Obama blows off the Dalai Lama

Only, not quite.

Of course, if you were listening to Fox News and the assorted voices of Greater Wingnuttopia today, you’d think Obama had just handed Czechoslovakia over to Hitler.

______________

Richard Burger is the author of Behind the Red Door: Sex in China, an exploration of China's sexual revolution and its clash with traditional Chinese values.

The Discussion: 127 Comments

The Dalai has the habit of showing up at the White House uninvited. Finally one US president has the guts to tell the jerk to get lost.

October 7, 2009 @ 1:31 pm | Comment

Obama having delayed the meeting until after he meets with China is a signal that China’s opinions are now much more important than before, to the extent that they influence US policy in the Chinese sphere of influence (perhaps “control” is too strong a word for now). If China objects during that meeting, the Dalai Lama meeting will be “delayed” permanently.
I bet Taiwan is watching this development carefully.

October 7, 2009 @ 1:44 pm | Comment

“If China objects during that meeting, the Dalai Lama meeting will be “delayed” permanently.”

They WILL object (‘resolutely oppose’, to be precise), but your notion of a ‘permanent’ delay is a non-starter. Not one chance in a million.

Of course Obama will meet the Dalai Lama and China will produce the same tired, childish rant that it always does.

October 7, 2009 @ 6:34 pm | Comment

why does the Dalai Lama want to meet Obama? And why would Obama want to meet the Dalai Lama? For the Dalai Lama it is simple: it gives him power and influence. For Obama the Dalai Lama is a useful tool as a bargaining chip with China. It is a win-win situation for both sides. The only way China can break this cycle is to stop making the Dalai Lama more important than he is. Just ignore him. Then the Dalai Lama becomes useless, and hence he will lose power and influence.

October 8, 2009 @ 12:48 am | Comment

Of course Obama will meet the Dalai Lama and China will produce the same tired, childish rant that it always does.

and Tibet will still be 0% closer to your dream of independence.

October 8, 2009 @ 4:32 am | Comment

@ helan “Then the Dalai Lama becomes useless, and hence he will lose power and influence.”

Not quite. He’s a deserving winner of the Nobel Peace Prize who has the universal (with one petulant exception) respect of world leaders.

You need to remove your CCP blinders and begin to see the bigger picture. I guarantee you won’t regret it. Enlightenment awaits.

@ merp “…and Tibet will still be 0% closer to your dream of independence.”

The dream of some, perhaps.

Is your dream the Han colonisation of Tibet to the exclusion of all indigenous peoples? I suspect you’re of the opinion that, at the very least, they deserve a little punishment (a common sentiment in China). Well, rest easy merp – the CCP are doing you proud.

October 8, 2009 @ 9:00 am | Comment

Is your dream the Han colonisation of Tibet to the exclusion of all indigenous peoples? I suspect you’re of the opinion that, at the very least, they deserve a little punishment (a common sentiment in China). Well, rest easy merp – the CCP are doing you proud.

The CCP can “punish” me with billions in subsidies, huge cultural grants, preferences in everything from housing to taxation to enrollment, etc any day.

Clearly with a rapidly collapsing population the “Han” aren’t going to be doing any colonization any time soon, and no, we’re not going to kill 33% of their population like the British Raj did in Northeast India.

October 8, 2009 @ 10:05 am | Comment

“The CCP can “punish” me with billions in subsidies, huge cultural grants, preferences in everything from housing to taxation to enrollment, etc any day.”

Selective lists that go out of their way to hold the party line get filed under “not nuanced enough for human consumption” and are easily recognised as such by those that have seen for themselves. In other words, merp, old chap, I know better. And so do the people of Tibet.

Obama will meet the Dalai Lama because he deserves an audience as a highly respected humanitarian. It’s really none of China’s business anyway, so why don’t they keep their noses out of the affairs of other countries? Riddle me that little conundrum, Batmerp.

October 8, 2009 @ 1:20 pm | Comment

The reason why the Dalai Lama got that prize only until 1989 was his strong links with the CIA. The Tiananmen 1989 incident finally convinced the committee members to bypass his strong CIA links. I do not think the Dalai Lama is respected world wide. More and more people are seeing his true nature. He was like the Buddhist Ayatollah, like the Pope in the Middle Ages. I do not have any connection with the CCP whatsoever, but I just don’t like theocratic figures. I also don’t like the Pope and the Ayatollahs for that matter. I do not like people who use religion or spirituality to get political power and abuse it.

October 8, 2009 @ 2:28 pm | Comment

Jon Stewart got it right.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-7-2009/hell-no–dalai

October 8, 2009 @ 9:06 pm | Comment

“The reason why the Dalai Lama got that prize only until 1989 was his strong links with the CIA.”

Too many spy novels are bad for the brain. Fact.

“I do not think the Dalai Lama is respected world wide.”

You’re clearly wrong.

“I do not have any connection with the CCP whatsoever”

Of course you don’t. You just believe everything they tell you.

October 9, 2009 @ 6:08 am | Comment

Stuart,

DL’s connection with CIA is well documented. He was on their payroll at least until early 70s.

October 9, 2009 @ 4:52 pm | Comment

CIA or not, I personally think Dalai Lama is a good man and the CCP should properly welcome him back to China.

OK. That’s the end of story.

Now Obama won the Nobel peace award – this is serious arse kissing that I still can’t believe it is true.

Below, let the fun begin…

October 9, 2009 @ 6:10 pm | Comment

Not as bad as giving the Nobel to the Dalai.

October 9, 2009 @ 9:30 pm | Comment

“DL’s connection with CIA is well documented”

And he’s a renowned terrorist leader who orchestrates murderous riots under the codename ‘uncle’.

October 9, 2009 @ 9:39 pm | Comment

not “Uncle”, but “Grandpa Gucci Handbag”

October 9, 2009 @ 9:56 pm | Comment

@Chi,

First, he does not use Gucci HANDBAG – he is not a pussy (unlike some others here). He does wear Gucci shoes though, but I don’t see anything wrong with that.

Second, he is not a terrorist leader (unlike that b1tch Rebiya), even the CCP knows that.

Third, there is a good chance that the CCP eventually will welcome him (without his Hollywood liberals entourage that screwed his cause though) back to China. So I suggest refraining from personal attack of him.

October 9, 2009 @ 10:09 pm | Comment

Now can we get back to the Obama story?

Or will Richard be kind enough churning out a touching story justifying the bizarre award?

October 9, 2009 @ 10:12 pm | Comment

oia, you’re an ass. Not that that needed to be said.

I don’t think Obama did anything to merit him winning the NPP. But i understand why they did it, to send the message that the US is now on the right course after 8 years of the Bush disaster, when the US was seen as a cowboy going wherever it wanted and creating havoc without accountability or controls. As i said, i don’t think Obama deserves it (yet).

October 9, 2009 @ 10:22 pm | Comment

Stuart,

It’s hard to hear politically incorrect comment about the holy man, isn’t it? “Passion”, as the holy slave master always teaches his admirers. Who could disagree?

October 10, 2009 @ 2:48 am | Comment

The NPP is just a joke. Just check a few past winners and have a look at their “achievement”, the “holy man” included. Obama assumed his office in late Jan. He was nominated in early Feb., a couple of weeks later at most, by the so-called NPP committee. I wonder who are this bunch of committee members? Anyway, these people surely know a lot about the future.

October 10, 2009 @ 2:53 am | Comment

It’s not a joke, although sometimes the choice is quite odd. I understand why they chose Obama, even if I don’t feel he’s the most worthy candidate. They were making a statement, that the world’s strongest country was getting back on the right (left) path and again joining the international community. In some ways it was very shrewd.

October 10, 2009 @ 7:42 am | Comment

“The NPP is just a joke. Just check a few past winners and have a look at their “achievement”, the “holy man” included.”

And yet the Chinese are so desperate to join the club that they invited a delegation to Beijing (all expenses paid plus ‘extras’, no doubt) in order to learn more about the process involved in selecting Nobel winners.

The difference with Obama is that he was certainly not actively pursuing the NPP, and it came as a great surprise (and a touch of embarrassment I suspect) that he was awarded the prize. That said, there are good reasons why Obama was shortlisted. They are the same reasons why Hu Jintao and company – despite their best efforts to buy their way in – are a long way from receiving the same honour.

The Dalai Lama was a worthy recipient because he’s only ever advocated peaceful resolutions to the issues he cares about. He’s a genuinely decent human being, which is more than can be said for those that demonise him for political purposes.

Henry kissinger? Well, there are some mistakes…

October 10, 2009 @ 8:20 am | Comment

I agree on the Dalai Lama being a genuinely decent person. However, his CIA ties are undeniable and the CIA itself admits to this in declassified papers that apparently no one wants to read.

October 10, 2009 @ 9:45 am | Comment

those that have seen for themselves.

Oh yeah? So you’ve been to Tibet. Well, I’ve been to Mars.

October 10, 2009 @ 10:03 am | Comment

“I agree on the Dalai Lama being a genuinely decent person.”

It’s a good sign when you start to get the no-brainers right.

“his CIA ties are undeniable”

I have a friend who’s met the Dalai Lama. Does that mean I have CIA ties?

Btw, anyone who has any quibbles with the awarding of the NPP to Obama should go and read James Fallows’ take on Obama’s acceptance remarks. JF on the ball, as usual.

October 10, 2009 @ 11:45 am | Comment

The Chinese attitude towards the Nobel Prize depends on the subject. The one that the Chinese admire the most is the Physics Prize. One of the Chinese American winners, C.N. Yang, was so popular in China that a 28 year old woman proposed to 82 year old Yang after his first wife died. A few years ago I saw the couple at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, where he holds a visiting position. I have to say that he is very lucky dude.

The Peace Prize (and to a lesser extend the Literature Prize) is a different matter. I am sorry Richard, it is considered a joke. I know you hate the nutty right, but let me tell you the nutty left can do far more damage to the world than the nutty right can.

Why? Because the nutty right is a unique American phenomenon. They have no influence outside the US. Sarah Palin is a laughing stock. Once an financial company in Hong Kong invited Palin to give a keynote speech. The joke was that the company wanted to suck up to the Chinese government. They figured that the best way to do this is to have Palin to come and say something stupid to make America look bad.

But the nutty left is a different case. Every Western country has its share of this crowd. They have influence in institutions like the Nobel Peace Prize. Westerners in general do not ridicule Richard Gere the same way they do Palin. But in reality Gere is far more intellectually dishonest than Palin is.

October 10, 2009 @ 12:20 pm | Comment

@stuart,

You are really a die-hard liberal apologist, aren’t you? At least Richard admitted that O is not a good choice (next time save the usual “but” would you?).

After reading your comment (and the James Fallow piece that you recommended), I have to upgrade liberal “arse kissing” to “arse licking”.

Breathtakingly non-principled you are!

October 10, 2009 @ 1:36 pm | Comment

I have a friend who’s met the Dalai Lama. Does that mean I have CIA ties?

The CIA isn’t paying your friend, troll.

October 10, 2009 @ 1:43 pm | Comment

Now that Obama has the Nobel Peace Prize, he can’t simply blow off the Dalai Lama, the other prize winner.

Will he live up to the award?
Like pulling out of the Middle East, getting China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, and others to agree to nuclear disarmament.

Good luck to him.

October 10, 2009 @ 2:25 pm | Comment

“The Chinese attitude towards the Nobel Prize depends on the subject.”

Correction; the Chinese attitude towards the Nobel Prize depends on whether they can claim ownership of the winner.

“The CIA isn’t paying your friend”

What difference merpington, old chap? The Dalai Lama’s friends have more credibility than his enemies, who eminate from a single, lonely source.

October 10, 2009 @ 3:12 pm | Comment

China should start hosting all sorts of US malcontents like the Brotherhood of Islam, Black anti-establishment groups etc to spike the US back. I hate this scenario where China only knows how to protest but does nothing concrete to hurt the US. Seeing how that old cunt Pelosi & the other gay bastard R Gere putting up a ‘show’ with this old Gucci monk really pisses me off to the extent like I grow more hateful of the West. West & Chinese can be friends? Some individual basis may be, nation to nation not a thousand year!

October 10, 2009 @ 4:03 pm | Comment

Stuart,

“I have a friend who’s met the Dalai Lama. Does that mean I have CIA ties?”

Don’t you think this type of argumentative argument is a bit childish?

October 10, 2009 @ 5:14 pm | Comment

“Don’t you think this type of argumentative argument is a bit childish?”

I assume it was your inexperience that caused you to miss the point.

October 10, 2009 @ 5:31 pm | Comment

the Dalai Lama is not decent nor honest. He is good in pretending to be that. The more I read stuart’s trolling rants, the more I start to dislike the Dalai Lama and his group. It’s like a cult. They think the are right, that the Dalai Lama is holy indeed, and everyone else is wrong. It’s this kind of arrogance that is bad karma, and that’s why this will never win.

October 10, 2009 @ 7:41 pm | Comment

helan, merp, and hah

You’re a very cuddly fenqing tag team. Nothing more. But by all means, give it your best shot.

In fact I’ll give you all a chance to redeem yourselves by telling us (in a serious, measured way) what it is you would say to the Dalai Lama if he was to grace you with his presence.

And by the way; I never rant.

October 10, 2009 @ 8:23 pm | Comment

The more I read stuart’s trolling rants, the more I start to dislike the Dalai Lama and his group.

So if one reads fenqing rants about how China and the CCP is great you’d think it’s ok to dislike China and the CCP?

October 10, 2009 @ 8:46 pm | Comment

if you dislike Dalai Lama, you will still dislike him, doesn’t matter if Sharon Stone or stuart said it, same apply to CCP and China

October 10, 2009 @ 9:45 pm | Comment

Can we get back to Obama and his TNT peace price please?

Boring…

October 10, 2009 @ 11:11 pm | Comment

Serve: he Peace Prize (and to a lesser extend the Literature Prize) is a different matter. I am sorry Richard, it is considered a joke.

Love the passive voice, Serve. Considered by whom? If this were universal, there would be no controversy, no one would pay any attention. And for the record, I hate the far looney left nearly as much as the right – they are incredibly annoying. I don’t put Gere in that category; I have never seen evidence of him embracing their nutty, air-headed ideas. I think he is ignorant, like the majority of people, of the full story of Tibet, but that is a cause taken up as hysterically by the right as the left. No one is more idiotic about Tibet as the Republicans who rant about the China Threat.

SE Asian, you’re new here and off to a really bad start. I’ve been busy the past few days and just saw your offensive comment (“Seeing how that old cunt Pelosi & the other gay bastard R Gere putting up a ’show’ with this old Gucci monk”). One more, and you are definitely out.

Another day when I happily think about closing the blog.

October 11, 2009 @ 12:45 am | Comment

Considered by Chinese people, Richard. I was talking about the Chinese attitude toward Nobel Prizes. Take the Literature Prize for example. Lu Xun, Ba Jin, Mao Dun did not get the prize, but they gave it to someone called Gao Xingjian. You cannot find five people in Beijing who know who this man is.

On the other hand the Peace Prize has a chance to redeem itself next year. Speculations are rife in Taiwan that after Mainland and Taiwan sign Cross-strait Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement, Hu Jintao and Ma Ying-jeou may share the Nobel Peace Prize for bringing peace to Taiwan straight.

Back to the nutty left and Richard Gere. He has been working on his cause for decades. Surely he can find time to read Melvyn Goldstein’s books on Tibet. The guy is definitely nutty. Shortly after 911, he asked people to learn from the Dalai to develop compassion for the hijackers. The audience booed him off the stage.

So is the Tibetan cause a left cause or a right cause? Yes a few right-wingers, like Jesse Helms, criticize China’s Tibet policy. They do so from their anti-communist ideology. They are not infatuated by the New Age re-creation of the Tibetan Buddhism. Did they disrupt the Olympic torch relay? Climb a pole at the Beijing Olympic village? Hang a Free Tibet sign on the Golden Gate bridge?

October 11, 2009 @ 1:35 am | Comment

Agree about the bizarre choice of Gao. I don’t deny the nutty left’s infatuation with Tibet, but you’ll hear the same stuff on Fox News as an argument against China, though that has a tinge of cynicism to it, since they also profited from and supported Bush’s (and Clinton’s) lax policies toward China. No matter who unfurled the banners, there’s no denying tat both camps use Tibet as a rallying cry against China. It’s a matter of degree, and I’ll agree the looney left is more proactive about it.

October 11, 2009 @ 1:58 am | Comment

Stuart,

Name calling and labelling don’t make your point a bit stronger.

As for your holy man, I don’t think he is interested in meeting me. He is too busy at travelling around the world, meeting politicians and discussing “non-political” issues. These issues usually include “peace”, “passion” and “love”, etc.. As I said, would could disagree with his advice? After all, he is holy. We don’t have too many holy souls left in this world after a couple of millenniums of teaching by a number of holy people across the planet. He is more precious in the sense that he can reincarnate, even reincarnate into any form he/she wishes. You might see a blonde DL lama some time in the future. Check with your holy man about this.

October 11, 2009 @ 3:52 am | Comment

Sometimes I wonder, if the CCP cannot make peace with the DL with whom can it make peace after all.

Better make peace with a reasonable person, than with an unreasonable one down the road.

Is a matter of efficiency, but that does not seem to be the forte of the CCP.

October 11, 2009 @ 4:02 am | Comment

oiasunset,

Obama did nothing wrong. In fact, he is being put in an odd position.

NPP is a joke, not the first time, won’t the last time either. I suppose those people who suffered and/or are still suffering in wars/hunger perhaps know better about what “peace” means than a bunch of self-righteous committee goers.

October 11, 2009 @ 4:11 am | Comment

This is all normal, nothing is going and this is not orchestrated. You are a bunch of paranoid freaks, all of you. Right wing nutter freaks. I freaking hate right wing nutters freaks.

http://pennyforyourthoughts2.blogspot.com/2009/10/obama-qualifies-for-nobel-peace-prize.html

“Yes, less then two weeks after he became President, he was nominated for this esteemed prize!
Wow, he really must be an over achiever, a mover and a shaker, or something like that?

How is it possible that Obama is nominated and wins a Nobel Peace Prize, when he only became President, just two weeks before the nomination deadline. Yes, you read that right!

Just shy of TWO weeks (12 days to be exact) before the nominations deadline, Obama becomes President.”

http://5.media.tumblr.com/pU8eF70gsqutxyqtnq53c2eBo1_400.jpg

October 11, 2009 @ 5:14 am | Comment

“Another day when I happily think about closing the blog.”

You will not close the blog, it will become a symbol of resistance.

October 11, 2009 @ 5:22 am | Comment

@ecodelta: The reason is that the CCP is not willing to share power, as history has shown. I wonder whether the Dalai Lama has said that Tibet is part of China, instead of ‘People’s Republic of China’. I know he said that Tibet is part of PRC, but everybody knows that the PRC could disappear from the face of the earth at any moment, so I would be more comforted if he would say that Tibet is part of China (instead of PRC). If he says so, I think they should let him come back. At the same time, I hope the PRC will rename itself to the ROC, and adopt the ROC constitution, and allow free multi-party elections with the KMT included. I am convinced the KMT has a good chance to win free elections in the Southern provinces. Is the CCP able to give up some power for the sake of the Chinese nation? One can only dream, eh?

October 11, 2009 @ 5:50 am | Comment

Multi-party elections don’t change anything. Rule and law and transparency do, but two parties are just the same.

October 11, 2009 @ 6:09 am | Comment

In fact I’ll give you all a chance to redeem yourselves by telling us (in a serious, measured way) what it is you would say to the Dalai Lama if he was to grace you with his presence.

Like I said, I would shake his hand and praise him for his cleverness and unique take on ethnic nationalism.

You’re still a troll. When is Northern Ireland going to be free?

October 11, 2009 @ 6:13 am | Comment

I agree with merp, the Dalai Lama is promoting ethnic nationalism, so does his followers. This is racist. A country does not need to have one ethnicity, but can be perfectly fine multi-cultural and multi-ethnic. Those who advocate Tibetan independence are advocating racism, an 20th century ideology that wrecked the world in devastating world wars. The Chinese nation consists of many ethnic groups, and the challenge is to enrich and strengthen each other in solidarity within one country, instead of thinking about yourself and your group only. This is not the way, and certainly, this is not good karma.

October 11, 2009 @ 6:29 am | Comment

@helan
What you said on your last paragraph can also become a tyranny, although duisguised in lofty intentions, or be used by a tyrant to justify lower goals.
Would the Mongols say the same when they held power in China, or the Manchu, or even the Japanese.
Let live together to enrich ourselves, but I am running the show and calling the shots.

October 11, 2009 @ 7:45 am | Comment

@helan: well said.
@eco: Does this sound familiar to you?
Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.

October 11, 2009 @ 7:52 am | Comment

helan, the Chinese “state” consists of 93% Han ethnicity and all of the other minorities make the other 7%. There is no multiculturalism, despite the CCP’s lame attempts to dress PLA members in “ethnic costume” and have them parade around on television. As for the Chiense nation, I’m not even sure if one exists unless you are referring to the Han super majority. I’m not surprised at your position, though, because it seems that you have completely bought into Hu (and company)’s BS about living in a “harmonious” society.

As for the Dalai Lama, he is no of consequence whatsoever, much like the Roman Catholic pope. They, and all other religious “leaders,” like the ayatollahs, the Taliban, etc., are lost in their insecure fantasy worlds, clinging to superstition (that they call faith), and trying their best to impose their distortions on the rest of the world.

October 11, 2009 @ 8:31 am | Comment

“The Chinese nation consists of many ethnic groups, and the challenge is to enrich and strengthen each other in solidarity ”

It actually consists of one dominant, paternalistic ethnicity that has no intention of championing the rights of the minorities it views as children.

The Dalai Lama, on the other hand, is altogether a more ‘brotherhood-of-man’ character – just the sort of person who should be an emissary for peace made welcome by leaders the world over. Oh, wait a minute, he already IS.

October 11, 2009 @ 9:38 am | Comment

It actually consists of one dominant, paternalistic ethnicity that has no intention of championing the rights of the minorities it views as children.

Yes because favoritism ranging from everything to tax deductions, tax exemptions, cultural grants, air time, free radio and television stations, multiple university departments dedicated to preserving minority cultures, discriminatory anti-Han birth policies, affirmative action, discounts and quotas mean nothing.

Do the Han Chinese lynch or mob non-Hans? No.
Do whites in Britain, Spain, Greece, America etc beat minorities to death? Yes.

Richard, I think this troll needs a vacation.

helan, the Chinese “state” consists of 93% Han ethnicity and all of the other minorities make the other 7%. There is no multiculturalism, despite the CCP’s lame attempts to dress PLA members in “ethnic costume”

You poor misinformed troll. Genetic, cultural, and linguistic diversity *WITHIN* the Han Chinese subgroup than between Han and their neighboring “minorities”. There is more cultural diversity and depth between the Cantonese and Wu speakers than the entirety of any one or two developed nations.

In fact, the genetic distance between Chinese Americans and Chinese from Yunnan is greater than the difference between Bantus and the Dutch.

China has more multiculturalism than any nation on the planet save India. The fact that you’re such close-minded bigot that you can’t appreciate that fact- well, that’s not China’s problem.

October 11, 2009 @ 9:45 am | Comment

That is, more diversity exists within the Han subgroup than between Han and neighboring minorities *

October 11, 2009 @ 9:46 am | Comment

“Do the Han Chinese lynch or mob non-Hans? No.”

You’ve really out-merped yourself with that statement.

October 11, 2009 @ 1:16 pm | Comment

Stuart,

“The Dalai Lama, on the other hand, is altogether a more ‘brotherhood-of-man’ character – just the sort of person who should be an emissary for peace made welcome by leaders the world over. Oh, wait a minute, he already IS.”

He is also a monky politican. We all know politicans are full of “love”, “passion” and “peace” and always speak of the “truth”.

October 11, 2009 @ 5:42 pm | Comment

Stuart,

When somebody reaches sainthood-of-man (you and you alike would prefer “holiness” I guess), the only next step for him is descending. So, you can actually do him a favour if you could bring him a tiny bit near the ground where we are all standing. In this way, he can still have room for improvement and possibly manage a bit holier later.

October 11, 2009 @ 5:52 pm | Comment

“Do the Han Chinese lynch or mob non-Hans? No.”

Biggest joke of the year, sadly. What was it that was part of the trigger for the Xinjiang riots? The lynching of two Uighur men by Han Chinese because of untrue rumours of Han women being raped.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124699285048707143.html

Police would eventually say the charges were untrue. But as word spread of further alleged sexual assaults, enraged Han workers attacked their Uighur co-workers. State media say two Uighurs were killed and dozens more injured.

merp, you’re either an out-and-out liar or someone with absolutely no knowledge of current affairs.

October 11, 2009 @ 9:16 pm | Comment

Raj, it could be a proprietary mix of both.

October 12, 2009 @ 1:54 am | Comment

@serve
“@eco: Does this sound familiar to you?”

Yes, quite familiar, but not because of China, we had few dealings there, but because what was done by our forefathers in America during the Spanish colonization.

We learn it here at school, the good and the bad, do not hide it or block it or construct fairy tales about it.

The crimes of the “Conquistadores” were well known even at that time, and not a few tried to improve things for local people. With meager success I must said.

Maybe you have hear of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartolom%C3%A9_de_las_Casas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Laws

And by the way, I am Spanish, with 50% mixed South American blood. And I am now chatting with a Ecuatorian friend, from strong pre-colombian ancestry, from the Quitu people.

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

And we speak together quite openly of these issues quite open. The good and the bad.

“What have you spaniards done with all the gold you took from us?” She ask
“We spent it all” I answer with a smile

When she come to visit Spain, I even show her some of that gold, now in work of art, specially in churches.
She said, no need to take back that few remaining gold, it is good used that way.

October 12, 2009 @ 3:21 am | Comment

An example of gold art
http://tinyurl.com/ygzw47q
http://tinyurl.com/ykfqusg

October 12, 2009 @ 3:33 am | Comment

We learn it here at school, the good and the bad, do not hide it or block it or construct fairy tales about it.

And you also do nothing, absolutely nothing, to right even 1% of your wrongs.

Policy over lip service, that’s the difference between Chinese and Westerners.

@Raj
untrue rumours of Han women being raped.

UNTRUE rumor? You are quick to believe the CCP when it suits you. No, it was not untrue- it is not just a stereotype that the Uighur commit a disproportionate amount of crimes. Ask anyone- and not just Han.

Uighur children often mob and attack non-Uighur children in school (Hui especially). They despise the Hui and Kazakhs. Even foreigners have reported that they often get pickpocketed by Uighur children- and then are confronted by knife wielding men when they give chase.

It might not be pretty, but it’s the truth- that man told a true story and the CCP arrested him for “upsetting harmoniousness” or whatever you want to call it. It’s the typical double standard against Han Chinese.

The CCP simply arrested this guy for “ethnic harmony”.

Not to mention the Uighur killed several million Han Chinese in the late Qing and aren’t even native to Xinjiang… but that’s another story.

October 12, 2009 @ 9:07 am | Comment

It might not be pretty, but it’s the truth- that man told a true story and the CCP arrested him for “upsetting harmoniousness” or whatever you want to call it. It’s the typical double standard against Han Chinese.

The CCP simply arrested this guy for “ethnic harmony”.

Exactly. When it comes to issues like ethnic tension. CCP is really really a big coward. CCP handed down a death sentence to the Han man who attacked the attemped Ugher rapist. This attempted rape was witnessed by hundreds of bystanders, and yet CCP’s official sentencing report on that Han man did not even dare to use the word ‘rape’. Instead it used the word “chase” – “The Han woman was chased by the Ugher man”. On the Chinese internet these days, “chased” is now a buzzword, another example of CCP’s “creative euphemism”.

How man Ughers do you think CCP will dare to execute for this 7/5 riot? I say none. CCP will glady execute Hans to “ethnic harmony”, and will not have the guts to execute a single Ugher (after 170 people died in Urumqi, mainly Han).

As for CCP’s policy towards Ughers, what can I say. In the 80′s, they had a national policy of “Liang Shao Yi Kuan” towards Ughers committing crimes. “Liang Shao Yi Kuan” translates to “Two Lesses and One Relaxation”. Two lesses = less arrests and less prosecution. One relaxation = relaxed sentencing. That’s right, the CCP, as a NATIONAL POLICY, asked police to deliberately loosen prosecution on a group of people PURLY based on ethnic background. Is this not an example of “affirmative action” taken to the extreme?

CCP, when it comes to ethnic policy, is a complete pussy.

October 12, 2009 @ 9:57 am | Comment

Thanks for the info

But of course the “englightened Westerners” will deny, deny, deny, deny denydenydenydenydenydeny deny DENY until their faces are blue. Then diminish, diminish, diminish- just like how America funneled billions into the Japanese LDP for the sake of antagonizing “Communists” and worsening relations between Japan and China.

“Oh it can’t be true! I heard from the rabidly anti-Chinese, anti-Communist, racist Western media that the Uighurs are all angels!”

October 12, 2009 @ 10:14 am | Comment

correction: just like how America funneled billions into the Japanese LDP and their atrocity-denial industry

October 12, 2009 @ 10:21 am | Comment

Merp, you are really pushing your luck. The US media has never coddled the Uighers and I have no choice but to conclude you have no idea what you are talking about. Literally nothing; you’re just shouting out the first thing that comes into your head. Explain what exactly it is that the Westerners deny, and why you see it this way.

October 12, 2009 @ 10:52 am | Comment

We have to be fair here, Richard. The Western media do portrait the Guantanamo Uighurs as innocent victims of the Chinese-Bush tyranny. OK, not all media outlets, certainly not Fox News, but the mainstream liberal media. I understand that some of them are just playing politics and don’t really care about these Uighurs. I also understand that many Americans (perhaps the majority) do not accept the media’s portrait. Therefore the Republicans are able to keep them out of the country.

October 12, 2009 @ 12:58 pm | Comment

@ merpingtroyd

It wasn’t easy to pick the prejudice-laden gem out of all that diatribe, but I think this takes first prize:

“Ask anyone…”

October 12, 2009 @ 12:59 pm | Comment

Serve, I am really not convinced. I’ve seen reports biased against the Uighers, linking them with Al Qaeda. This is not at all comparable to Western media bias in favor of the Dalai Lama.

October 12, 2009 @ 1:47 pm | Comment

Richard,

Could that be the case that some Uighurs have links with Al Qaeda in terms of funding and training. This doesn’t mean that they are necessarily hostile to the US. They meant to fight the Chinese infidals.

October 12, 2009 @ 2:38 pm | Comment

Dalai Lama is a good man (not a good politician of course – how can he be a good man and a good politician at same time?), but the self-serving liberals such as Gere et al are bad arses (Richard I don’t considered this as obscentity since you called me one). They are the obstacles on Dalai Lama’s road back to China.

I suggest serve, hah et al refrain from personal attacks on Dalai Lama and focus their energy on the liberals instead.

October 12, 2009 @ 4:21 pm | Comment

Hah, I don’t know of any commitment of the Uighers to the Al Qaeda goal of global jihad, or toAl Qaeda in any way at all. But if you google the two, you’ll see that the media often bring up the two together, my point being that you can’t compare media coverage of the Uihghers with that of Tibet. The uighers are often depicted as terrorists or at least having tie to a terrorist cause, as opposed to peaceful worshippers in Tibet committed only to universal love and a desire to get back what is rightfully theirs.

October 12, 2009 @ 11:24 pm | Comment

“peaceful worshippers in Tibet committed only to universal love and a desire to get back what is rightfully theirs”

hmm… Richard don’t you think that you are a bit overdone this time?

October 12, 2009 @ 11:35 pm | Comment

oia, if you read what I am saying, it is that this is the biased view of some Western media, not the way I see Tibet. Please read carefully.

October 13, 2009 @ 12:11 am | Comment

@oia: You must be happy that the liberal Norwegians are the butt of the joke now. If Obama doesn’t deliver a nuclear weapon free world, he will be the next.

October 13, 2009 @ 2:09 am | Comment

it is not just a stereotype that the Uighur commit a disproportionate amount of crimes

merp, even if that was true it doesn’t change the fact that Uighurs were lynched by Han and lynched for something they didn’t do.

So, are you going to admit that you were talking nonsense about Han not lynching/”mobbing” other ethnic groups, or just write more drivel?

October 13, 2009 @ 2:41 am | Comment

@Richard
“I don’t know of any commitment of the Uighurs to the Al Qaeda goal of global jihad, or toAl Qaeda in any way at all”

I think you need to look at this NPR report about Uighur in Gitmo

“In 2004 and 2005, Guantanamo detainees went before military tribunals to determine whether the detainees were enemy combatants. One of the Uighurs, a man named Hassan Anvar, explained in a written statement to the tribunal why he went to a paramilitary training camp in Afghanistan before being captured and handed over to the U.S.

“I went there so I could train to fight against the Chinese, not against the Americans,” Anvar said. “I have no reason to fight against the U.S.”

Most of the Uighurs had similar explanations. They were either fleeing or resisting Chinese government repression in their homeland in China’s northwest Xinjiang province. At most, they said, they had a few hours of training on an AK-47 rifle.”

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100790460

They were of trained in Afghanistan, with the purpose to fight Chinese.

Of course they are not terrorists to Americans, but definitely to Chinese.

October 13, 2009 @ 3:38 am | Comment

A Chinese, you arereinforcing what I said. I do not believe Uighers are concerned with global jihad or that they wish to overthrow America. Unfortunately, some US media have made this association, and China from the start nurtured the notion that the Uigher militants in Xinjiang were in the same category as the highjackers of September 11, which is absurd. Bringing it back to the topic: this is further proof of the US media seeing the Uighers in a very different light than they see the Tibetans.

October 13, 2009 @ 3:56 am | Comment

Richard

These Uighur who are committed to fight Chinese also believe they are fighting for a holy war, only this time it was the Chinese who are the victims. You are right that they are not trying to overthrow America, but they do intend to overthrow Chinese in Xinjiang. And Al Qaeda did call for jihad against Chinese.

I mean, terrorist is a terrorist no matter where he is, it’s not that those who kill Americans are terrorists yet those who kill Chinese are freedom fighters

October 13, 2009 @ 4:25 am | Comment

Whether AQ called for the war against China or not is irrelevant – that isn’t why we have Uigher rebels. And the only reason AQ may have called for holy war against China would have been in hopes of mobilizing potential recruits to their own larger cause, an effort that doesn’t seem to have worked.

October 13, 2009 @ 4:31 am | Comment

Oia, I am the one saying it’s nuts to generalize. We are talking, at this point, about media bias, and unfortunately the media, not us geniuses, often generalize. This is true of the Chinese and US media, though of course the US media are better (or at least more subtle about it).

October 13, 2009 @ 9:40 am | Comment

Richard,

I detect a bit of double standard in your argument. The media may be biased by saying that the Uighurs are “terrorists against the US”, but some of them are perhaps still terrorists.

“China from the start nurtured the notion that the Uigher militants in Xinjiang were in the same category as the highjackers of September 11, which is absurd.”

Can you explain why it is absurd? Just because they haven’t managed to hijack a plane and knock into some momunental buildings in China, so it is absurd to say that they are terrorists? Are you saying that those involved in 911 should be regarded as some sort of first-class terrorists? About 200 people were murdered in July, are those involved terrorist?

October 13, 2009 @ 1:21 pm | Comment

Hah, this is what I call threadjacking – taking one small part of a comment and then dwelling on it, leaving the comment thread derailed. I’ll say it once more: Some Uighers may have ties to Al Qaeda. But I’ve never heard of widespread, or even narrowly spread, Uigher sympathy for global jihad, only for their own autonomy. Some may be in the category of the 911 highjackers in terms their willingness to commit catastrophic acts of terrorism. But it was amusing to the entire world when China immediately after 911 jumped on the “war on terror” bandwagon and used 911 as an excuse to get away with harsher repression in Xinjiang. Now read carefully. I am not saying there may not be terrorists among the Uighers. I’m saying with the war on terror and Bush’s global call for a crackdown, China was given an inch and grabbed a mile, self-righteously continuing questionable practices under the new mantle of “We are helping the world fight against Islamist terrorism.”

I detect a bit of double standard in your argument. The media may be biased by saying that the Uighurs are “terrorists against the US”, but some of them are perhaps still terrorists.

There is no double standard. Not even a trace. There may be terrorists among Muslims. The media is biased, however, if it leads people to believe Muslim is a religion of terrorism, that Muslims must be associated with terror. Now substitute Uigher for Muslim, and that is my very simple argument, an argument that most people with IQs above room temperature can grasp without the expenditure of too much effort.

October 14, 2009 @ 12:06 am | Comment

“Now substitute Uigher for Muslim, and that is my very simple argument, an argument that most people with IQs above room temperature can grasp without the expenditure of too much effort.”

Can you provide evidence that shows, as a result of biased reporting in the US against innocent Uighers, US citizens now automatically link Uighers with terrorists (instead of a people under “harsher repression” in China, as you immediately point out)? If not, as far as my near room temperature IQ can figure out, you are shooting a target that may not exist in the first place.

October 14, 2009 @ 6:42 am | Comment

“China immediately after 911 jumped on the “war on terror” bandwagon and used 911 as an excuse to get away with harsher repression in Xinjiang.”

You are rightly to believe so. Why shouldn’t they? Again, there is no saint or holiness in this world (only my opinion). “Jumping on the bandwagon” is a matter of fact. China is not the only one, won’t be the last one either (perhaps on a different wagon next time). “Harsher repression” is a matter of judgement, depending on where you stand and what is your measure.

October 14, 2009 @ 6:51 am | Comment

Hah, you are really pushing your luck by highjacking this thread.

I am not quite sure what you are questioning or what you are arguing about. Is it that the media hasn’t created an association between Uighers and terrorism/Al Qaeda, much to China’s delight? And if you believe the Uighers have won the hearts and minds of Americans in a way comparable to the Dalai Lama and the plight, perceived or real, of the Tibetans, I can safely say you are absolutely wrong.

I know you enjoy the idea of China flexing its muscle and torturing Uighers. Just be aware of the history, and how China exploited the 911 tragedy to justify its “harsh treatment” (as you call it) of Uighers. And before you start screaming, I didn’t pass judgment; I didn’t say the Uighers were good or bad. I just said that after 911 China made a big deal about the war on terror, which gave it an open door to crack down on Uighers with minimal protest from the outside world.

October 14, 2009 @ 7:08 am | Comment

The US media has never coddled the Uighers

They are subsidized by a grant from US Congress, and it’s spelled Uighur.

October 14, 2009 @ 9:35 am | Comment

Yes, I know, but I got into the habit of typing Uigher; there are different spellings in English, like Uygur. The US media doesn’t have a history of coddling them, certainly nothing that can be compared to the Dalai Lama. Unfortunately, post-911 prejudices have made it uncomfortable for many in the US to support Uighurs, who have frequently been villainized on right-wing US web sites.

October 14, 2009 @ 10:18 am | Comment

Unfortunately? Do you think it’s “unfortunate” that Turks deny the Armenian Genocide? Because the Uighur did much worse in Xinjiang- and again, they have no legitimate claim to any of that land whatsoever.

October 14, 2009 @ 12:08 pm | Comment

It is unfortunate whenever the acts of a few lead to the stimatization of many. It is unfortunate that many associate the words Muslim or Uighur with “terrorist.” It is unfortunate that some associate Jews and Chinese with financial underhandedness, and far worse. It is unfortunate that some associate young Chinese men with “fenqing” – rude, hysterical, full of self-pity and free of historical knowledge, let alone social niceties. Although, if people get this impression of fenqing from reading the comments in threads like this, I can understand how such unfortunate stereotypes can stick, just as if you suck at the teat of China Daily you will believe in the stereotype of the Uighur as terrorist. Total bullshit of course (there are terrorists of nearly every nationality, and not all young Chinese people are fenqing), but I can see how people arrive at these stupid conclusions. It’s what happens when you surrender your own thoughts and succumb to the propaganda machine, whether it’s US right-wing blogs shouting, “Muslims are terrorists,” or the inbred, smooth-brained fenqing who shout idiotically, “Uighurs are terrorists!”

Sorry for being impassioned about that, but I hate stereotyping. I don’t mean to equate fenqing with terrorists – not at all. But I am trying to create a comparison you can understand, of how stereotyping is always a bad thing. This is why I will never say the CCP is evil. Life is more complicated than that. We can’t describe an entire people as terrorists.

October 14, 2009 @ 12:25 pm | Comment

China has criticised a visit by India’s Prime Minister to the disputed north-east Indian state, a.k.a “Southern Tibet”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8304679.stm

It also expressed displeasure over a planned visit by the Dalai Lama to the state’s Tawang monastery in November.

October 14, 2009 @ 2:08 pm | Comment

“It also expressed displeasure over a planned visit by the Dalai Lama to the state’s Tawang monastery in November.”

Always interfering in the affairs of others. When will China ever give it a rest?

October 14, 2009 @ 5:34 pm | Comment

“…they have no legitimate claim to any of that land whatsoever.”

Then who does? Please don’t say Han Chinese.

October 14, 2009 @ 5:37 pm | Comment

Richard,

Papers like China Daily are very careful when they portrait Uighurs or any other minority people. They never call an entire people terrorists and never cast them in stereotype. The official media are always against racism. The Chinese always paint the majority of the ethnic minorities in a positive picture, as loyal and patriotic citizens. There are only a small number of exceptions, like the Dalai Lama or Rebiya Kadeer.

October 15, 2009 @ 2:07 am | Comment

I’m sure you’re right, Serve – I certainly know that’s the case with CCTV. I was trying to make a broader point about stereotyping and that may not have been the best example.

October 15, 2009 @ 3:17 am | Comment

lynched for something they didn’t do.

So I guess you only believe the CCP when it suits you. No, not only did the newly arrived Uighur commit a series of rapes, they also committed a rash of assaults and thefts leading up to those days.

The CCP simply killed off a few Han men for the sake of “harmony”, just like how they prevent Hans from having more than one child for “harmony”.

Always interfering in the affairs of others. When will China ever give it a rest?

Northeast “India” should never have been part of India, regardless of whether or not it was part of Tibet. If you want to see real demographic flooding, see Ladakh and the Seven Sisters- all of those “states of India” are now 50-80% Hindu. This isn’t just because of revanchist demography as is done in “Amdo” and “Kham”. It’s the equivalent of 10 million Han Chinese being in the TAR proper- yet no one seems to mind.

Both China and India have dealings with Burma, but only China catches the blame.
Both China and India have human rights issues, but only China gets any attention.
Both China and India face poverty and illiteracy (India more so) but only China is criticized.

So on and so forth- it must be nice to be a client state of the West, the most aggressive international human rights abusers of these past 400 years.

Then who does? Please don’t say Han Chinese.

Qiang
Yeniseians
Tocharians
Han Chinese and Xiongnu

In that order.

October 15, 2009 @ 4:12 am | Comment

Complete list of ethnic succession in the geographic boundaries of modern Xinjiang-

8,000 BC – Qiang, Proto-Sino-Tibetans concentrate in Kunlun Mts. and nearby areas. It is recorded that the Qiang roamed the area including the Hexi Corridor.

? – 2,000ish BC – Yeniseians, Huns, Xiongnu etc roam the area

2,000-1,200 BC – Tocharians settle from the West, with some intermarriage with the Qiang and Yeniseians

500-200 BC – Xiongnu start to occupy Northern Xinjiang, eventually displacing the Tocharians and sending them into India and the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom. Meanwhile, the Han Dynasty expands into an empty Eastern Xinjiang (called Xiyu at the time)

420-589 – Age of Fragmentation in China. During this time, there are a lot of ethnic migrations around the globe. Western Rome falls on the other side of the world, directly as a result of nomadic encroachment.

Sui and Tang – Gokturk control most of Central Asia, with Chinese dynasties taking control of Eastern Xinjiang.

742-848 = Uighur Khaganate (these are the real Uighur) dominates much of Central and Northern Asia, until the Tang pushes them out of Xinjiang completely. Tibet has arisen some time earlier as a major Central Asian power, Arabs move in from the West spreading Islam.

“” until Mongol Empire – There is a great deal of trade and transfer involved up until the Mongols start attacking everyone. Under the Yuan, Eastern Xinjiang is put under Mongol control. Turks, Persians and Arabs are invited into the Chinese heartland, eventually creating some subgroups within the Hui ethnic group.

Ming Dynasty – Chinese control a large part of Xinjiang, with the Oirat/Dzungar Mongols controlling the Western half. During this time, Xinjiang remains predominantly Turkic and Mongol with little Iranic or Arab genetic influence.

Qing Dynasty – The Manchus take over Xinjiang, pushing China’s territory to its furthest Western extent, and send the Eastern (Khalkha) Mongol bannermen to all but exterminate the Dzungars. The Qing then moves Manchu, Northern Han, Solon, Xibe and Khalkhas into Xinjiang, along with the present Oirat survivors. Francis Younghousband notes that at this time, there were at most 20,000 people in the largest Oasis settlement in the far West- meaning the “Uighur” population there was at most a few tens of thousands. Before this, Muslim rebellions in Xinjiang, aided by Tsarist Russia and Uzbek invaders, kills 8-10 million Han, Tungus and Mongols in Xinjiang. A flood of Uzbek “Sart-Taranchis” (farmer merchants) take advantage of the war to settle the area.

Post-Dynastic – Warlordism and more Uzbek encroachment during the Republican Era. By Mao’s time, the Sart-Taranchi population swells by millions- generally via immigration to the Oasis City States. The Soviets arbitrarily deem “Sart” as derogatory through poor understanding of Turkic etymology, and rename them “Uighur” as a prestige title for the ethnic group. Mao follows suit.

Modern Era – Western news outlets put forth the ridiculous claim of Tocharian-Sart-Taranchi links (As if Indo-European speaking Qiango-Caucasoid Manicheans and Buddhists have anything to do with Iranic-Turko-Mongolic Sunni Muslims), and thus claim (with tentative evidence) that the “evil yellow Chinese” are stealing a “pure white Aryan Homeland” from the “Angelic Uighurs of Kharakoja” and that therefore whites brought all civilization to China in 2,000 BC and are the rightful heirs of all territory from Barcelona to Qingdao.

What a leap.

October 15, 2009 @ 4:40 am | Comment

“Modern Era – Western news outlets put forth the ridiculous claim…”

Sounds like you’ve been reading the same material as the Han anthropologists who dismiss ‘out of Africa’ because they don’t like the idea. The same researchers discovered that the Chinese invented golf 3000 years before it reached the west because a round pebble was once found next to a hole in the ground in Sichuan Province. Holes have also been found in parts of India, Vietnam, Russia, Mongolia, Korea, and Japan. Therefore, experts say, these regions are in fact renegade provinces of an even greater China. Amazing.

Oh, and the Dalai Lama and Obama will soon be exchanging golf tips on the Eisenhower putting green.

October 15, 2009 @ 8:36 am | Comment

Golf?

October 15, 2009 @ 3:42 pm | Comment

Just trying to stay on topic, eco ;)

October 15, 2009 @ 10:52 pm | Comment

@ Stuart’s post:

““It also expressed displeasure over a planned visit by the Dalai Lama to the state’s Tawang monastery in November.”

“Always interfering in the affairs of others. When will China ever give it a rest?”

Stuart, the Chinese government’s position is that the area in question is actually a part of China. How therefore can you expect them to acknowledge that expressing displeasure &c over what happens there amounts to “interfering”? Of course you may not agree that the area is a part of China but that’s another matter.

BTW, were you maintaining earlier in this thread that the Dalai Lama did not in fact have close links with the CIA? If you were, have you now conceded the point?

October 16, 2009 @ 4:31 am | Comment

“Stuart, the Chinese government’s position is that the area in question is actually a part of China.”

China’s farcical territorial claims weaken the legitacy of such protestations.

“BTW, were you maintaining earlier in this thread that the Dalai Lama did not in fact have close links with the CIA?”

I was saying that he’s never been a CIA operative, which was the fenqing tag team’s CCP-esque spin earlier in this thread.

October 16, 2009 @ 9:34 am | Comment

““Stuart, the Chinese government’s position is that the area in question is actually a part of China.”

“China’s farcical territorial claims weaken the legitacy of such protestations.”

Stuart, are you confident that you know enough about the background to this particular border dispute to be able to dismiss the Chinese claim as “farcical”? Or are you simply assuming that, because you believe the Chinese government is wrong on so many matters, it must automatically be wrong on this one?

Bear in mind that China is actually claiming that the disputed area is a part of Tibet. Tibet itself in 1947, at a time when it was de facto independent, also claimed the area as part of Tibet. If the Chinese claim, which by the way long predates the founding of the PRC, is “farcical”, then so too was the Tibetan 1947 claim, as they have much the same basis.

Now, of course, the TGIE has no choice but to accept the McMahon line as the border, because it needs the good will of the Indian government.

I am not saying that I know for certain that China is in the right in this matter but I am curious to know why you are so certain that China is in the wrong.

““BTW, were you maintaining earlier in this thread that the Dalai Lama did not in fact have close links with the CIA?”

“I was saying that he’s never been a CIA operative, which was the fenqing tag team’s CCP-esque spin earlier in this thread.”

Well, I’m not sure exactly what defines an “operative” in this context: I don’t think anybody here is saying that he was a full time CIA agent. However, he was certainly on the CIA payroll for many years, to the tune (I think) of around 200,000 USD per annum. I doubt that they were paying him to do nothing. Therefore it would not be unreasonable to argue that he was a CIA employee. This has long been known by the Chinese government &, rightly or wrongly, may well have contributed to their enduring mistrust of him.

October 16, 2009 @ 8:41 pm | Comment

“,,,to the tune (I think) of around 200,000 USD per annum.”

Well, if he did receive such a stipend it would have been by way of a ‘supporting grant’ rather than a return for services rendered; and China would have no right to complain about such a relationship anyway seeing as how they exiled the poor chap.

“Bear in mind that China is actually claiming that the disputed area is a part of Tibet. Tibet itself in 1947″

As the recent Oct 1 parade reminded everyone, the present Chinese geopolitical entity is only 60 years old. Thus, she has no legitimate claim to anything pre 1949. Simple.

“Or are you simply assuming that, because you believe the Chinese government is wrong on so many matters, it must automatically be wrong on this one?”

Nope. I base my ‘farcical’ description on the extent and rather too loud protestations we regularly hear from Beijing regarding what it believes (or would like to call)its territory. Most of these claims are based on the flimsiest of historical evidence; or in the case of China’s territorial water claims, megalomania.

October 19, 2009 @ 11:51 am | Comment

One of the Fenqing earlier made an egregious comment that shouldn’t go unchallenged:

“What about Northern Ireland”? doubtless implying that westerners are hypocrites to express sympathy with either the Uighurs or Tibetans wanting independence.

Well, there are two things they have in common. Northern Ireland is currently part of the UK and Xinjiang/Tibet are part of China, and in all three there are separatist/splittest advocates.

But look at the fundamental differences.

In Northern Ireland the “splittists” are represented by a political party, Sinn Fein, that has complete freedom to campaign, elect representatives to Parliament, and enjoys complete freedom of speech to advocate their views. Hardly true of Uighur or Tibetan separatists.

Second, in Northern Ireland the separatists are mostly Catholic, a minority group. The majority population favours Northern Ireland remaining part of the UK. Once Catholics become the majority maybe the situation will change.

Third, I know absolutely no one in the UK who gives a damn whether Northern Ireland remains part of the UK or not. Unlike China most of us have long ago given up jingoistic, neurotic nationalism.

October 19, 2009 @ 4:05 pm | Comment

Second, in Northern Ireland the separatists are mostly Catholic, a minority group. The majority population favours Northern Ireland remaining part of the UK. Once Catholics become the majority maybe the situation will change.

Sojourner, it’s even worse for the fenqing. Even if/when Catholics become a majority in Northern Ireland they won’t be asking for independence as they get a good deal being part of the UK (more spending per head of population than in England) and the Republic doesn’t want them back.

But the important thing is that if people in Northern Ireland wanted to, they could elect an Assembly dominated by politicians who wanted independence. That would probably trigger a referendum and then people would have another chance to vote for independence, the last referendum failing miserably.

Unlike China most of us have long ago given up jingoistic, neurotic nationalism.

Indeed. We weren’t invaded nor did we become a poor country because the Republic of Ireland was granted independence – nor would we if Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales left the UK too.

October 19, 2009 @ 8:57 pm | Comment

In Northern Ireland the “splittists” are represented by a political party, Sinn Fein, that has complete freedom to campaign, elect representatives to Parliament, and enjoys complete freedom of speech to advocate their views. Hardly true of Uighur or Tibetan separatists.

Second, in Northern Ireland the separatists are mostly Catholic, a minority group. The majority population favours Northern Ireland remaining part of the UK. Once Catholics become the majority maybe the situation will change.

Third, I know absolutely no one in the UK who gives a damn whether Northern Ireland remains part of the UK or not. Unlike China most of us have long ago given up jingoistic, neurotic nationalism.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

So you’re suggesting China flood “Uighurstan” (Uighur are not native to Xinjiang) and Tibet and then once they are 98% of the population there, they can become a “democracy”.

No thanks. Too American for me.

October 21, 2009 @ 10:46 am | Comment

China would have no right to complain about such a relationship anyway seeing as how they exiled the poor chap.

China didn’t exile him. He just left. There is no evidence that he would have been executed either- enough with your lies.

As the recent Oct 1 parade reminded everyone, the present Chinese geopolitical entity is only 60 years old. Thus, she has no legitimate claim to anything pre 1949. Simple.

Then America has no claim to anything pre-1776. Of course they have no claim to even one inch of American territory, but we’re using your “logic” here.

October 21, 2009 @ 10:49 am | Comment

Stuart, you said:

“As the recent Oct 1 parade reminded everyone, the present Chinese geopolitical entity is only 60 years old. Thus, she has no legitimate claim to anything pre 1949. Simple.”

“Simple”? Sorry, you’ve completely lost me there. What has the fact that a regime change took place in China in 1949 got to do with the validity or otherwise of her current territorial claims? Is this some point of international law that I’m unaware of?

But in that case why isn’t India’s claim to the area in question illegitimate too, by the same token? Doesn’t the “geopolitical entity” that we now know as India date back only to independence & partition in 1947?

However, please forgive me if, as I suspect, I’ve totally failed to understand the point you’re making. Perhaps you could explain what you mean when you say that, because of what happened in 1949, China cannot have a ” legitimate claim to anything pre 1949″.

You also said:

“Nope. I base my ‘farcical’ description on the extent and rather too loud protestations we regularly hear from Beijing regarding what it believes (or would like to call)its territory. Most of these claims are based on the flimsiest of historical evidence…”

You’ve replaced one value judgement (“farcical”) by another (“flimsiest”) without any real attempt to justify either. Do I take it that what we have been discussing, ie the case of what both the PRC & the TGIE (still, I think) know as South Tibet, is an example of what you would consider a Chinese territorial claim “based on the flimsiest of historical evidence”? If so, why? Do you have any knowledge at all of that historical evidence, “flimsy” or otherwise?

You also said:

“…or in the case of China’s territorial water claims, megalomania.”

In the case of the islands in the South Chine Sea, why do you single out the Chinese claims as being any more based on “megalomania” than those of the other countries that claim them?

In the case of the Diaoyutai islands, it seems to me from what I know, (which admittedly isn’t that much), that if either side could fairly be deemed to be making a “farcical” claim it is more likely to be Japan than China.

October 21, 2009 @ 10:55 am | Comment

Stuart is a joke.

October 22, 2009 @ 4:34 pm | Comment

It has been a long time since I was on this forum. Anyway, here is a statement that is relevant to the discussion.

Tenzin

Special Envoy’s Statement on the arrival of His Holiness the Dalai Lama in Washington, DC

Tuesday, 6 October 2009, 9:34 a.m.
Washington, DC: His Holiness the Dalai Lama arrived Monday in Washington, DC, for a five-day visit today during which he will meet Speaker Pelosi and other Congressional leaders. His Holiness has many years of personal close friendship with many members of Congress and he is greatly appreciative of the consistent and strong bipartisan support extended by the US Congress to the Tibetan people. The US Congress bestowed the Congressional Gold Medal upon His Holiness in 2007.

His Holiness will not be meeting with President Obama on this visit. From the outset, there has been no question of President Obama not at the appropriate time meeting His Holiness, whom he holds in great esteem. Taking a broader and long-term perspective, His Holiness agreed to meet the President after the November US-China Summit,” Mr Lodi Gyari, Special Envoy of His Holiness the Dalai Lama said.

“His Holiness the Dalai Lama has always been supportive of American engagement with China. Our hope is that the cooperative US-Chinese relationship that President Obama’s administration seeks will create conditions that support the resolution of the legitimate grievances of the Tibetan people.

The decision to send a high-level delegation headed by his senior advisor and close friend Valerie Jarrett, accompanied by Under Secretary Maria Otero, Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues, to Dharamsala, indicates a new approach on Tibet by the US administration. His Holiness conveyed to the President’s emissaries that he looks forward to meeting with the President later this year and thanks the President for his invitation.

During his visit to Washington this week, His Holiness will also receive the first Lantos Human Rights Prize award by the Lantos Foundation for Human Rights and Justice, created in the name of his close friend, the late Congressman Tom Lantos, a world-renowned human rights advocate and friend of His Holiness.

His Holiness will also present the International Campaign for Tibet’s Light of Truth award posthumously to Julia Taft, a great humanitarian and former Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues, and to a group of Chinese who have, at great personal risk, spoken out in China about Tibet. He will also participate in a two-day Mind and Life conference, bringing together world-renowned educators, scientists, and contemplatives to explore the emerging field of contemplative learning and its potential contribution to education.

His Holiness the Dalai Lama will also give a lecture on contemporary Buddhism, “The Heart of Change: Finding Wisdom in the Modern World” at American University.

October 23, 2009 @ 2:11 am | Comment

Change “his holiness” to “his majesty”, you get a more dramatic effect.

October 23, 2009 @ 8:52 pm | Comment

“the legitimate grievances of the Tibetan people.”

Perhaps there are some illegitimate “grievances”? His majesty?

October 23, 2009 @ 8:55 pm | Comment

@ merp

“but we’re using your “logic” here.”

Quite frankly, you’re better off.

@ hah

“Stuart is a joke.”

pop over to my site and you can really start to put the joy back into your life.

@ jer

“Doesn’t the “geopolitical entity” that we now know as India date back only to independence & partition in 1947?”

Exactly. They’ve got you by a couple years. Game over.

“why do you single out the Chinese claims as being any more based on “megalomania” than those of the other countries that claim them?”

Because they’re the only country whose claims take it within a decent seven iron of half a dozen other countries. Peaceful rise, though, so nothing to worry about.

The Dalai has landed.

October 23, 2009 @ 10:12 pm | Comment

Because they’re the only country whose claims take it within a decent seven iron of half a dozen other countries.

That’s because no country has seen its territory stolen as much as China. India has no place being less than twenty countries itself, so I don’t get what you’re trying to say here other than CHINA BAD EVERYONE ELSE GOOD.

The world’s greatest volume of human rights abuses occur in India.

October 25, 2009 @ 12:25 am | Comment

@ stuart

““Doesn’t the “geopolitical entity” that we now know as India date back only to independence & partition in 1947?”

“Exactly. They’ve got you by a couple years. Game over.”

Er, aren’t you missing something here? You said (#107) “the present Chinese geopolitical entity is only 60 years old. Thus, she has no legitimate claim to anything pre 1949″.

Therefore by the same token India has no legitimate claim to anything pre 1947. But in 1947 the ROC, which already had a longstanding claim to the area in question, had been in existence for 35 years. By your logic, therefore, from 1947 until 1949 China (as the ROC) had the only legitimate claim to the area, & since 1949 neither India nor China has had a legitimate claim.

So whom does South Tibet legitimately belong to, then? The ROC in Taiwan, perhaps? Not India, certainly, as by your logic her claim is just as “farcical” as China’s.

Just as in 1947 newly independent India claimed to have inherited British India’s territorial claims, so when the PRC came into being in 1949 she renewed & restated some (but not all) of the ROC’s territorial claims. You have been unwilling or unable to explain, let alone justify, your assertion that China “has no legitimate claim to anything pre 1949″.

Regards.

October 26, 2009 @ 2:51 am | Comment

“I don’t get what you’re trying to say here other than CHINA BAD EVERYONE ELSE GOOD.”

That’s the probelm, merp. In common with many others, you’re so sensitised to the idea of China being singled out that you perceive any comments that aren’t full of praise for China as deliberately targetting her for criticism.

It’s simply not the case.

October 26, 2009 @ 9:24 am | Comment

“Therefore by the same token India has no legitimate claim to anything pre 1947″

They partitioned by consent – different thing altogether.

October 26, 2009 @ 9:26 am | Comment

India wasn’t even a country for nearly all of its history. In fact India has been a country for less time than Tibet has been incorporated as part of China.

Hell, India has been a country for less time than America has.

So to use the India analogy, you would have to abolish the state entirely and turn it back into the 20-40 statelets it used to be.

October 27, 2009 @ 6:28 am | Comment

“Hell, India has been a country for less time than America has.”

And the PRC for less than the pair of them, which is the point.

October 27, 2009 @ 8:34 am | Comment

@ stuart

“Because they’re the only country whose claims take it within a decent seven iron of half a dozen other countries. Peaceful rise, though, so nothing to worry about.”

That doesn’t follow! There are many possible reasons other than “megalomania” why a country might stake a claim to an area close to another country.

In the case of the Paracel & Spratley islands, for example, if you’re looking for the motivation behind China’s territorial claim, the most obvious candidate is her belief that there are large oil deposits nearby. And what’s more, this consideration is probably what motivates the competing claims of the other countries too. (The quest for fishing rights may an additional factor for all concerned.)

Greed is a sufficient cause: hardly a noble sentiment but hardly unique to China. In the absence of evidence I see no need to invoke “megalomania” as well, just in order to fit your negative stereotype.

Cheers.

October 27, 2009 @ 10:03 am | Comment

“…the most obvious candidate is her belief that there are large oil deposits nearby.”

Sure, that’s a reason; but it’s not a legitimate one.

October 27, 2009 @ 2:57 pm | Comment

@ stuart

““…the most obvious candidate is her belief that there are large oil deposits nearby.”

“Sure, that’s a reason; but it’s not a legitimate one.”

Of course it’s not: where & when did I ever say it was? How could any nation, with a straight face, base its territorial claims on a desire to acquire certain oil & fishing rights? (Or on “megalomania” for that matter?)

I think you’re confusing (1) the evidential basis of a claim, with (2) the motivation underlying that claim. The evidential basis for China’s claim to the islands in the South China Sea resides, I understand, in historical accounts of voyages of discovery, ancient maps & place names, archaeological finds &c. As far as I’m aware the competing claims of the other countries are based on similar considerations. I don’t know nearly enough to be able to give an opinion on which of the competing claims is the best. Do you know enough to be able to give an opinion?

However, why all these countries should be taking such an intense interest in these tiny islands is a different matter. The consensus among neutral commentators appears to be that the desire to secure oil & fishing rights is the principal motivation, not only in China’s case but also in the case of all the other competing countries.

So what motivates your glib dismissal of China’s claim as based on “megalomania”? And I’m still curious as to what reason you have for assuming that her claim must be less valid than that of the other countries concerned that are making the same territorial claims for much the same reasons.

October 29, 2009 @ 12:06 pm | Comment

“So what motivates your glib dismissal of China’s claim as based on “megalomania”?”

Its inconsistency with China’s claims of “peaceful rise/development”, “non-interference”, “no threat”, and a “non-expansionist” foreign policy.

October 29, 2009 @ 7:50 pm | Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.