policies in Mexico than what they currently have, removing trade barriers and spurring innovation. But I wouldn't advocate invading them.
I am all for pulling all Han Chinese out of Tibet and stop doing business with that area totally, let them enjoy their lovely live in that area.
I think it would be the socially responsible and self-interested thing for the US to do what it can to improve policies and technology in Mexico, invest in their economy, break down trade barriers (Amero), and spur innovation. We don't need to invade them to do that. We can use trade agreements, partnerships, treaties, etc to get that done. China might be able to do the same with Tibet.
The views of some people with more liberal ideologies about Tibet is quite naive. China (no matter whether it is run by the CCP or another political force) would not allow Tibetian independence unless it no longer possessed the ability to control the land. This is the same reason why the UK to this day still controls colonies thousands of miles from its native islands and American troops are still stationed all over the world. Tibet is an important buffer region between China and India and is the place of origin for all the major rivers in China and India. It's important to China's national interests to control this territory. And more importantly, since they already control the territority, they will not willingly give it up. This is why China is not talking to the Dalai Lama but is trying very hard to talk to Taiwan's leaders. China would need to make concessions about Tibet under any circumstances (from their current position) if they negotiated with the Dalai Lama. Tibet is a colony of China's and its status will not change anytime soon unless China itself falls apart. The colonization is slowly destroying the Tibetian culture and identity. It is however not very different than what happened to many indigenous peoples throughout the world history. South America is speaking Spanish and most of Africa English and French, aren't they?
