I've been saying for years that the #1 thing we can do to fix immigration is to help Mexico establish it's own vibrant middle class. There's a reson we don't have as many people flooding the northern border -- their standard of living is just as high, if not higher. My only point was that the desire to remove economic restrictions and improve the stanbdard of living does not justify foreign invasion. If China had formed a Free Trade Zone with Tibet that would be one thing. They didn't. They went in guns blazing.
I'm not asking a practical question but a question in theory that if you would be willing to surrender your own country's soveriegnity for greater economic benefit?
Dan B. This topic has been beaten to death 20 times here, but it will still pop up every month or two. I don't think anyone is even bothering any more to "convince" anyone. Most people are just arguing for the sake of argument. You can have your opinion regarding China or Tibet, and you have all the right to exercise your outrage over China. But I do have a suggestion for you, google the population of Tibetan Chinese then and now, and then google the population of Native Americans then and now. If you are still outraged, I will assume your position would be, that Chinese should eliminate the whole Tibetan Chinese as a race or reduce them to a showroom status, and then "grant" them rights to open casinos, so that Chinese can sit back and post on a BBS - what we did was wrong, but what happened happened, let's move forward. I am pretty sure those serves whose skin were used to make drummers and bones were used to make horns by those peace-loving monks, would still roll over in graves remorsefully, that such prestigious slave lives were no longer possible in Tibet for their grandchildren.
So the PRC feels betrayed by that an adult Dalai Lama doesn't feel the same way as a teenage Dalia Lama? That sounds rather petty of the PRC leadership.
The UK has given up almost all of its colonies and the few it has left, like the Falklands, in most cases the residents have voted in favor of the remaining British. The US maintains bases around the World but almost all of those bases are there by treaty and as was shown in the example of Subic Bay and the US military presence in Saudi Arabia the US will leave if the host government ask them to. That said I agree not every case is like that but as I've said before just because the US and European countries have done awful things shouldn't excuse the PRC. The Dalai Lama has agreed already to the main concern of the PRC to have Tibet remain part of the PRC with control over borders, military and foreign policy. What he has asked for is autonomy regarding culture and religion along with some greater economic control. Essentially he has asking for something similar to the situation with Hong Kong or US States in relation to the US Federal government. Possibly not but that doesn't excuse what is going on and for that matter the PRC rather than aping the worst of colonialism could learn to do it better. Consider that China itself once suffered under the yoke of colonialism.
Not just PRC leadership, Chinese leadership as a whole throughout the whole history, has never taken foreign policy seriously, and they were all very naive in a sense. They didn't understand other culture and they never bothered to. Once the door was kicked open 200 years ago, they were surprised that they were so left behind. Brits can point the gun at them to force them to buy opiums. Russians and Germans can fight over their rights in China. Chinese believed that other 7 "civilized" countries would convince Japan not to invade them. The list goes on and on, foreign policy was never a bright spot in Chinese history, communists or nationalists or emperors. Unlike US, Democrats or Republicans, foreign policy is always consistent, to bring most benefit to US, by using any means possible including wars. The treaty was signed by teenager Dalai and elder Banchan, as symbolic, which was supported by the ruling class of then Tibet - those peace-loving monks and slave owners. Yes, Chinese were betrayed, not for the first time, and it won't be the last time. Chinese leadership throughout the history were always iron-fisted against Han Chinese, but they were always too soft in front of foreigners and other Chinese. I do agree with you, it does sound petty of PRC leadership.
That was the MBA getting the better of me. Speaking more abstractly, would I be okay with surrendering American soveriegnty if I saw a real and lasting benefit for me and my fellow citizens? Yes.
it's not simple like that. he was at one hand pleasing PRC and on the other hand working deals with CIA. PRC does not view him as a religious figure, but rather a political figure. i don't think anyone should trust politicians on what they say. so yeah, that's why they don't want to talk with him and felt betrayed. also, why would the PRC negotiate with another political entity regarding issues within china? when no one else was allowed too. it's going to create more problems if everyone within wants to negotiate with PRC. that threatens their power.
I know. I forgot that there are many posters here that would react to someone saying mean things about China the way a redneck does when you say that we weren't nice to black people 200 years ago, solely because they live there. Would they give it the thumbs up if India had invaded to modernize Tibet? . Sadly many people blindly defend their country no matter how obviously wrong, with the defense of "others did it too!"
i would like to see india do that. first of all, they have to catch up first to claim modernization. 2ndly, there is a huge rock blocking the way. anyways, i don't agree that it's obviously wrong. that's your opinion. a lot posters are not blindly defending the wrong, they just look at things from their prospective. US will always look after its own interest, just as PRC will do the same.
Of course you don't agree. You are looking at it from your perspective. You cannot fathom why these Tibetans don't want to be Chinese. But whether you can grasp it or not, the reality remains that they don't.
i don't care if they think they are chinese or not. they are tibetan, not chinese. why would i care if they consider they are chinese or not? and also, i am myself, not %100 chinese han ethnicity. so i completely know where tibetans are coming from.
What I am saying is they are part of China due to invasion. If you and China do not care whether they are Chinese or not, then why not support an independent state similar to Native American reservations? Not that they are a perfect solution but at least they could maintain their independence while living under a protectorate.
there are a lot of reasons why not, nature resource, economic, military... you think about that. how big is all of the native american reservation combined? you think PRC is going to allow that big chunk of land become a reservation?
Expound What economic benefit does Tibet provide? Are they a net boost or drain to the PRC's budget? Economically it might make more sense to cut them loose. Nature resource: I don't know specifically what you mean by this. Are you saying that China needs to protect Tibet's natural resources? I find that laughable coming from China. If you are saying that China needs Tibet's natural mineral benefits, then you may be able to get that without a military invasion. America is able to take full advantage of their neighbor's resources after all. Besides, China would be defining the boundaries of any reservation they set up. They could easily grant Tibet religious and limited diplomatic independence on the condition that China can utilize Tibet's natural resources.
natural resource and economy are tied together. not to protect, but to extract and use to keep the economy going. it's much cheaper when everything already belongs to you rather than buying from outside. and you don't have to go through all the regulations and rules from other country. there are already enough crap against PRC in every western country. why would they trade independce to utilize natural resources? i mean, come on, they are not stupid. there is no threat from outside world that can take away tibet from PRC. why would they give up their absolute control? besides, if they do, other parts will demand the same. and PRC will just crumble. let me say this, if PRC allow any part break away, it will be their down fall from within china. just to be clear. i am posting just for the sake of posting. i honestly don't care too much about these stuff that i have no control over. if you get worked up about every injustice in this world, you would go insane. i don't see any injustice against my minorities relatives under PRC. i see that they get some extra benefit. i don't know what's happening exactly in tibet, all i hear is from US news. but i can't imagine it's much different from other ethnic groups. that's all.
I'm not justifying China for doing what it does. I'm just saying that's the way it is with international politics and colonization. Again, you are viewing this issue from a liberal point of view in terms or "morally correct" vs. "morally corrupt". Those are terms not appliable to international politics.
I don't have a bone to pick in this fight. I don't much care about this. But I chuckle at the irony. The great national hero, the great helmsman, the beloved Chairman Mao ZeDong was the first one who start an independence movement in recent China. He tried to create an independent state from the central government governed by KMT. This state is a semi-satellite of Soviet Union. For most other semi-satellite of foreign countries, they would at least try to hide it. But Mao got balls, he is not hiding nothing. He called this state the "Chinese Soviet Republic" and he put Vladimir Lenin on the face of the 1 dollar bill of this new "Chinese" state. This is actually pretty interesting read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Soviet_Republic But how is related to the discussion in hand, well let me finish. Well, if you read the constitution of this new "Chinese" republic, on article 14, it states the right for every Chinese minority for total and complete secession and the formation of independent state for each one. See page 208 of the following article: http://books.google.com/books?id=WV...=chinese soviet republic constitution&f=false Actually, if you go to the Chinese source, it clear states (in Chinese) that the Chinese Soviet Republic is actively encouraging the national minorities (Mongolian, Tibetan, Islam, etc.) for total secession and formation of new countries from the corrupt Imperialist China under KMT. See the following (go to article 14): http://baike.baidu.com/view/94413.htm So the irony is when Mao was head of Chinese Soviet Republic, he actively pursued independence for Tibet. But when he became the head of People Republic of China, he changed his mind. Ironic, is it!
Then what can justify foreign invasion??? I'd like to know if american indians regard european immigrants as invaders in 17th century or earlier? Foreign conquest is so common in the history. Roman conquered England, French once conquered England too, and Great Britain conquered India and so many othe conlonies around the world. Do you think all of them are unjust?
