Support China

Post Reply New Topic

This is very interesting. I already had the impression that what we hear in the west about China might be biased/distorted:

China is one of the very few serious "threats" to the USA.

A very intelligent friend, whose opinion i highly respected, and had not only learned one of the chinese languages, and studied their politics and economics, but lived there for over a year, said that there were many great things about China, and that my ideas about it ( at the time) were prejudiced.

I had also read that the Tibetan regime pre-Chinese recovering/developing of the territory was astonishingly feudal/repressive, and the parallels you draw with other situations like South Africa etc, are very thought provoking.

Certainly , since Israel turned out to be oppressors rather than permanent victims, I think it's important not to forget how the West's view can be massively astigmatic.

Interesting thread.

Last edited by ouinon on 23 Mar 2008, 10:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

I think we all need to be aware of the media prejudices on both sides of this debate. I also think its very easy to oversimplify the debate and cast people as either 'good guys' or 'baddies'; the picture is usually far more complicated than that. In terms of the legal status of Tibet pre-1949 this has been a matter of serious debate. Originally considered part of China with strong historic, economic and religious links, the country declared its independence when the last dynasty to rule the Chinese empire was in decline and they could no longer maintain effective control over the region. However, for political reasons to do with the 'Great Game' between the British and Russian empires, Tibet was never recognised as a sovereign state, and this ambiguity was carried forward by the Americans as they became a dominant political power.

The cultural situation in Tibet pre-1949 has also been misrepresented. The image portrayed by the popular media is one of an idyllic kingdom of religious harmony completely isolated from the outside world. Again the situation is more complicated. There were of course severe problems at many levels of what was a feudal theocracy with a sclerotic ruling elite. There were also many different factions within this ruling elite, including a sizeable minority in favour of modernisation and increased contact with the outside world. The thirteenth Dalai Lama was amongst these but unfortunately died before many of his ideas could be implemented, leaving decisions again in the hands of his regents who were not in favour of these developments. The Panchen Lama was also considered by many an alternative ruler and nearly engaged the support of the Chinese army for acoup against the Dalai Lama. There was also already considerable political contact between the Tibetan government and the Chinese, British and Russian representatives because of its strategic signifigance as a buffer between the three competing empires.

With the decline of the British Raj, the deposing of the ruling Chinese dynasty and the reduced Russian interest in central Asian expansion, this strategic importance declined as did the interest of the major powers in what was economically a stagnant backwater. This was the situation when the PLA invaded. Much of what has happened since then has been shrouded in mystery due to the control of media and foreign media access within China, so it has been a matter of trying to deduce the situation from accounts given by those who have escaped. If even a tenth of these accounts are accurate, it is clear that massive violations of human rights have occurred from the cultural revolution and continue today. This is however not just a Tibetan issue. Events such as the Tianneman square massacre illustrate that a disregard for human rights is endemic throughout China.

I personally believe that modernisation has brought benefits to Tibet in terms of healthcare, infrastructure and the economy. However I would question whether the famines caused by the enforced changing of farming practice during the cultural revolution, the systematic destruction of monasteries and religious institutions, the use of forced labour, the environmental damage to an already delicate ecosystem, and creating an ethnic imbalance by incentivising ethnic Chinese to relocate to Tibet (to name but a few problems) were/are a price worth paying for this. I would also question whether the 'benefits' of Chinese rule are as far reaching as the Chinese government would like to portray. One must also try and understand the perspective of a people who, however dissatisfied they may have been under the previous regime, are now being forced to live under a regime imposed from outside, by people perceived as 'foreigners'. There may be parallels here with the Indians under British ule. Infrastructure was improved, religious practices such as thagee and sutte were abolished, and the various warring factions of the country pacified. All these are recognised of being of great benefit to India, but ultimately India could not tolerate the ssubject status imposed on them by a foreign nation and the methods used to impose this, hence the successful independence movement.

Finally, to those who believe the Chinese are acting responsiby and calmly in the face of current problems, I would like to ask why they have felt the need to impose a complete media blanket over the area? Also, if it is just a minority Tibetan malcontents, why has the rioting now spread to other non-Tibetan minority areas? If China is such an idyll, surely these people would all be grateful to live there and happy to support the Communist Party in democratic elections observed by a free press?

Contrary to what some may think I am not actually inclined to even like the Chinese all that much. Or let me put it this way: I like the Chinese as much as I like the 220 lb American who thinks that a gaudy Hawaiian shirt is what he ought to be wearing just because Singapore has a tropical climate. I have had my share of problems in China, enough at least to say unequivocally that there are many things about China that I will not even consider putting up with. The loud, pushy, rudeness of its people are among the things that really get on my nerves.

But the question of Tibet is separate from the issue of Chinese likability. In the recent altercations, it is now emerging in the Western press that it was the Tibetan troublemakers who started looting and killing. The Chinese security forces were initially overwhelmed and reinforcements had to be called in before law and order could be restored. If you think that the WTO riots in Seattle were wrong, then the violence we have seen Tibetans thugs display in China is even more unforgivable. No one was bludgeoned to death in Seattle. In Lhasa, people were pulled off motorcycles and then clubbed to death with sticks and pipes. How can you support such vicious cruelty?

Their first industrialization period did not go very well... I should have been clearer. I was referring to the post-WWII era when they had to rebuild after we demolished most of their country.

Tibet should be set up as a democracy and be free to decide for themselves whether or not they want the Llama to lead them. China is forcing communism down their throats and not letting them have self-determination which is a fundamental human right.

Why is China censoring everything? Freedom of speech and of information is a human right that is enjoyed in every democratic nation, but not in China. What are they trying to hide by not letting journalists speak with Tibetans? All you know is the official Chinese government version of events as put out by their propaganda agencies.

And you didn't answer my question of why people are rioting if the Chinese occupation is so great. And what I also would like to know is how you feel about the Communist government's atrocities against the Han Chinese as well. Remember the Tiannanmen Square massacre when Chinese protestors were killed with tanks? What about the communist crackdown on religious groups like the Falun Gong?

So it is not just Tibetans who are suffering from the Chinese government but also Han Chinese as well. And I think the fact all information is censored and restricted by the state means that we know of only the tip of the iceberg of what is going on there.

That is called a mob mentality. When people riot they get carried away and do things they would not do as individuals. But the question is, what was it that led them to riot in the first place? They are obviously unhappy about something going on. Also, another question I would like to know the answer to is why China doesn't allow 3rd parties in to assess the situation? Why is there such censorship and government restrictions on Tibet? What are they trying to hide?

That's funny you call the Dalai Lama a dictator. How many people has he killed? None. He is an advocate of non-violence and peace and has won a Nobel peace prize for his message.

Now how many peace prizes has Chairman Mao won? That's right, none. Chairman Mao killed over 70 million people which makes him the greatest mass murderer in human history, and yet you kiss his ass and make him seem like a great liberator and champion of democracy. But the truth is he killed more people than both Hitler and Stalin combined. So why would you defend that?

That's a bit strong.

What would be the attitude of the Western press if some secular power annexed Iran and the ayatollahs fled and set up a theocracy-in-exile? I suspect that their attitude would not be 'free Iran,' despite the demonstrable popular support with which the theocracy was originally set up. Just look at Western support for Saddam against Iran.
Everything in the Western attitude towards China is just grandstanding and self-interest dressed up as high principle (the Chinese at least are less hypocritical) - see for example the fantasy that trade with the West will democratise the place (just like Russian oil and gas exports have done for Russia?)
I have little love for either the dictatorship in Beijing or for theocracies. What seems to me to be a fact is that the Dalai Lama (and for that matter Taiwan) is on the wrong side of history - support from the Westering chattering classes is of little use in the face of a rising superower's soldiers.

Don't you think it was a bit strong for him to have called the Dalai Lama a dictator and laugh about it and say he doesn't care about Tibet and that he supports the Chinese occupation?

The same was also said about the USSR and it was ultimately defeated. The greatest threat to China (or any powerful dictatorship for that matter) comes from within from its own citizens. These riots are a warning sign that things are seriously wrong in China, and a revolution can't be far off. China has experienced countless civil wars and revolutions in its long history, and another is inevitable.

Someday somehow there will be a day of reckoning for the Communist elite who run China with an Iron Fist. They'll get what is coming to them one day. Or if nothing else, they'll burn in hell for their wickedness.

China is an imperialist power that has absolutely no respect for the concept of national self-determination. Most of the arguments of the Chinese government on Tibet and Taiwan are based on old territorial claims as those areas being "historical parts of China," as if that was enough to legitimize their rule. Rule is only legitimate if it is by the consent of the governed. As far as I'm concerned assertions of historical claims mean nothing, NOTHING; only the opinion of the people living in the area matters. This is why I don't care when Serbs bring up historical arguments why Kosovo should stay part of Serbia, I don't care about historical territorial claims.

Do you think that the American SW should be ceded to Mexico? The US is an imperialist power that likewise only respects self-determination if it is in the interests of the US goverment. No-I am NOT trying to vilify the United States but I do believe in rule of law and the Tibetans have shown the world through their vicious rioting in Lhasa that they are medieval barbarians and their country would be a piss poor feudal dictatorship if they were granted "independence".Also, bear in mind that ethnic Albanians are the MAJORITY in Kossovo and that is NOT the case with Tibetans in their homeland-at least NOT For Long!

I have a sneaky suspcion that China's revolution will be a quiet one. China in reality is NO LONGER a communist country and as they continue to push towards a free market economy the ruling elite will most certainly Lose their grip and be Replaced by a New, Entrepreneurial elite. That is what has happend in the US. Bear in mind that Every society on Earth has a ruling elite, NO MATTER HOW democratic and liberal they may appear to be.

The Soviet Union was never nearly as economically successful as China is - the Shanghai Corridor has the same GDP per capita as Britain, the total GDP is growing faster than that of any democracy anywhere, the GDP per capita is also soaring, etc. People care more about wealth than about political freedoms. The view that history is an inevitable march towards democracy has little basis in historical facts. That Western trade and investment will democratise China is just propaganda from Western businesses, which again has little basis in historical facts.

You're a medieval barbarian for rejoicing in the destruction of a people. You and the communist government of China are both just like Adolf Hitler.