China; Should We Be Bullied By Them?

[Khandro]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/10040319/David-Camerons-rift-with-China-could-cost-UK-billions.html
Should we allow China to dictate to whom our Prime Minister may or may not meet?

[jim360]

Egads, I hate it when that happens... Jake*!

[jake-the-peg]

Particularly anoying in a post correcting someone's grammar eh?

;c)

[jim360]

Yes. Sigh...

[emmie]

we do business with just about anyone, whether we let China bully us is debatable, but surely it's in our interest to do business with them, whether they can call in debts remain to be seen. They also need the outside world to sell goods to, so everyone gets some benefits.

[society]

China is dangerous and caution needs to be taken with them. The USA has caught them using technology to cyber spy. They do it on one, they will do it to all or any country they choose to.

http://tinyurl.com/cv5hr3w

http://preview.tinyurl.com/d2cwpay

[emmie]

don't you think the US or UK have similar technology, of course they do, i am more concerned about the constant barrage of cctv cameras, and knowing my every word on line can be monitored, as can my phone calls, this is UK remember?

[Kromovaracun]

Khandro:

I'm sorry, but the fact is that the Tibetan population under the Dalai Lama was subject to brutality and penal mutilation, including eyes being gouged out, amputations, etc. Here is one list of accounts of such barbarism dating from the time of the 13th Dalai Lama:

http://www.westernshugdensociety.org/dalai-lama/13th-dalailama/

Skeptoid has also produced a fairly even-handed analysis of the myths surrounding pre-1950 Tibet:

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4111

Michael Parenti also offers an overview of pre-1950 Tibet:

http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html

The system presided over by the Dalai Lama was a theocracy - an impoverished, brutal, wildly unequal and neglectful theocracy. There's some debate about whether the term 'serf' is really applicable to East Asian societies - but the vast, vast majority of the Tibetan population under the DL were subjugated. They could be bought and sold, had no access to healthcare, had pitifully low standards of living, and were left to rot. They could be (and were) mutilated and tortured on the whim of the class of monks ruling them.

Does this mean that Tibet's Chinese rulers are not brutal, or murderous? No, of course it doesn't. Does it mean that Tibetans now enjoy a plethora of human rights? No, they don't. The lesser of two evils, let's not forget, is still evil.

But more of them can read than ever before. And they've experienced something the Dalai Lama never gave them - growth. More Tibetans have access to healthcare, electricity and education that they wouldn't have under the Dalai Lama. They're less impoverished: Tibet's GDP is more than 20 times what it was when the Dalai Lama was expelled.

As to what the Tibetan people actually think - I don't know. And neither, frankly, do you.

[mikey4444]

China is notorious for being very sensitive when it comes to Tibet and the Dalia Lama, so Cameron could have had more sense. China is just too big and important a world player, to muck around with unless you know what you are doing.

I am certainly not saying that we shouldn't face up to playground bullies. But am I the only one that is becoming a little wearied by the Dalai Lama's continual World Tour ? Tibet may not be free today under China but under the succession of non-elected Lama's, they suffered just as Kromovaracun has pointed out above. Cameron has been used I'm afraid.

[Old_Geezer]

If this proves a loss for us then an appropriate response is in the public's hands. Buy products from other countries.

[237SJ]

I was in India a while ago and the Chinese were threatening to boycott a big state meeting unless the Indians cancelled a visit by the Dalai Lama. The Indians told them to bog off (or words to that effect) and the Dalai`s visit went ahead. I thought that was great.

[jim360]

I don't know nearly enough about Tibet, clearly -- on the other hand even by that analysis, the 14th Dalai Lama is hardly to blame for the sins of his predecessor who died before he was even born.

That link you provided by sceptoid suggests that the current Lama is hoping not for independence but merely for greater autonomy, in the style of Hong Kong, and has spent most of the last 50 years seeming like a reasonable, balanced fellow. Is it really such a bad idea to meet him?

[Khandro]

Kromovaracun; //As to what the Tibetan people actually think - I don't know. And neither, frankly, do you.// Such arrogance! How many Tibetans do you know or have even met. I know many, and not one would wish to be ruled by China. All your quotes give simply the Chinese view which you appear to support. Heaven help you if your country is ever overrun with such maliciousness. Do you actually believe that the Chinese are in Tibet to benefit the Tibetan people? if so, you are not only arrogant but also extremely naive.

[Kromovaracun]

"Such arrogance!"

It's not arrogant to suggest that I don't know something (and neither is it necessarily arrogant to suggest that you don't).

"I know many, and not one would wish to be ruled by China. "

If you're referring to Tibetans that have come abroad (or, rather, been exiled), then that's hardly surprising.

All of my links provide evidence, Khandro. They provide evidence that pre-1950 Tibet was a barbarous and deeply stagnant, impoverished place. Neither is it a Chinese invention that Tibet has experienced considerable economic growth and raises in standards of living under the PRC's dominance. I can see why that might be inconvenient for your ideas, but unfortunately it's not as simple as you're making it out to be.

Jim 360

"on the other hand even by that analysis, the 14th Dalai Lama is hardly to blame for the sins of his predecessor who died before he was even born."

Oh, I wasn't trying to claim he was. Sorry if I gave that impression. The reason I referenced it was to make a broader point about pre-1950 Tibet.

"Is it really such a bad idea to meet him?"

Frankly, I think it's a fairly shallow thing to do, yes. The Dalai Lama has enjoyed a certain kitsch popularity among celebrities since at least the 1990s. He's even, incidentally, offered up positions in his religion for sizable enough donations: Stephen Seagal, for example, has been named as a reincarnated Lama.

He also popped up for a photo shoot in exchange for a sizable donation next to Shoko Asahara, the man who carried out the nerve gas attacks on the Tokyo subway, here:

http://www.inplainsite.org/assets/images/Dalai-Lama-Shoko-Asahara.jpg

He also took it upon himself to exercise a ban on a sizable section of the Tibetan Buddhist community. See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorje_Shugden_controversy

So yes, I think jeopardizing our relations with China to get a photo shoot with the Dalai Lama is an ill-advised and self-aggrandizing thing to do.

[Kromovaracun]

And no, I don't think the Chinese invasion was carried out with the intent of benefiting Tibetans. But I do think, regardless of the intent, Tibet is better under Chinese leadership than it ever was or even ever would be under the Dalai Lama's theocracy.

[jno]

Steven Seagal is a lama? I hadn't heard that one. I suppose, in fairness, he is a dedicated supporter of Tibetan nationalism and a defender of animal rights (not necessarily those of human females, though), so it's not entirely outlandish that he should be seen as a prominent Buddhist.

But I bet the Dalai Lama still wears Chuck Norris pajamas.

[Khandro]

Kromovaracun; //But I do think, regardless of the intent, Tibet is better under Chinese leadership than it ever was or even ever would be under the Dalai Lama's theocracy.//
Better for whom? - What a clown you are!

[Kromovaracun]

Well, that sure showed me. What an excellent rebuttal.

[Khandro]

birdie; I didn't realise you were such a supporter of the actions of the Politburo of the Communist Party of China, Beijing will be delighted. You obviously know less about the situation in Tibet than you know about Tao. Allow me; for centuries Tibet, a high altitude plateau between China and India, remained remote from the rest of the world with a widely dispersed population of nomads, farmers, monks and traders. Tibet had its own national flag, its own currency, a distinct culture and religion, and controlled its own affairs. In 1949, following the foundation of the Chinese Communist state, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) invaded Tibet and soon overpowered its poorly equipped army and guerrilla resistance.
International legal scholars agree that from 1911 until the Chinese invasion in 1949, Tibet was a fully independent state by modern standards. Since then, Tibetans have struggled to regain their freedom and keep their culture intact. China’s actions in Tibet over the past 50 years have created a climate of fear that still continues today—torture and imprisonment for peaceful protest, and economic plans that discriminate against Tibetans, threatening their unique identity. The PLA maintains a strong presence in Tibet and China’s military control increased with the 2006 opening of the Qinghai-Tibet Railway. Human rights conditions in Tibet remain dismal. Under the Chinese occupation, the Tibetan people are denied most rights guaranteed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights including the rights to self-determination, freedom of speech (even speaking their own language), assembly, movement, expression and travel. The natural resources of the country are being systematically exploited, huge deforestation has taken place with the timber removed to China as well as it's minerals. Any signs of support for His Holiness the Dalai Lama are banned by the Chinese government.
Perhaps you would care to visit?

[Kromovaracun]

Khandro

You could at least supply your source. You copy-pasted all of the above from this website:

http://www.savetibet.org/resource-center/all-about-tibet/china-tibet-a-brutal-occupation