How a German view Tibet ?

From: Yxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 8:58 PM
To: '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

Area of expertise

What happens when an administration is totally controlled by political operatives?

When it fights internally, against the press, the congress, the opposing party, the majority of people, it fights like a tiger, always victorious; while when it fights external enemies, be it al-Qaida, the Iraqi insurgency, the Iran government, the North Korean nuke black-mailing, the global climate change, the world opinion ... it fights like a chicken, rarely wins anything.

The reason? Because to win outside the border requires compotency outside of the areas of expertise currently available.

Go to your room, George!

George's mission in life: to prove to his Dad that he can actually beat him in something after years of living in the senior's shadow and enduring constant unfavorable comparison.

For a while, it seemed everything went his way: He became a two termer, but to achieve that "victory", he has led the country into a terrible war, and now has no clue how to get us out of it.

Dad's been watching the Junior's coming of age with pride and joy. But when everything is broken and especially when the family legacy is on the brink of ending forever, he has to intervene. He knows how big and fragile young George's ego is and how a thin facade of "resolve" is the only thing to keep the young George to face a world increasingly turning away from him. He dares not to advise his son directly, thus the village elders' "report".

Will the Junior finally listen to his Dad and admit his latest attempt to top the old guy had created a crisis of a colossal scale for his family, his party, our country and our world?

For now, he seems to believe that as long as he doesn't withdraw the troops, he's not "lost". "Stay the course" as long as possible is the "time table" he's chosen, in case anyone hasn't figured it out.

In the meanwhile, every single day, dozens of people die, millions of tax dollars spent, for one and one purpose only: to keep up the ego and vanity of a long spoiled rich boy.

"Holy Alliance"

At a time when rich is a synonym for powerful, when the rich and powerful has successfully controlled almost every aspects of the political process, many people have been shocked to see hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals, illegally entered and stayed in this country, holding rallies on the streets of all major US cities. How could this happen in a country supposedly "ruled by law"?!

Actually, nothing is unusual here. Once again, the super rich, the most powerful have established a holy alliance with the poorest, lest powerful. Of course, the two groups have entirely different even conflicting long term interests, but at this moment, they share some common goals: keep the low wage labors stay, keep the high corporation profit margin coming.

Their common enemies? Who else is left?

Money can not buy everything...

lucrative business contracts for own company secured by starting a wrong war... $11.4 Billion

People killed in an unnecessary war started by self...100,000+

To shoot somebody in the face at close range... priceless

"Fun with Dick and Jane" is a great movie!

While the couple on screen is beautifully funny, this movie is dealing with a very real and serious fact of our time: the breakage of American dream for more and more middle class Americans.

For the first time, as a great actor, Jim Carry showed us his strong humanitarian concern, his strong sense of social fairness. He reminds us of another great artist from not that long ago: Charlie Chaplin, they both shared their teary eyed smile with us.

This movie makes one ponder: Is making money the sole purpose of our journey of life? Once the greedy bunch grabbed all the resources from the society and written and re-written all the rules of the game, what can we ordinary people do to survive?

On purpose or by accident, this movie has pointed to us the elephant in the room, and that's partially why, I think, most of the movie critics in an almost united voice to down-grade this movie -- they are either incapable or unwilling to praise a brave movie which brings us the bad news or a load wake up call.

Why Michael Brown got a time out?

He had padded his resume. As a result, he got the important appointment as the head of FEMA which he is not qualified for at all.

His massive mis-handling has made the terrible natural disaster even worse for tens of thousands of people. As a result, he got a pat on the back with a heartfelt thank-you from the president: "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job" and a round of applause.

But as soon as he started handing out free, cold US currency ($2,000 per head) to those "underprivileged" people, "Now you've crossed the line, young man, and you are grounded!"