Translate

Thursday 10 April 2008

Fantasy Statement by Chinese Government on Tibet

"While the Chinese government is aware that Western nations are concerned about their ability to maintain their economic dominance of the world and feel threatened and resentful of China's economic success, it is nevertheless taken aback by the hypocrisy, hostility and malice that has emanated from the forces of disorder in their societies, and their opportunistic denunciations of the Chinese government by their political leaders.

The Chinese government will continue to receive critical comments from certain Western nations about its human rights record with forbearance, while remaining silent about the human rights of those in Iraq, to go about their day-to-day affairs without fear of death, which have been virtually extinguished through a regrettable and now generally regretted invasion. China, despite its so-called "humans rights abuses", has invaded no foreign country and imposed no "regime change" on the leaders of sovereign nations it disapproves of.

It seems that many of those who are violently demonstrating are not Tibetans but troublemakers not in paid employment relying on state benefits to fund their attendance at weekday demonstrations against the progress of the Olympic torch.

Many are in complete ignorance of the issues involved and see it as an opportunity to disrupt a soft target for their own amusement, with little likelihood of condign punishment by the police, who will only detain them briefly before sending them on their way.

The Chinese government concedes that how other nations wish to govern their increasingly disorderly populace is a matter for them, and only wishes others would allow China the same right to run its own affairs, particularly when it does not affect them and when they do not understand and cannot be bothered to digest the details of a long and complicated history of Chinese-Tibetan relations.

Perhaps if doing so were a condition of participation in these disruptive acts, these anti-China demonstrations would just melt away like snow in summer?

That the Dalai Lama is not in Tibet to represent the Tibetans is the greatest part of the problem. The Chinese government unequivocably declares its intention to guarantee the Dalai Lama's safety in Tibet and his right to select his successor in accordance with both the best interests of -

(1) the Tibetans whom he represents; and
(2) the Chinese people on whose behalf he would be guiding Tibet,

to be given equal consideration.

The Buddhist equivalent of the Vatican City is being considered to accommodate him on his return. It is envisaged that the Dalai Lama will have spiritual authority while allowing the Chinese government to deal with the day-to-day administration of Tibet.

It seems that such an accommodation would be the fairest and most workable solution.

Perhaps the reason he will not return is simply this: he will be expected to deal with resident Tibetans and their grievances on his return. Remaining in exile undoubtedly lends him the distance with which to appear wise, moderate and glamorous to his supporters while discharging him of the responsibility of dealing with the real problems of governing a mutinous people who are having difficulties coming to terms with the modern world, because of their less advanced cultural traditions and their primitive superstitions.

It is the stated intention of the Chinese government to deal honourably and more effectively with the grievances of the Tibetans, with the co-operation and assistance of the Dalai Lama, and for this reason he is asked to now return to his people and be accountable both to them and the government of China.

If anything good should come out of these disruptions, let the return of the Dalai Lama to his homeland be the surprising and glad outcome.

Let it not be said and seen that the government of a progressive and modern China cannot be constructive and conciliatory!

The world now awaits the response of the Dalai Lama."

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

TIBET HAS ALWAYS BEEN A CHINESE TERRITORY, TIBET IS NOBODY'S BUSINESS BUT CHINESE' INTERNAL AFFAIR. PEOPLE LIKE FRENCH PRESIDENT, NICOLAS WHOEVER, ACTOR RICHARD GERE, BOTH HAD COMMITTED INFILITY, ADULTERY, WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE PASSING MORAL JUDGEMENTS TO OTHERS.

Claire Khaw said...

I thank "Anonymous" who must be a Chinese national for his or her contribution.

I do not agree that people who are divorced or adulterous cannot make moral judgments of others, but feel that the issue of "human rights" is a nonsense anyway.

Conquered peoples as the Tibetans undoubtedly are must come to the best accommodation they can with their colonial masters.

These Tibetans are clearly too primitive to run such a region by themselves.

They practice polyandry, which is an unusual, primitive and a rather demeaning custom.

In A YEAR IN TIBET on BBC4 a novice monk of 16 is shown returning to his mother, who has 3 husbands. He is not sure which of them is his father and so calls all of them "uncle".

No doubt this state of affairs has come about as a result of the widespread practice of female infanticide in Tibet where you are nothing if you are not a monk and only men are allowed to become monks.

If the Chinese government were not in charge of Tibet, their previous form of government would be a theocracy - the kind of theocracy which has disguised monks knocking on your door, ready to take your toddler son away from you if he shows any signs of promise. (The current Dalai Lama was removed from his family at the age of 2.)

Is a theocracy and state appropriation of citizens' sons the sort of thing the West wants to support?

Is it in keeping with the spirit of the Olympics?

I rather think not!

Anonymous said...

Not all people who think another theocracy is bad for world are Chinese nationals.

http://teribidwell.blogspot.com

That said, I don't believe tibetans are incapable of governing themselves, (that is a racist statement). However, it's inevitable that they must find a way to integrate with Chinese government and the rest of the world, and that they must give up a feudalistic approach to governing and social order.

Violence is NEVER the right approach to solving a problem. (If that's a good enough statement to teach children, it's good enough to teach adults too.)

Anonymous said...

Not all people who think another theocracy is bad for the world are Chinese nationals.

http://teribidwell.blogspot.com

That said, I think it's racist to claim "Tibetans are too primitive" to do anything. All aboriginal societies must integrate into the modern world, and the Tibetans are no different.

The west should let China figure out how to make that happen on their own.

Anonymous said...

Its a nice idea and I am not dismissing it out of hand. But it does rather smack of giving way to the Chinese when they are the ones at fault. Tibet is not like the papal lands. It is an independent contiguous country with far more distinguishing it from the chinese than just religion. The papal lands were scattered holdings which had long been exchanged back and forth between different rulers.

A simpler answer would be for the chinese simply to withdraw. As I have said earlier, no Empire can maintain its existence for any great length of time against both internal and external pressure and if China wishes to survive and thrive then it should get rid of the old fashioned, outmoded ideas that equate territory seized by force with power.

The main reason that Britain was able to maintian an Empire for so long and surrender it in relative peace was that she recognised from an early stage that the important factor was trade not military power. The conversion of Empire to Commonwealth was a reflection of the reality of this. It would have served us even better had we not then surrendered most of the advantages we had gained from this sensible policy when we decided we wanted to play in Europe.

I have long been of the opinion that the reason the Foreign office and Conservative party are so pro EU is that they never got over 'losing' the Empire and thought that instead of running the Anglo Saxon world (which in fact they never really did anyway) they could run Europe. It showed a profound misunderstanding of both the nature of the British Empire/commonwealth and of Europe and the EU.

My basic point is that this is not simply about the Dalai Lama. It is about the right to self determination on the part of the Tibetans. The Chinese will of course grasp at any straws that might blow their way but in the end they will lose and it is entirely in their hands how much they suffer as a result.

If they persist in their pointless attempts to remain in control of Tibet then the inevitable loss of the territory will be far more traumatic than had they surrendered their control willingly.

Vincent Bruno is dismayed to be told that theocracy is necessary to make white people marry again

https://t.co/k5DOSS5dv4 — Real Vincent Bruno (@RealVinBruno) March 27, 2024 10:00  Gender relations 12:00  Anthony Trollope 14:00  Being bot...