5
   

FREE TIBET!!!!...and then what?

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2008 10:13 am
Thomas wrote:
I'd like to second what Dasha just said by asking: How many supporters of a free Tibet have read the constitution the Dalai Lama wishes to enact when he takes power? (Here's a link.)


Why are you quoting the 1963 - and not e.g. the one from 1991 (the Charter of the Tibetans In-Exile) - as the one which the Dalai Lama wishes to enact?

On the other hand, comparing this 1963 constitution was some others from that period ....
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  0  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2008 10:39 am
I'm interested in a free Tibet.... but I wouldn't have anywhere to keep it...
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2008 10:41 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Why are you quoting the 1963 - and not e.g. the one from 1991 (the Charter of the Tibetans In-Exile) - as the one which the Dalai Lama wishes to enact?

Because "my" document was intended to govern the actual country Tibet, whereas "your" document, in spite of its colloquial name, applies only to Tibetians in exile -- it's official title is "The Charter of the Tibetians in exile". If the new document supersedes the old, I don't see it saying so.

That said, I admit that the new document is more democratic and less theocratic. And I wonder if this change reflects a change of mind by the Dalai Lama, or a pushback by his constituents.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2008 11:01 am
Well, "yours" was created four years after the Dalai Lama had left Tibet and in exile (India) as well ... :wink:
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2008 03:02 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Well, "yours" was created four years after the Dalai Lama had left Tibet and in exile (India) as well ... :wink:

Nevertheless, it was a constitution for Tibet, not for the exile Tibetians. But I won't belabor the matter. Even under the new charter, the (unelected) Dalai Lama wields all executive power, can veto all legislation with no way for the legislature to override him, appoints the chief justice directly, and the other justices of the supreme court indirectly through the chief justice.

Reason enough to assess the Dalai Lama and his political system with at least some skepticism.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2008 08:23 am
So the Chinese mad a U-turn and are now the Chinese will begin talks with representatives of the Dalai Lama within days.


We'll have to wait, I think ...
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2008 08:28 am
So I've heard. this morning on the public radio. What astounds me is that even the commentators on the radio operate on some general popular misconceptions. One was talking on and on about how China is not mentioning independence and very much sees Tibet as part of China. I think he had no clue what the Dalai Lama's position and demands are.
Silly.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2008 09:56 am
Quote:
China's central government department will meet with Dalai's private representative in the coming days, Xinhua learned from official sources on Friday.

"In view of the requests repeatedly made by the Dalai side for resuming talks, the relevant department of the central government will have contact and consultation with Dalai's private representative in the coming days," an official said.

"The policy of the central government towards Dalai has been consistent and the door of dialogue has remained open," he said.

"It is hoped that through contact and consultation, the Dalai side will take credible moves to stop activities aimed at splitting China, stop plotting and inciting violence and stop disrupting and sabotaging the Beijing Olympic Games so as to create conditions for talks."

(Xinhua News Agency April 25, 2008)
via China.org


Spiegel-online reports: China Offers to Meet with Dalai Lama Aide:
Quote:

Many observers feel that China used the talks simply to give the impression of being willing to engage in dialogue, in order to pacify critics and buy time. Observers are also skeptical about how serious the new offer is. They point out that the Xinhua news agency spoke only of "contact and consultations," rather than talks or negotiations, and suggest the offer is just another attempt to limit the damage to China's reputation on the international stage.



The Chinese view is a bit different: China's decision to meet Dalai's representative receives positive responses:
Quote:
China received positive responses Friday after announcing that the central government will meet with the Dalai Lama's private representative in the coming days.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2008 12:32 pm
I want to know what the Chinese govt is afraid of, since they are now trying to make rules governing death...

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23096265-23109,00.html

Quote:
A SENIOR Tibetan lama and Chinese government advisers have defended contentious rules banning reincarnations of "living Buddhas" without approval.

The rules are apparently aimed at empowering China to name the next Dalai Lama when the 14th and current Dalai Lama dies.


(snip)

Quote:
The rules, which came into force on September 1, bar any Buddhist monk living outside China from seeking reincarnation for himself or recognising a "living Buddha".

Reincarnations of about 1000 living Buddhas have been approved in Tibet and Tibetan populated areas of Sichuan, Qinghai, Gansu and Yunnan since 1991, according to a government website.

In 1995, the Dalai Lama and China's Communist authorities chose rival reincarnations of the 10th Panchen Lama, who died in 1989. The Panchen Lama is the second-highest figure in Tibet's spiritual hierarchy.

The boy anointed by the Dalai Lama, then aged six, swiftly disappeared from public view, prompting international rights groups to call him the "world's youngest political prisoner".



So now the Chinese govt is going to tell Buddhist living in America or any other country how to believe?
It seems to me that this is going to far, even for the Chinese.
0 Replies
 
tuppence
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 May, 2008 10:38 am
free yourself
0 Replies
 
pragmatic
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2008 02:02 am
Can I say that this is one of the bests threads I have seen on this topic. I've been on Facebook alot and there were hippies all advocating Free Tibet and how China is a monster invading into a peaceful and beautiful territory. Unlike the posters here, they do not consider the consequnces of a free Tibet, the governance of the territory and what claims the Chinese government may have over this territory.

In this thread, there is some healthy debate and Thomas has raised some very practical points about some possibilities against HH the DL. I hope this thread continues - I will endeavour to contribute some historical facts.

Here's one to keep you thinking - would you believe me if I said that back in the 60s, Tibetans willingly burnt their own temples and places of worship for Mao Zedong - and NO COERCION, FORCE OR BLACKMAIL or other unconconable means were used?
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2008 10:01 am
@pragmatic,
Thank you, pragmatic. This is just a 'bump' in case somebody wants to chime in. I know Dalai Lama was in the news recently, but it was overshadowed by the Mumbai and Thailand news... I will come back here when I have more free time on my hands.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2008 11:24 am
Quote:
Population transfer is defined as the movement of people as a consequence of political and/or economic processes in which the State government or State authorized agencies participate.79 In Tibet today there are over 7.5 million non-Tibetan settlers including Chinese and Hui Muslims while Tibetans inside Tibet comprise only six million. The increasing Chinese population transfer into Tibet has reduced the Tibetan people to a minority group in their own land. The marginalisation of the Tibetan people has resulted in exertion of Chinese control in all spheres of economic, social and political life.

http://www.tibet.com/Humanrights/HumanRights96/hr96_10.html

The question is Mute, the Han's possess Tibet, and Tibetan culture is being systematically killed off. The Chinese have already finished eating Tibet, there is no possibility of regenerating the country or the culture.
pragmatic
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Dec, 2008 09:27 pm
@hawkeye10,
Hawkeye - that's abit pessimistic firstly and secondly I wouldn't trust websites which focus on human rights - true they don't gain any benefit out of supporting one side or another, but their sources may not be entirely correct and also suffer possibility of bias. Tibet currently enjoys modernisation and a social order that it could never have had under fedual rule of the monks. The Dalai Lama has admitted the benefits Chinese rule has offered to Tibet and also expressly said - he does not want independence, only religious autonomy. China is continually criticised for not participating or cooperating with the Dalai Lama - yet if I were to ask you or anyone - WHAT EXACTLY IS THIS MIDDLE WAY THE DALAI LAMA IS PROPOSING which will apparently solve everything - why is China not supporting it? And if it is faulty, why does it have so much support from the west. This so called "Middle Way" is one of the greatest mysteries of the west because DL supporters have never clarified it.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Dec, 2008 11:38 pm
@pragmatic,
The Dalai Lama wants to preserve a little bit of Tibetan Buddhism, a little bit of old Tibet, in a church that stays out of governmental affairs. However, he knows that the Han's have never been seriously willing to consider this, and after the spectacle in Burma this year there is no way in hell the current government will agree to this. The Buddhists have two choices, agree to be under the iron hand of the Han's who will over time rub them out, or resist and be eliminated on the quick.
pragmatic
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 01:18 am
@hawkeye10,
By "a church that stays out of governmental affairs" I'm taking it that you mean the DL is seperating religion from politics. If so, I remind you that the DL may be a spiritual leader but he is seen in the eyes of Tibetans and some western leaders as the Tibetan political leader - anything regarding the international or political affairs of Tibet will have him tied in whether he likes it or not. In this case, there is not only NO seperation of government of politics, there is in fact quite the extreme opposite - religion and politics are the one and same thing. Even Tsreng Shakya, the author of "Song of the Snow Lion" says that the whole movement arose because Tibetans got a taste of religion, something they were denied during Mao's rule until the 80s.

As for Han's not willing to consider this - how about the various agreements between the Tibetan government and the Chinese government throughout the years from the 50s onwards? The 17 point agreement provided that where Tibet acknowledged it was part of China, China would in turn leave its social and religious system unchanged as well as the status of the DL and Panchan Lama. In 1980s Hu yao bang provided the 6 major proposals to Tibet including the "Strengthening of Tibetan culture" and Buddhism is at the core of such culture.

I would suggest you are generalising too much with false analogies. When you say Burma I think you mean the democracy protests occurring in February - that isn't even a valid or applicable to what is going on between Tibet and China.

Edit - what exactly do you mean by "old Tibet?" Do you mean old Tibet as in the feudal rule and social hierachy where monks were at the top of the food chain and kept slaves and servants? Tibetan history is not as rosy as many westerners would like to think it was.
pragmatic
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 01:33 am
@pragmatic,
Damn it I should clarify. Tibetans were denied a taste of religion because Mao offered commercial and financial incentives which were more attracted to Tibetans than religion - thuse rose the 1951 17 point agreement. However, in 1987 when the DL appeared before the US congress, there were calls for independence - which resulted in Tibetans, through almost the blackmail of religion - that by turning their back on Buddhism and accepting capitalist means, they were doomed to go to the equivalent of Buddhism hell. I know this is a very crude way of putting it - but they were brainwashed. Ever since then, because of this taste of religion, the riots have occurred with Tibetans denying any allegiance to Mao despite evidence that they did in fact smash their own temples and places of worship - as I said without blackmail, coercion or threat of force.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 05:49 pm
@pragmatic,
Quote:
When you say Burma I think you mean the democracy protests occurring in February - that isn't even a valid or applicable to what is going on between Tibet and China.



The monks drove the protests, it was only the monks that the government could not control with fear. When one feels that they are in line with God or the cosmos they are very difficult to control. The hans will not let the Tibetan Buddhists be in a position to emulate the Burmese monks.

re the agreements, it seems to me that with each new agreement the Hans have gotten more of what they wanted, and that at some point in the last twenty years the Han's decided that they no longer have a need to negotiate, that they can take what they want and the Tibetans can no longer do anything about it other than squawk....am I wrong? Why?

Old Tibet, the ancient society separate from the Han's, with their own religion. New Tibet is a Provence of China, with some unusual ancient architecture and customs

I think that the role of government in exile dies with the DL, and he is getting old. That some around the world look to the DL as a political figure is a self correcting problem.
pragmatic
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 09:19 pm
@hawkeye10,
I quote you: "The monks drove the protests, it was only the monks that the government could not control with fear. When one feels that they are in line with God or the cosmos they are very difficult to control. The hans will not let the Tibetan Buddhists be in a position to emulate the Burmese monks."

And I have TOLD you that what is going on in Burma as opposed to Tibet are two different things! The only similiarity is they have monks driving protests but behind those protests are two totally different political questions! One wants democracy from a government while the other wants to break up a whole country when their leader has said - No Independence! It surprises me that many who claim to be the Dalai Lama's supporters have no idea what the DL's policies are!

I quote you: "re the agreements, it seems to me that with each new agreement the Hans have gotten more of what they wanted, and that at some point in the last twenty years the Han's decided that they no longer have a need to negotiate, that they can take what they want and the Tibetans can no longer do anything about it other than squawk....am I wrong? Why?"

Oh really? I just GAVE you the explaination and the policies behind the agreements. Since "it seems to you that the Hans have gotten more of what they wanted" - clarify and I want good factual evidence. Do not tell me about the protests, and the dying of a culture - I've heard that too many times and I suspect your arguments will only be derived from those whom only repeat what they hear from others and see from western media (who you cannot entirely believe) as opposed to finding out the facts for themselves.

As for no need to negotiate - the DL has asked that negotiations occurr on the basis of HIS terms - this so called Middle Way which the Chinese government has refused to accept. And since you are so supportive of this Middle Way - what is it exactly?

I quote you: "Old Tibet, the ancient society separate from the Han's, with their own religion. New Tibet is a Provence of China, with some unusual ancient architecture and customs"

Get your facts right. Tibet has its own religion but that itself doesn't distinguish it as a seperate society. If anything the leading religion in China is Buddhism. The New Tibet (if there is such a thing) is not a province of China - it is an autonomous region of China, previously called a dependency. It is the equivalent of Hong Kong. The irony is when you say that Tibet is a "Provence" (wrong spelling) you actually mean Tibet is a part of China - that is what those who understand China's geography would take you to mean.

"I think that the role of government in exile dies with the DL, and he is getting old. That some around the world look to the DL as a political figure is a self correcting problem. "

So what?

Edit - by the way, when you say "Old Tibet" "New Tibet" "a little bit of Tibetan culture" "a little bit of religion" - you make Tibet sound like a recipe. I find that quite insulting as well as entirely unhelpful. How much is "a little bit?"
pragmatic
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 09:26 pm
@hawkeye10,
By the way - you're post seems to have a bit of religious tone to it - when you say:

"When one feels that they are in line with God or the cosmos they are very difficult to control."

Let me tell you now, for all the monks that may protest with their so called spiritual leader, the question of Tibet is more political than it is to do with religion. DL is a political leader first and a spiritual leader second.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

6.9 Quake near Tibet - Discussion by Butrflynet
This time to China and Tibet for 22-days - Discussion by cicerone imposter
How about take a train to Tibet? - Question by Liffity
Ani Choying - Question by littlek
Protestors in London - You make me SICK. - Discussion by pragmatic
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/28/2022 at 09:14:14