Tibetan monasteries 'surrounded by soldiers'

[Berzerker]

well now that the native population has been largely replaced by Chinese I'd say they aint likely to try and leave

[DaShi]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Instead of Free Tibet, you should say, Self-Determination for Tibet. Maybe Tibet doesn't want to be independent.

This is pretty much what the Dalai Llama is asking for. However, there are separatists movements both inside and outside of Tibet (mostly exiles in India).

[Blake]

Originally posted by snoopy369
How is it a good idea to protest on behalf of a bunch of Buddhists who practice nonviolence and such, and commit violence? Some people will riot for any reason...

"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence."
-- Mahatma Gandhi

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Wezil
And how far will we go? Statements of our "concern"? Pull a diplomat or two?

But nobody outside can really do something about it if China doesn't want it. It's sad but true.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Wezil
Hera - Yep, That'll do it.

About as much as any Canadian statement.

[Winston]

Originally posted by BeBro
But nobody outside can really do something about it if China doesn't want it. It's sad but true.

Save for re-militarizing Japan..

[Alinestra Covelia]

Ack, this is a real mess, that's for sure.

In terms of the reporting, the coverage of this in the western press is considerably more restrained on both sides than it was in 1989 during Tiananmen - meaning both that the Chinese forces are acting less aggressively and that the western media are reporting more evenly. If nothing else it does show the western media likely no longer holds the same distrust that was present in 1989.

Practically speaking, it looks like the Dalai Lama (who probably has nothing to do with this) is about to lose grassroots control over the Tibetan people, especially the younger ones who don't even remember his rule. They're the ones who will get ideas of revolution and independence and who will be less reluctant to demonstrate or take other actions.

From the Chinese government's viewpoint, the amount of central government spending invested in Tibet is huge and letting it go now would be a massive investment loss, to say nothing of the reputational hit for a government that had made unification and centralism its primary keystone. But the Dalai Lama, for all the disagreements between him and the government, was at least willing to talk. The current demonstrators may be well beyond that.

It looks like although there may have been some casualties or deaths this time round, at least it's not a full scale street sweeping operation as there was in 1989. Maybe the Chinese government is keeping an eye on its human rights reputation ahead of the Olympics. If so, it would be a purely cynical consideration right now, but who knows - maybe in another 15 years the political process will have gotten to the point where it goes beyond lip service to the Constitution and actually gives weight to personal freedoms.

It's no accident that China, like many socialist countries of the former USSR and Eastern Europe, has greater affirmative duties of the state to provide for its people (at least on paper) in terms of economic welfare, but very little in terms of political welfare. Perhaps the most extreme example is Tibet, which has seen a huge amount of investment and infrastructure, while still receiving little in the way of political freedoms (particularly divisive in a territory with a separate culture, religion, and former political system).

Hopefully they'll find a way to speed up political reforms to take some of the pressure off, before it reaches boiling point.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Heraclitus


About as much as any Canadian statement.

My comment was not intended as an attack against you or Slovenia. I agree with you, my nation is just as impotent wrt China as yours for the exact same reason. We will complain so long as we don't have to actually do something that might hurt China's (and our) pocketbook.

I'm sure once my government is done polling on the issue we will issue a harsh statement of some kind. :yawn:

[Lancer]

Do the monks have WMDs, that's all I wanna know.

[Alinestra Covelia]

Yo Wezil I heard Canada has a warship.

...

What's up with that?

[Wezil]

Do you want to see a pic?

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Winston


Save for re-militarizing Japan..

Why not? They are doing it by themselves already, we may as well say we agree with it and give them a helping hand.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Wezil
Do you want to see a pic?

Well I know I would., as long as we are talking about big warships.

[Wezil]

Alright, you asked for it.

I had to remove the indentifying text (national security interests and all that).

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia


It looks like although there may have been some casualties or deaths this time round, at least it's not a full scale street sweeping operation as there was in 1989. Maybe the Chinese government is keeping an eye on its human rights reputation ahead of the Olympics. If so, it would be a purely cynical consideration right now, but who knows - maybe in another 15 years the political process will have gotten to the point where it goes beyond lip service to the Constitution and actually gives weight to personal freedoms.

It's no accident that China, like many socialist countries of the former USSR and Eastern Europe, has greater affirmative duties of the state to provide for its people (at least on paper) in terms of economic welfare, but very little in terms of political welfare. Perhaps the most extreme example is Tibet, which has seen a huge amount of investment and infrastructure, while still receiving little in the way of political freedoms (particularly divisive in a territory with a separate culture, religion, and former political system).

Hopefully they'll find a way to speed up political reforms to take some of the pressure off, before it reaches boiling point.

Their investment does not change the fact that China invaded and annexed Tibet. It also does not change the fact that the Tibetan people are slated for Sinicization if they remain part of China.