Chinese occupation of Tibet

Almost sounds like the Eddie Murphy movie. Sad commentary on China.

Tuesday, 30 October, 2001, 08:05 GMT (BBC)

China says arrested Panchen lama well

Chinese officials say a boy arrested six years ago after Tibet's exiled spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, chose him to succeed a senior Buddhist monk, is safe and well.

The boy, Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, is now 12-years old.

He was taken into custody by the Chinese authorities after the Dalai Lama confirmed him as the next reincarnation of the Panchen Lama, Tibet's second highest ranking religious official.

Chinese officials said that Nyima was leading "a normal life" and that his parents

info on Tibet: http://www.tibetinfo.net/

I think you should come to China and visit Tibet ,so let me know your commet.

hzyanbo - welcome to a2k! Do you live in China? Or Tibet?

Why the world's going to hell in a handbasket... point 41a:
From Committee of 100 for Tibet:


You'd think with China being such a big country and full of natural resources, they wouldn't have to steal a small country.

It is a disgrace that the people of the world have decided to accept the reality of China destroying Tibet, for that is surely what they have tried to do... killing some Tibetans outright, jailing others, plundering the ancient monasteries, making the Tibetan religion illegal. Tibet's only actions have been to protest peacefully and lobby the "civilized nations" (with little success) hoping for allies to stop their cultural genocide.

China's action seem based on two unreasonable points: Tibet, despite being independent for over a thousand years, was theirs for the taking and Tibetan Buddhism is bad and should be repressed.

It does seem to be a totally helpless cause -- Tibet was a recognized free and independent country prior to the Chinese invasion in 1951 which resulted finally in their occupation in 1959. Certainly the status quo has gone on for so long now that China can, with the tacit approval and complicity from the United States, Europe, and other countries, keep Tibet from participating in UN-related affairs.

BTW: His Holiness the Dalai Lama will be visiting Harvard for the first time since 1995. He is currently scheduled to address the Harvard community on Monday, Sept. 15, most likely at The Memorial Church. During his stay in the Boston area, the Dalai Lama will attend a two-day conference at MIT and will bless a temple in Medford. On Sunday, Sept. 14, the Dalai Lama will deliver a speech entitled "A Public Talk for New England" at the FleetCenter, in which he is to discuss ways to live positively during troubled times.

The pro-Tibertian position is sufficiently presented here, for not to say overrepresented. I would like to hear arguments of Chinese or pro-Chinese participants. Every truth has two sides. Maybe, Hzyanbo (if he or she is Chinese) may present another viewpoint for balance needs. I do not have any position of the conflict mentioned, since I have never had any access to the Chinese reasons for holding this area.

Good Idea, Steissd! Here's a very recent discussion of that topic:

Harvard Asia Quaterly -- China in Tibet



U.S. State Department Country Report -- China (includes Tibet, Hong Kong, and Macau)

Here's a description of the beginnings of the conflict:

Sino-Indian War 1962 -- Historical Perspective

Thanks piffka.

Piffka, with all my respect to the U.S. governmental sources (and I really respect the U.S. administration, you might have concluded this from my other postings), I must admit that they do not represent the Chinese point of view. I would like to know how does China (the modern one, and not this pertaining to period of friendship of Mao and Stalin) justify its possession of Tibet. On example of my own country I know how the biased public opinion may be formed, and I do not know whether accusations against China are justified or not, whether Tibetians are really peaceful freedom fighters or terrorists resembling these of Hamas, and the public opinion was shaped with help of influential friends of Dalai Lama (I would not call him His Holiness, by the way, since this title belongs to another person, namely the Pope). I do not take side in this conflict: I really do not know

steissd

The official address to the Dalai Lama undoubtedly is "His Holyness (the 14th dalai Lama of Tibet)".

steissd

The official address to the Dalai Lama undoubtedly is "His Holyness (the 14th dalai Lama of Tibet)".
(The Coptic Pope, the Patriarch of Moscow, a couple of patriarchs from uniated catholic churches and surely some others, are called 'His Holiness' as well.)

Well, we have a new member from China on the boards. Maybe hzyanbo will drop back in and tell us what s/he thinks.

Steissd, I am trying to find something to offer that would be a justification by the Chinese for their actions. It is true (much to my dismay) that the U.S. State Department recognizes China's claim to Tibet, and it was for that reason I thought you might be interested in seeing what that official body had to say.

Since you may not want to take the time to read all those links... in a nutshell, China claims that because they forced the Dalai Lama to sign a paper in 1951, they had his agreement to take over Tibet.

They also believe that they are better at exploiting the economic development of the area and providing centralized infrastructure. And since China has a well-known abhorence for religion of any kind, the Tibetan version of Buddhism, which underlaid its government and administration prior to the occupation, was considered oppressive to the people.

I think you will find that the Chinese government does not feel they need any other justification, either in the Chinese language or in English, for what they have done and what they continue to do.

In many ways it is similar to the United States' justification for taking over the lands of the native Americans. They, the natives, were not properly exploiting the natural resources, they followed "incorrect" beliefs, they didn't speak a civilized language and... probably the biggest reason of all... because they were stronger militarily and could do so. The reparations that have been made (and still promised in 100 year old treaties, but not yet made) can scarcely repair the wholesale damage to the Indian nations.

Economic and political realities being what they are, I have little hope that China will ever back off from Tibet. And of course, the hundreds of ancient monasteries that have been destroyed over the course of this conflict, the hundreds of thousands who have been killed or uprooted from their homes... these are by the wayside.

Meanwhile, mining companies from Australia, Europe and America cut deals with China to further exploit the natural resources that should have been the property of the people of Tibet.

Very well said, Piffka! Thanks.

Perhaps I may add that the talking of land from the native Americans took place in "another time", not in the 20th century.

It really is a little bit (?) horrifying that we are obviously doing the same now again.

Thanks, Walter. I really appreciate your praise since I think you have a wonderful grasp of history.

Native Americans may not agree that their exploitation ended in the twentieth century. There are still horrible prejudices in some spheres and they are still expected and/or forced to give in whenever their water rights or fishing rights go against the needs of their white neighbors. Every bit of autonomy they have has been fought for, and there are still jailed dissidents whose crime was trying to recover stolen lands and rights. There is currently a settlement which the U.S. government is trying to avoid paying, or paying in full. It was from a nineteenth c. agreement to pay for additional lands that had been "given back" as reservations but were later re-claimed by whites. The money was never paid. With interest, it has become a huge amount, billions of dollars.

I'd like to hear what Satt has to say about the occupation of Tibet. I think he is of Chinese descent since he reads Chinese.

It is not necessary to be of some particular descent in order to know a language (if the opposite thing was true, I would not know English). But is Satt a loyal citizen of PRC? I am sure that Chinese dissidents and professors of this language in the American universities know the language, but their opinion may not coincide with this of the current President of the PRC.