Home > Analysis > Tibetan vs. First Nations

Tibetan vs. First Nations

(YinYang: This came via a reader, Ray, self-described as “overseas Chinese who currently resides in Toronto, Canada born in the 1970s in Malaysia. The piece below is timely as the Dalai Lama was recently on a trip to the U.S. as a ‘spiritual leader.’ By the way, he recently supposedly stepped down as a political leader. I thought it ironic he goes straight for Capitol Hill and meets House Speaker John Boehner and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.)

Most average American/Canadian do not know that the majority of the Tibetan Chinese do not live in Tibet proper. The majority of Tibetan Chinese live in Qinghai, Sichuan, Gansu, Yunan etc. This should give a better picture of the story. If one considers the first Tibetan Buddhist temple as the Jokhang Temple in Lhasa and study all the building dates of subsequent Tibetan Buddhist temples, the movement is from West to East of China. If you go back in history, it is the Tibetan King Songtsän Gampo who invaded Tang and demanded a princess in marriage not the other way. Eventually, a Tibetan king even sacked Xian, the capital of Tang. So in essence Tibet became part of China because of invasion by the Tibetan not the other way round. And similar to the Anglo-Saxon or Norman conquest, Tibetan became Chinese through their invasion.

To compare the Tibetan to the First Nations who was completely decimated in culture, language and religion by European settlers is incorrect. Are there any Native American in Europe? In China, the majority of Tibetan Chinese moved from Tibet to settle in other parts of China. Pretty much 99% of Tibetan speak their own native tongues and got schooling in their own languages. In China, over fifty languages are taught all over the country. The PRC even made the mistake of not introducing the common tongue language (Mandarin Chinese) to all minority, to the extend that a whole generation of minority who cannot speak the mainstream language has difficulty finding jobs in cities. This was corrected in the 1990s but this was interpret in the west as cultural genocide by the central authority. Can one imagine not able to speak English in the US/Canada, French in France, and German in Germany?

The Dalai Lama and his followers do not have any support in other part of China because they propagate the real racist and xenophobic agenda most westerners don’t want to see. They are advocating Tibet only for Tibetan while ignoring the Bai, Blang, Bonan, Dongxiang, Han, Hui, Lhoba, Lisu, Miao, Mongols, Monguor (Tu people), Menba (Monpa), Mosuo, Nakhi, Qiang, Nu people, Pumi, Salar, and Yi people who also made Tibet and surrounding regions home for hundred if not thousands of years.

And unlike European settlers in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, US where the natives are mostly suffering from substance abuse, high unemployment, high crime rate and lower life expectancy compare to those of other descent, in China, the situation is more equal with most minority groups ON AVERAGE having better access to opportunity than the majority. The present government of China is far from perfect but judging simply on minority treatment is still leagues ahead of those western countries I mention. The fact speaks louder than empty slogan.

And in real politics term, the Indian government are supporting the Dali Lama for their own gain. India has already annexed southern Tibet and renaming it Arunachal Pradesh. (Is there any international outrage?) So basically it is impossible for any Chinese government to not reclaim Tibet. If the present central government is to give up Tibet what are they going to do with the majority of the Tibetan who live in China, kick them out as illegal immigrants?

Categories: Analysis Tags:
  1. Charles Liu
    July 13th, 2011 at 00:55 | #1

    A simple comparison on life expectancy is a tell tale: average life expectancy for First Nation is around 45, while average Tibetan is 65.

  2. July 13th, 2011 at 06:22 | #2

    “Most average American/Canadian do not know that the majority of the Tibetan Chinese do not live in Tibet proper. The majority of Tibetan Chinese live in Qinghai, Sichuan, Gansu, Yunan etc.”

    Not true. Although it’s pretty close…according to 2010 census, there are 2,786,010 Tibetans in Tibet, and 5.4 million Tibetans in China overall. So, by a small margin, most ethnic Tibetans in the PRC live in Tibet AR.

    As for the rest of it…I’ve never been to Tibet, and I’d bet a fair amount the author of this post hasn’t either. My feeling has always been if Tibetans are so happy and everything is as great as the government says, why is travel there restricted for foreigners (or sometimes just banned outright), and forbidden completely for foreign reporters (unless they’re part of an official tour)?

    I’ve said before and will say again, making Tibet independent tomorrow would not solve the problems. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t problems, and denying them or repeating the Party line doesn’t help anything either.

    Bottom line: if there were really nothing to hide in Tibet, they wouldn’t be hiding it. And until I’m allowed to travel freely to Tibet — no tour gudies or government supervisors — and move freely within the province (no restriction to Lhasa and a few other “approved areas”, talking to whoever is willing to talk to me, no one is going to convince me otherwise.

  3. r v
    July 13th, 2011 at 07:37 | #3

    “Bottom line: if there were really nothing to hide in Tibet, they wouldn’t be hiding it. And until I’m allowed to travel freely to Tibet — no tour gudies or government supervisors — and move freely within the province (no restriction to Lhasa and a few other “approved areas”, talking to whoever is willing to talk to me, no one is going to convince me otherwise.”

    Chicken and Eggs.

    Until foreigners stop funding violent “uprisings” in Tibet, travel to Tibet by foreigners will naturally be restricted.

    War on Terrorism, BABY!

    If you have nothing to hide, then you shouldn’t mind being watched while you travel in China. 🙂

  4. raventhorn2000
    July 13th, 2011 at 08:07 | #4

    Charles Liu :A simple comparison on life expectancy is a tell tale: average life expectancy for First Nation is around 45, while average Tibetan is 65.

    Agreed, obvious comparison.

    I guess for some people, when the OBVIOUS evidence cannot be disputed, they go to the “you must be hiding something” argument.

    Oh yes, good life expectancy data “doesn’t mean there aren’t problems”, just means Canada and US have MORE problems despite all the human rights rhetorics.

    Why should any nation buy the “human rights” solutions, when they obviously don’t solve the problems?

    No thanks, sane people would look for solutions that actually works.

  5. Antioxidants
    July 13th, 2011 at 10:34 | #5

    Here is an interview with a Belgian who have been to Tibet multiple times and have engaged with the locals there. He told it what it is like there without mincing words.

    http://en.radio86.com/special-reports/tibet-50-years-after/tibet-today/jean-paul-desimpelaere-second-look-tibet

  6. Antioxidants
  7. July 13th, 2011 at 11:29 | #7

    Very enlightening interview.

  8. Ray
    July 13th, 2011 at 11:55 | #8

    @C. Custer
    C. Custer
    If you know anything about China you will know there is a household registry system in place. The Tibetan Chinese has been moving eastwards, go to any major cities in the east and you will see many Tibetan restaurants or handicraft stores, they usually still hold Tibetan registry. So the reality is more than half of Tibetan lived in other part of China. In case you don’t know anywhere for 1.2 to 1.5 million people from Taiwan work or study in Mainland China too. Over 700,000 South Korean also work and live there.

    “My feeling has always been if Tibetans are so happy and everything is as great as the government says, why is travel there restricted for foreigners (or sometimes just banned outright), and forbidden completely for foreign reporters (unless they’re part of an official tour)?”

    As you clearly pointed out, it is just your feeling not base on any factual basis. So can I say if the US keep on illegally occupying Cuba it is an imperial empire? And as long as the US/Canada/Australia/New Zealand cannot even set up 1 vernacular (native tongue) education for their native people they are all illegal colonizers? If Hebrew as a language that has not been spoken for over one thousand years can be revived why can’t any of the native languages be taught. This is like the pot calling the porcelain black.

    And why do you skirt the issue that ALL NATIVE PEOPLE in US/Canada/Australia/New Zealand suffered from substance abuse, high unemployment, high crime rate and low life expectancy? Explain to me why? If all those TI supporters are so concern about native right wouldn’t they start at their own backyards?

    Also why is it ok for India to annexed South Tibet(one of the Dalai Lama came from there) and Assam and no western press showed any concern? Like I’ve pointed out, Tibet became part of Tibet because the king married Tang princess and subsequent Tibetan kings have Tang bloodline. Subsequent kings also married Tang princess, one even went on to sacked Xian, the capital of Tang when he was strong. Tang emperors thus have a claim to the Tibetan throne, it was during Tang that Tibet became a part of China. That is also why China has no claim over Assam, Bhutan, Nepal, Myanmar etc because there is no such history.

    Bottom line: You are a hypocrite. And because you have imperialist leaning you are used to setting the goal posts and telling people what to do. Here’s some of the medicine you prescribed. Unless, the US government can revived all the native languages and restore the living standard of their native people that has been victims of genocide, this subject is no longer up for discussion. Nazi Germany tried to wiped out the culture, language and religion of an entire people and failed but the US succeed. That’s why US is one of the few countries refusing to sign the charter of native rights at the UN.

  9. Charles Liu
    July 13th, 2011 at 12:08 | #9

    @Antioxidants

    Hey Charles Custer, have you read the cite in comment #5?

  10. xian
    July 13th, 2011 at 13:03 | #10

    Cosmetic arguments, guys
    Comparisons aside, if a referendum was allowed in Tibet and the majority of Tibetans wanted independence, would you grant it to them out of moral kindness? I’m sure tons of First Nations would like their land back and become actual nations instead of titular ones, that’s even IF they were treated well.

    See, it’s not really about ethics. It’s about the course of civilization. No people start out with an empire or a ton of land. Expansionism is natural, as is resistance. China is not an exception, nor should it be.

  11. Charles Liu
    July 13th, 2011 at 13:19 | #11

    @xian

    Hence no such referendum has evern been offered to subjugated population, Tibetan or Native American or Northern Irish alike.

  12. July 13th, 2011 at 13:52 | #12

    Well said, xian:

    See, it’s not really about ethics. It’s about the course of civilization. No people start out with an empire or a ton of land. Expansionism is natural, as is resistance. China is not an exception, nor should it be.

    That’s really the bigger truth. If Hitler had won WW2, perhaps the whole of Europe might be called Germany today.

    However, the point of the OP is that even for those in the West who want to more narrowly compare Tibet to Native Americans, their argument still does not hold water.

  13. July 13th, 2011 at 13:55 | #13

    @Ray
    Nicely said.

  14. Antioxidants
    July 13th, 2011 at 15:22 | #14

    Ray asked that “why is it ok for India to annexed South Tibet?” Well, the Western nations might be ok for India to annex South Tibet, the Tibetans themselves certainly are not ok that part of their homelands are annexed by India. And they are on the record protesting it.

    Here is an excerpt from Maxwell Neville’s “India’s China War”.

    “…In 1950, India increased its control over Nepal and consolidated the “chain of protectorates” in the Himalayan states. Towards Tibet, the new Indian Government followed the British mission in encouraging Tibetan separatism. In its strategic and geopolitical thinking inherited from the British, the Indian Government continued the exclusion of China’s authority from Tibet and attempted to increase the Indian influence. The Tibetans hoped that the transfer of British power to the Indians would give them an opportunity to regain the territory that British took from them a century before. In October 1947, they formally requested India to return their territory from Ladakh to Assam, and including Sikkim. The Indians in return simply asked Tibet to continue the relationship on the basis of the previous British Government….”

    “…While maintaining the policy of friendship to China and advocating on behalf of China in the United Nations, Nehru ordered Indian administration to extend at the tribal belt beneath the McMahon Line through the North-East Frontier Agency. In a year, twenty posts were extended into NEFA, and several hundreds porters and escorts moved into Tawang without challenging the Tibetan administration there. The Indian government decided not to modify McMahon Line and push their boundary up from Se La to the McMahon Line. In response to the protests of the Tibetan authorities in Lhasa, the Indian officials stated that India was taking over Tawang. The Tibetans protested again that they “deeply regret and absolutely cannot accept” what the Indian government “seizing as its own what did not belong to it…”

    Here is the site to read Neville Maxwell’s “India’s China War” in its entirety,

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/12249475/Indias-China-War-Neville-Maxwell

  15. July 13th, 2011 at 16:57 | #15

    I like this short post. One of my biggest gripes against ethnically based politics (see e.g., my first post here, or this recent comment) – is that it leads to conflict rather than salvation. Once you divide, divisions will further arise, and you will have to divide again. The solution to the world is not to focus on the differences, but on building the common ground (see also my post pleading the Dalai Lama to stop playing divisional politics, or Yale Law School Prof. Amy Chua’s book “World on Fire”).

  16. raventhorn2000
    July 13th, 2011 at 17:38 | #16

    “See, it’s not really about ethics. It’s about the course of civilization. No people start out with an empire or a ton of land. Expansionism is natural, as is resistance. China is not an exception, nor should it be.”

    I would not be so quick to admit “expansionism” on part of China.

    Chinese history is one of many people and many tribes coming together. Not a single one of them can be said to be the “conquerer”, because it was a series of mutual fighting and mutual influences and mutual expansions.

    Tibet’s history merged into China’s, precisely because it fought many wars of conquest into old China, and China returned the favor.

    Tibetans themselves did not originate from Tibet, they were nomads who originated from Mongolia. They conquered Kingdoms in Tibet and took over, whereas those old cultures in Tibet died out or waned in influences.

    China was conquered many times by invaders, and Chinese changed its culture to adjust and change, as we adjusted and changed in the modern era.

    That is the way of survival.

    History has proven over and over again, that those who cling desperately and mindlessly to old ways (perhaps even Western nations) will become stone monuments to the dead, nothing more.

  17. July 13th, 2011 at 18:39 | #17

    Ray :
    @C. Custer
    C. Custer
    If you know anything about China you will know there is a household registry system in place.

    Yeah, but as anyone who LIVES in China would know, the 2010 census numbers are based on WHERE PEOPLE LIVE, NOT WHERE THEIR HUKOU IS REGISTERED. 😉

    Anyway, I regret to leave such a short comment…I will try to come back here later, but I’m working all day and just got an overtime assignment that means I will probably be working all night too, so I may not be back before the weekend. Until then, enjoy!

  18. Ray
    July 13th, 2011 at 20:39 | #18

    @C. Custer
    No, the newest census requirement is that anyone with 6 months residency is counted. So it is all on technicality. Again you are focusing on a 0.5% variable that will certainly moved in favour of Tibetan population moving eastward. Are you trying to deny this trend?

    So you are basically wasting all our time by arguing the non-essential. The crux of my argument is that the Tibetan has been moving eastward since Tang dynasty.

    Like all your posts, instead of tackling essential points, you like to focus on pointless arguments. The conclusion of the 2010 census is that population of China is moving from west to east.

    So of all things I wrote your only concern is on whether 50% or 49% of Tibetan are in Tibet. All those issues that concern their welware you totally ignore, very telling.

    And your whining that there is a restriction of travel in China is obviously not true. Answer comment #9.

  19. July 13th, 2011 at 21:58 | #19

    Ray :
    @C. Custer
    No, the newest census requirement is that anyone with 6 months residency is counted. So it is all on technicality. Again you are focusing on a 0.5% variable that will certainly moved in favour of Tibetan population moving eastward. Are you trying to deny this trend?
    So you are basically wasting all our time by arguing the non-essential. The crux of my argument is that the Tibetan has been moving eastward since Tang dynasty.
    Like all your posts, instead of tackling essential points, you like to focus on pointless arguments. The conclusion of the 2010 census is that population of China is moving from west to east.
    So of all things I wrote your only concern is on whether 50% or 49% of Tibetan are in Tibet. All those issues that concern their welware you totally ignore, very telling.
    And your whining that there is a restriction of travel in China is obviously not true. Answer comment #9.

    Right, so except Tibetans who moved in the last six months, everyone’s counted as living where they actually live. There’s no data on how many Tibetans moved in the last six months, but the most reliable data we DO have states that most tibetans live in Tibet AR.

    If there’s no restrictions on travel to and in Tibet, then please book me a ticket to Tibet. Be sure to mention that I’m a foreigner, and that I’ll be traveling freely like I would in any other province. I’ll be visiting some villages, traveling to a bunch of cities other than Lhasa, etc. Please get back to me when you’ve got this trip booked, if you can do it, I will happily go and I’ll even give you a 20% commission for the booking. Good luck!

    As for the rest of it honestly, you people (by that, I mean idiots) really do have trouble reading. Still wondering why I ignored the rest of what you said? Let me put it in bold this time for you:

    I regret to leave such a short comment…I will try to come back here later, but I’m working all day and just got an overtime assignment that means I will probably be working all night too, so I may not be back before the weekend. Until then, enjoy!

    Or, to put it another way: you said a lot, I don’t have time to respond to all of it right now, so I’m just responding to the first little bit for the moment. I don’t know if you guys have jobs or not, but if you do you’ll probably understand I can’t really spend half an hour composing replies to people all the time.

  20. July 13th, 2011 at 22:27 | #20

    @C. Custer

    Look, Ray is right, you are focusing on the difference like something between 50% and 49%, and that’s a fair criticism because your main response (comment 17) is that, despite it being short, and yes, despite you saying you have more to say.

    But, sure, please take care of your overtime assignment. We are all China geeks so we will be around. 😉

    You said:

    If there’s no restrictions on travel to and in Tibet, then please book me a ticket to Tibet.

    Your point is taken – for foreigners, it is more restrictive. You have ignored @r v #3 comment above however. Again, Ray’s point. Also, with many ‘activists’ itching for a jasmine revolution in China, don’t expect the Chinese government to be stupid.

    Again, you are focused on the incy wincy number. There is no restriction on Chinese nationals moving around is there?

  21. July 13th, 2011 at 23:00 | #21

    @Ray

    “If you know anything about China you will know there is a household registry system in place. The Tibetan Chinese has been moving eastwards, go to any major cities in the east and you will see many Tibetan restaurants or handicraft stores, they usually still hold Tibetan registry. So the reality is more than half of Tibetan lived in other part of China. In case you don’t know anywhere for 1.2 to 1.5 million people from Taiwan work or study in Mainland China too. Over 700,000 South Korean also work and live there.”

    From the National Bureau of Statistics of China:

    “I. Total Population Covered

    The census covered 234,829 residents from Hong Kong SAR, 21,201 residents from Macao SAR, 170,283 residents from Taiwan, and 593,832 foreigners residing in the territory of China and receiving census enumeration, totalling 1,020,145 persons.

    . . . . .

    VI. Composition of Nationality of Foreigners

    Of all foreigners covered, 120,750 were from the Republic of Korea, 71,493 the United States, 66,159 from Japan, 39,776 from Myanmar, 36,205 from Viet Nam, 19,990 from Canada, 15,087 from France, 15,051 from India, 14,446 from Germany, and 13,286 from Australia. The remaining 181,589 persons came from other countries.”

    These are the statistics from the 2010 census, and can be seen here:

    http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/newsandcomingevents/t20110429_402722638.htm

  22. Charles Liu
    July 13th, 2011 at 23:45 | #22

    Ray’s number is about right, where as FOARP seem confused about survey sample size. Shanghai alone has 500,000 Taiwanese:

    http://iask.sina.com.cn/b/8094187.html

  23. July 14th, 2011 at 04:20 | #23

    @Charles Liu

    Yeah, because a bunch of people on iask using unauthoritative 4-year-plus-old sources which disagree with each other (one says 200,000, another says 500,000, another says 1,000,000), about a single area of the country, applying different standards, are more accurate than a census covering the entire country, and everyone in it, which was completed less than a year ago.

    Here’s how Ma Jiantang, Chief Commissioner of the National Bureau of Statistics of China, described the census:

    “China conducted the 6th national population census with zero hour of November 1, 2010 as the reference time. Under the correct leadership of the Central Committee of CPC and the State Council, with the strong support of relevant ministries and local governments and the close cooperation from the media, through the painstaking efforts of about 10 million census workers and the active participation of 1.3 billion people of all nationalities, the field enumeration, check and post-enumeration survey of the census has been successfully completed, and data of high quality were obtained. At this press conference, we are to release major figures through advance tabulation.”

    Did the census cover the entire population of the country? The answer is yes – that’s why it’s called a census. Is it authoritative? The answer is that it is the most authoritative source available. Are Ray’s statistics incorrect? Since they are ten times larger than the census statistics for Taiwanese, and roughly five times larger for South Koreans, it would seem so.

  24. Ray
    July 14th, 2011 at 07:11 | #24

    @FOARP

    Like I’ve said earlier. The census count only those who stayed 6 months plus 1 day as residents. Many do it for tax reason. For example if they are from Taiwan, HK or Macau, and if they declared that their income is from the mainland they do not have to pay tax to their places of origin. And if they in turn reported to the mainland that they stay less than six months they also do not have to pay tax to mainland either.

    And you should know about the migrant workers. The figures that is correct in January would be different on February and so forth. Does anyone actually have the correct figures for this? No, it is commonly assessed to be around 60-120 millions.

    As for the number of foreigners, the census only listed those who have long term right of abode like those with a work or student visa. However, anyone familiar with China will know that hundred of thousands of S.Korean and African too somehow do business or work with a tourist visa. I highlighted those from S.Korea because they have the largest presence.

    The figures you listed do not take this fact into consideration. The figures for those from HK and Taiwan are way too low to be realistic. For example, a Taiwanese can easily get around it by staying 5 months in the mainland, 5 months in HK but he would still be considered a residence of Taiwan and not counted in the census.

    I find it funny that it is this residency issue that attracted the most respond to my article.

  25. July 14th, 2011 at 08:42 | #25

    @Ray

    From the National Statistics Bureau of China:

    “III. Duration of Stay

    Of the population covered, 103,754 persons stayed in China for less than 3 months, 90,078 persons stayed for 3-6 months, 143,210 persons stayed for 6-12 months, 183,001 persons stayed for 1-2 years, 249,668 persons stayed for 2-5 years, and 250,434 persons stayed for more than 5 years.

    IV. Purpose of Staying in the Mainland of China

    Of the population covered, 204,962 persons came to the mainland of China for business, 201,955 persons came for employment, 202,482 persons came for study, 186,648 persons came for settlement, 100,113 persons came to visit relatives, and 123,985 persons came for other purposes.

    . . . . . . . .

    Referring to population of residents from Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan and foreigners who had stayed, by the reference time of the census, for more than 3 months, or planned to stay for more than 3 months in the territory of China, excluding residents from Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan and foreigners who came to China for a short stay such as business trip or tourism. “Territory” here refers to the territory of customs, thus not including Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan.”

    Question: did the census only covers those resident for six months and a day on the reference date?

    Answer: No, it covered those resident for more than three months, as well as those resident for less than three months and planning to stay longer than three months at the reference date.
    Question: did the census cover only cover those on work or study visas?

    Answer : No, it also covered those resident in China who were visiting relatives or on other purposes, only those who were in China temporarily on tourist or business visit visas (both of which last three months or less) were excluded.

    Question: was this census, as with censuses in other countries, supported by the threat of sanction for false reporting?

    Answer: Yes – see Articles 26-31 of the Statistical Law of the People’s Republic of China as well as other laws and regulations.

    Question: is it likely that 90% of Taiwanese and 75% of South Koreans living, working, and studying in Mainland China are doing so illegally?

    Answer: Highly unlikely, no evidence supports this conclusion, least of all the crime statistics. It is likely that the census missed some through false reporting by respondents, but not that many. At the very least, no authoritative source has been cited to support this conjecture.

    Question: Should people visiting China on tourist or business visit visas be counted among those “living and working” in China?

    Answer: No. I visited Beijing last month on a business visit using the appropriate visa, by no stretch of the imagination was I “living and working” in China whilst I flew from one meeting to the next and lived in hotels.

  26. xian
    July 14th, 2011 at 09:19 | #26

    @raventhorn2000
    Well, regardless of how it’s done the acquisition of territory under a single culture or nationality that expands beyond its beginnings is expansionism in my book. The politically correct would have us believe that expansionism is an inherently evil thing and thus cause many to become ashamed of it. Personally I believe it’s a natural process of competition, and the more is usually better.

  27. July 14th, 2011 at 09:28 | #27

    I would only say that it is not “expansion” as it is more “integration”.

    China is not the result of 1000’s years of expansion. It is the result of 1000’s of years of integration.

    “Expansion” is a word of Western Colonial Imperial connotation, used to imply a negative meaning.

    In that sense, I object to the use of the word “expansion”.

    I would also say that Western notion of “expansion” IS inherently evil.

    Chinese version of “integration” is NOT, by contrast.

  28. xian
    July 14th, 2011 at 10:09 | #28

    Hmm, that leans a bit on the semantics side for me. When China was brought under Qin rule through force, was it conquest, or unification? It depends who you ask at the time. If a mass emigration of Chinese originating from the northern plains settled in southern or western China, is that colonization or integration? It depends if you ask the settlers or the natives. If one state attacks another, does it justify being annexed in retaliation? Maybe, maybe not. I could argue for either side of these, but that’s not the point. The key is to remove the moral ambiguity altogether and view things from a purely realpolitik standpoint.

    I don’t believe expansionism is particular to any people, expansionism even as defined by military conquest is clearly a human phenomenon practiced all over the world, and thus is a natural element of competing civilizations. Perhaps it isn’t the “nicest thing” to do, but it’s a reality most nations have experienced in the past. I’m not saying we should go out and declare China expansionist, as most people think emotionally and will only pick up on the negative connotation. However, as all people seek to assert themselves, it is only realistic and necessary for China to do the same in order to remain competitive.

  29. July 14th, 2011 at 10:31 | #29

    semantics is the essence of facts and lies. “Expansion” denotes 1 type of nature, “Integration” denotes another.

    When China was conquered, and it also conquered others, it is a 2 way military operation, not a 1 way expansion.

    “The key is to remove the moral ambiguity altogether and view things from a purely realpolitik standpoint.”

    I would say you need to start by removing some obvious semantic biases in the political dialogue, otherwise, no one can move on the conversation. By calling it “expansion” by China, the West essentially framed the conversation with China as the aggressor.

    I don’t think that’s a reasonable starting point for the conversation in understanding Tibet or China, because it ASSUMES something that is clearly erroneous.

  30. Ray
    July 14th, 2011 at 10:33 | #30

    “Answer: No, it covered those resident for more than three months, as well as those resident for less than three months and planning to stay longer than three months at the reference date.”

    Do you have any fact to back this up? So by your defination a Tibetan or Taiwanese who lived for three months in Beijing is counted as Beijing resident?

    “Answer : No, it also covered those resident in China who were visiting relatives or on other purposes, only those who were in China temporarily on tourist or business visit visas (both of which last three months or less) were excluded.”

    That’s exactly my point.

    “Answer: Highly unlikely, no evidence supports this conclusion, least of all the crime statistics. It is likely that the census missed some through false reporting by respondents, but not that many. At the very least, no authoritative source has been cited to support this conjecture.”

    No they did nothing illegal under present PRC law. You have to look at those from HK, Taiwan that has registered business or are business partners. A more proper way to get at this figures is to get the figures of local Tawian business assoiation. I sincerely believe that the figures for Shanghai alone is over 500,000.

    “Answer: No. I visited Beijing last month on a business visit using the appropriate visa, by no stretch of the imagination was I “living and working” in China whilst I flew from one meeting to the next and lived in hotels.”

    You are contradicting yourself here, in your first line the defination of residency you’ve used is 3 months!

  31. xian
    July 14th, 2011 at 11:21 | #31

    @raventhorn2000
    Yes, but again which term you choose to use depends on the definition you believe in or the person you’re speaking to. If by their definition China is expansionist, then it is undeniable that the West has been, and still is the most expansionist force in the world. Faced with such accusations, one can easily respond that way. This is not the point though. You are concerned with negative connotations because it is criticism, whereas I don’t care much what they say. Instead, China has no reason to be ashamed of past expansionism no matter how it was done, and in modern times should adopt a stance in line with expansionist policy simply because any good competitor would do the same. If the word is too unsavory, we can call it “growth”.

  32. July 14th, 2011 at 11:36 | #32

    You may not care what they say, but it is still an insult toward you.

    And an insult is not a good start for a conversation.

    Worst part, they don’t even realize that they are insulting you. They think they are being accurate.

    *So, that’s why, I suggest starting the conversation by changing the terminology, to make them realize that their perconceptions about China are fundamentally wrong, starting with their terminology.

    If you don’t change the terminologies, they think that you are agreeing with them, or admitting “expansion” in their definition.

    *I personally don’t think it is a matter of my feelings, shame or otherwise.

    It is a factual dispute over terminologies or semantics. They are using the wrong word with the wrong connotations to generalize 1000’s of years of Chinese history. That’s wrong.

    Obviously, more neutral words capture the complexity of Chinese history far more accurately.

  33. xian
    July 14th, 2011 at 12:49 | #33

    Fair enough, I agree on the dialogue front although I question if it will ever be possible to expect neutral or fair coverage on China. In terms of the present, I still think China should maintain on a path of steady, self-interested “growth”.

  34. raventhorn2000
    July 14th, 2011 at 13:15 | #34

    Don’t expect it, Demand it. It is only mutual honesty that we demand.

  35. xian
    July 14th, 2011 at 13:42 | #35

    Well I’ve never seen truly honest and fair media reporting even between friendly nations. That’s why I advocate disregarding media shenanigans and concentrating on actions.

  36. July 14th, 2011 at 15:36 | #36

    @Ray

    The hall mark of commentary on this blog is that, even when you present information from a primary source, and where there is no other authoritative source to disprove it, people refuse to accept the evidence as presented.

    This is shown not least by your insistence on asking “Do you have any fact to back this up?” when the NBSC website says, in an official statement:

    “Of the population covered, 103,754 persons stayed in China for less than 3 months,

    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    Referring to population of residents from Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan and foreigners who had stayed, by the reference time of the census, for more than 3 months, or planned to stay for more than 3 months in the territory of China, excluding residents from Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan and foreigners who came to China for a short stay such as business trip or tourism.”

    (my emphasis)

    Did the census include people who had stayed less than three months? It explicitly says that it did. Therefore, in answer to your question:

    “by your defination[sic] a Tibetan or Taiwanese who lived for three months in Beijing is counted as Beijing resident?”

    It is not by my definition, but by the definition used in the Chinese 2010 census, that a Taiwanese person who had lived in Beijing less that three months, but who intended to stay more than three months, was included in the census.

    “No they did nothing illegal under present PRC law.”

    Someone who works in China without the appropriate visa breaks the law, just as in other countries. See Articles 40-51 of the RULES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LAW OF THE PEOPLE’S
    REPUBLIC OF CHINA GOVERNING THE ADMINISTRATION OF ENTRY AND
    EXIT OF FOREIGNERS, particularly Articles 44, 45, and 47.

    “I sincerely believe that the figures for Shanghai alone is over 500,000.”

    Yet you cannot offer any evidence. The census is a primary source, it is not something which someone might register with and then forget to un-register with once they leave town.

    Even worse, for what you have said to be true, a massive fraud would have to have been committed against the census by at least a million and a half Taiwanese and Koreans. Are you really trying to argue that the most up-to-date Chinese statistics are false?

  37. scl
    July 14th, 2011 at 17:17 | #37

    Ray did not quote a single number in his post, except “Pretty much 99% of Tibetan speak their own native tongues …”. What he said is completely understandable without actually quoting numbers. Yet there are a bunch of posts about irrelevant numbers.

  38. July 14th, 2011 at 19:29 | #38

    @FOARP

    It actually showed your lack of understanding in this subject matter. If you have watched any news in Taiwan the often quote figure is 1.2 -1.5 million. It is you who keep on insisting they are commiting fraud. By being a business owners one can run business in China not requiring a work visa. These are just isolated link, if you use Baidu you would get pages after pages of info.

    http://club.china.com/data/thread/1011/2007/82/36/2_1.html

    据韩人会事务总长张兴石介绍,大约有30万到40万韩国人长期居住在中国,加上短期居住者,人数将更多。极东海运航空株式会社是较早经营中韩两国海运业务的公司之一,社长韩洪满说,如今每年起码有10万韩国人来华居住。到2008年前后,韩国在华侨民将达到100万。到2010年,在华韩国人有望超过200万。Number of S.Korean stated as close to 1 million.

    http://zhidao.baidu.com/question/79565207.html

    http://www.youku.com/show_page/id_z62641e20ebf111df97c0.html

    And if you are familiar with Guangzhou and Shenzen you should be familiar with chocolate suburb over there.

    So enough distraction. Are you now convinced that it is the Native American that has suffered a genocide?

    @scl
    Like I said “pretty much”. So if you want to disprove it show otherwise or come up with a figure. I am not forcing you to belive it but I do know less than 0.1% of native American can still speak their mother tongue.

  39. July 14th, 2011 at 20:19 | #39

    Anyway, this is a video interviews of Africans in Guangzhou. Take a look if you are interested. It clearly showed difficulty of getting work visa in China and some was in China many years using tourist visa.

    http://v.ifeng.com/society/200909/2d9b5b71-5407-4307-96ce-68ea267c7b58.shtml

  40. July 14th, 2011 at 22:56 | #40

    According to this government site, the life expectancy for indigenous people in Canada was 68.9 for men and 76.6 for women in 2000. But I’m sure the number that Charles Liu came up with at random is more reliable than that, so you guys may be on to something here.

  41. July 14th, 2011 at 23:03 | #41

    That’s why US is one of the few countries refusing to sign the charter of native rights at the UN.

    Are Tibetans an indigenous people? China is a signatory to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which states “Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” So, that means that the government of China has acknowledged that Tibet has a right to become independent, right? I can’t be very impressed with their willingness to sign this document if they are assuming its provisions to not actually apply in China.

  42. July 14th, 2011 at 23:28 | #42

    @Ray

    Except you still have not actually quoted an authoritative source, instead you are quoting 3-year-old South Korean news reports recycled by Chinese websites – news of dubious provenance including figures which appear to include people only temporarily in the country.

    The census counts everyone who has either been in the country for 3 months, or plans to stay more than 3 months, is measured not by statistical estimate but my going to every house an gathering raw data, and is enforced by force of law. It is the authoritative source, and it shows your data to be wrong.

    Basically, for your statistics to be correct, Chinese government statistics would have to be wildly wrong, and Chinese laws flouted en masse – is this really what you are trying to argue?

  43. Charles Liu
    July 15th, 2011 at 00:03 | #43

    @Otto Kerner

    Otto, my source is a Christian mission that works with these people:

    http://www.mnnonline.org/article/15918

    “According to Ron Hutchcraft Ministries, unemployment in First Nations communities hovers around 70%. The average life expectancy is 44 years old–30 years less than average. And, the suicide rate is astronomical.”

    Why is Canadian government’s figure so much higher? Possibly by surveying First People who were forced to abandon their culture and join Whiteman’s socieity and associated benefit such as better health care, true plight of the First People is masked by the Whiteman’s survey.

  44. Charles Liu
    July 15th, 2011 at 00:13 | #44

    @scl

    Exactely scl. BTW here are more evidence suggesting Ray’s figures are correct:

    http://taiwanmatters.blogspot.com/2007/12/how-many-taiwanese-live-in-china.html

    “China Times puts this figure at 750,000, defined as Taiwanese who resided in China for more than 180 days.”

  45. July 15th, 2011 at 02:36 | #45

    @Charles Liu

    Those figures are an estimate made by a newspaper quoted on a maniacally pro-Taiwan independence blog four years ago, in an article where they were criticising statistics similar to those cited (but not properly sourced) by Ray as being potentially inaccurate.

    You really don’t know how to do sourcing, do you? Are you really citing an article on a pro-Taiwan independence website that casts doubt on the high figures given for mainland-resident Taiwanese over the Chinese government’s own statistics?

    Look, either you think the PRC’s census statistics (reminder: 170,283 Taiwanese residents, and 120,750 residents from South Korea) are wildly inaccurate and that more than a million Taiwanese and South Koreans are breaking the law by lying to the census gatherers and working illegally in China, and that the Chinese authorities are doing nothing about this, or Ray’s stats, for which no authoritative source has been cited, are wrong.

  46. July 15th, 2011 at 06:31 | #46

    FOARP, you are just misreading statistics,

    The official statement said, (which you also quoted),

    “Referring to population of residents from Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan and foreigners who had stayed, …

    “by the reference time of the census, “

    …for more than 3 months, or planned to stay for more than 3 months in the territory of China, excluding residents from Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan and foreigners who came to China for a short stay such as business trip or tourism.”

    The reference time was zero hour November 1, 2010. The statistics was clearly gathered in a POINT-IN-TIME fashion, and cannot possibly account for ALL the short term “residents” from Taiwan and South Korea in China, NOT even for the whole year 2010.

    You “emphasize” on what you wanted to see from the statistics, and forgot to read the fundamentals, IE. when the statistics was gathered, what time frame.

    ***

    The official statement header:

    “National Bureau of Statistics of the People’s Republic of China

    April 29, 2011

    In accordance with the Regulations on National Population Census, China carried out its 6th national population census with zero hour of November 1, 2010 as the reference time.

  47. July 15th, 2011 at 07:10 | #47

    @raventhorn2000

    The argument is about people living and working in China. People who arrive on holiday or for a business trip are not residents, and should not be counted as living and working there – I have been saying this from the start. I have also been consistent in saying that it was the total at the reference time, not a total for all the temporary visitors during 2010, which is anyway not the figure being discussed.

    Therefore, it is entirely proper to say that the number of people South Koreans and Taiwanese living and working in the PRC is most accurately reflected by the census, and is not accurately reflected by estimates produced from e.g., visitor figures, and which anyway are out-of-date and not properly sourced. As I’ve been consistent in saying, were the figures given by Ray for South Koreans and Taiwanese people living and working at any one time on the mainland true, this would represent criminal activity on a massive scale, not least lying to the census collectors.

    I visited China on business this year, but I currently live in Poland – are you saying that I should be counted as a British person living and working in China? I should think not.

    Imagine if I did what Charlie has just done in my job:

    Boss: FOARP, how many patents were issued in China in this area of technology in 2010?

    FOARP: Well Boss, China’s SIPO website says they counted 120,000, but this random website from five years ago estimates based on the number of applications that there are really 1.2 million – so 1.2 million it is.

    BOSS: *Angry*

    FOARP: No, wait, there’s this other random website from four years ago that estimates that the number is 750,000 and probably not 1.2 million, so that supports it being 1.2 million.

    BOSS: *Fires FOARP*

  48. July 15th, 2011 at 07:37 | #48

    @FOARP
    Frankly, this is common knowledge. If people were to rely on Moody’s or Standard and Poor’s rating on US and European banking system, the financial meltdown of 2008 wouldn’t have occured. Did you ever bother using Baidu to seek out news video or articles etc.

    I will put this question to you since you are so official data obsessed. How many Taiwan, HK, S.Korean registered companies are in China now?

    From my interaction with businessmen there are 4,000 Taiwanese business in Beijing area alone and over 8,000 in Shanghai. For example the Shangri-la hotel group has plan to open up to a hundred hotels in the mainland alone.

  49. July 15th, 2011 at 07:54 | #49

    @Otto Kerner
    The life expectancy figure quote by Charles Liu is for US. And since you like figure, try look up the prison figures for Canada, the First Nation incaeration rate is THREE times there population figure. And in the US prison population are 2/3 minority.

    “Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” Yes, China allows that but under the law of the PRC. Outsiders who believe they are not citizens need not apply.

    Please tell me why rich countries like Australia, Canada, US, NZ cannot even teach native tongues education to them.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/prairies/shootings-open-old-wounds-in-hobbema-alta-aboriginal-community/article2093542/

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-failing-natives-on-education-child-welfare-advocate-says/article2096853/

  50. July 15th, 2011 at 08:26 | #50

    @Ray

    Once again, you have given us figures with no authoritative source. Instead you are merely telling us your feelings about what you think the figure “should” be based on your own experiences – the experiences of one person. The activities of the Shangri-La company are not relevant to the number of Taiwanese and South Koreans living and working on mainland China – it is a Hong-Kong based company with Singaporean origins.

    Since I used to work for Foxconn at their Longhua facility I also have my own experiences – progressive localisation meaning fewer and fewer Taiwanese working on the mainland. However, this is still only the experience of one person.

    The census, however, is an accurate count of the people working and living in mainland China. The figures it gives for Taiwanese and South Koreans is 170,283 Taiwanese residents, and 120,750 residents from South Korea. Unless you have authoritative evidence that the National Statistics Bureau of China is wrong, I suggest you accept these figures and move on.

  51. July 15th, 2011 at 08:36 | #51

    Charles Liu :@xian
    Hence no such referendum has evern been offered to subjugated population, Tibetan or Native American or Northern Irish alike.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_sovereignty_referendum,_1973

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_Belfast_Agreement_referendum,_1998

  52. July 15th, 2011 at 09:21 | #52

    @FOARP
    Frankly, I am not going to waste more time on this subject. If you have nothing constructive to post on the main subject you should end it here instead of arguing on technicality on subject which I have wrote in the comment section. It is obvious what I considered residence is not the same as you. My sis-in law and a few friends all work in China but they are not counted in the census.

    Basically, if you want to believe in a conclusive figure, you are a fool. There will never be an actual number be it in the financial meltdown, or number of people killed in WWII or recent Iraq war. You are basically skirting the main topic by arguing whether 300,000 people killed or 500,000 thousands people killed in Iraq.

    Did you bother to watch the video on the African in Guangzhou? If you do, you will no the figure is not in balck and white and is GROSSLY understated.

  53. July 15th, 2011 at 09:24 | #53

    FOARP :

    Charles Liu :@xian Hence no such referendum has evern been offered to subjugated population, Tibetan or Native American or Northern Irish alike.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_sovereignty_referendum,_1973
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_Belfast_Agreement_referendum,_1998

    EditMore OptionsMoveDe-linkModerateSpamBlacklistTrash

    Again according to the subject of this topic it should be whether Australia, Canada, NZ, the US should be allow to exist in its present form by your argument since they are all illegal entities by the standard of TGIE.

    Like I have said, what about the Tibetan in other part of China, are they all illegal immigrants?

    And did the Celtic people moved to Germany or Scandinavia during the Anglo-Saxon and Norseman invasion?

    So your comparison is not valid. Last but not least, most people here do not care what other people do in their own countries. They are only interested in China. The British can appoint a new Prince of Wales who is of Celtic, Anglo, Norman descent and most Chinese won’t interfere. In layman terms, the Bristish can do whatever they want and we don’t care so stop imposing it on others.

  54. July 15th, 2011 at 10:32 | #54

    http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/1603.pdf

    American citizen charged for inciting uprising online (terrorism).

    Was that a “peaceful uprising” until the FBI came to interview him? 🙂

  55. July 15th, 2011 at 11:03 | #55

    Ray :

    FOARP :

    Charles Liu :@xian Hence no such referendum has evern been offered to subjugated population, Tibetan or Native American or Northern Irish alike.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_sovereignty_referendum,_1973
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_Belfast_Agreement_referendum,_1998
    EditMore OptionsMoveDe-linkModerateSpamBlacklistTrash

    Again according to the subject of this topic it should be whether Australia, Canada, NZ, the US should be allow to exist in its present form by your argument since they are all illegal entities by the standard of TGIE.
    Like I have said, what about the Tibetan in other part of China, are they all illegal immigrants?
    And did the Celtic people moved to Germany or Scandinavia during the Anglo-Saxon and Norseman invasion?
    So your comparison is not valid. Last but not least, most people here do not care what other people do in their own countries. They are only interested in China. The British can appoint a new Prince of Wales who is of Celtic, Anglo, Norman descent and most Chinese won’t interfere. In layman terms, the Bristish can do whatever they want and we don’t care so stop imposing it on others.

    Actually, I have no opinion on Tibetan independence, I merely support the rights of those so inclined to express support for it if they so wish.

  56. July 15th, 2011 at 14:08 | #56

    Bullies think the world should be ordered by might when they are the bullies. They want to pick and choose the “rights” of whatever group or subdivision that suit them. This was the classic colonial divide and conquer habit of the last few centuries.

    The bigger truth is the world needs to come together in harmony – like the parents of a family cannot choose sides when two children get into an argument. Bullies will want to mock this way of thinking, but those who are not bullies in fact need to assert this is the better way to approach the world.

  57. Charles Liu
    July 15th, 2011 at 14:48 | #57

    @Ray

    Ray, there’s no point argue with foarse. the referendum he cited fails the criteria from xian, since the referendums were not limited to “indiginous” Northern Irish Catholics on joining Ireland, but also the Ulster unionists.

    I think by analogy China would welcome couple hundred years of Han population growth, then allow Hans in Tibet a vote. But that’s not what we’re talking about is it?

  58. July 15th, 2011 at 15:12 | #58

    YinYang,

    Most of the world outside of China — the Western world and India, at least; it’s hard to speculate about Africa and the Middle East or Japan — sees Tibet as clearly a case where China bullies a weaker people and justifies it on the basis of “might makes right”. But I’m sure you’re sure that they are all merely ignorant of the true realities.

  59. July 15th, 2011 at 15:22 | #59

    FOARP, you are such a hypocrite. Call me when the Western countries start to allow active political parties expressing support for secession on their own sovereign territory. Get real.

  60. zack
    July 15th, 2011 at 15:24 | #60

    i kinda doubt India of all countries would have anything to say about China’s policies in tibet; New Delhi’s own policies in kashmir for instance warrant its very own moral crusading but i don’t see any western media source championing kashmiri rights now do we?

  61. xian
    July 15th, 2011 at 15:43 | #61

    YinYang,
    That is righteous thinking, but unfortunately not realistic thinking. If you were the victim of a bully, do you believe being pacifist will end the bullying? I say you’d need to resist, grow stronger, and put yourself on even footing with your competitors. Doing those things will take a bit of assertiveness and aggression. It would be nice for the world to get along, but what circumstances would it take for the world to “come together in harmony”? Alien invasion? One world government? It’s just not plausible. So as long as we’re all jostling for position, it leaves one no choice but to remain a contender or be left behind.

    Otto,
    The point is that might doesn’t need to make right. Granted Tibet was not part of China from day one, but the process that has made Tibet part of China, mostly through intermarriages and political intrigue, is a far cry from outright military incursion seen in so many parts of the world. Sure, force has been used on both sides in the past, but as I said, expansionism and resistance are natural things.

    zack,
    I have seen sympathetic articles for Kashimiris, but you’re right in that it’s nowhere as one-sided as coverage on Tibet.

  62. July 15th, 2011 at 15:47 | #62

    @Otto Kerner
    Every country on this planet recognize China’s sovereignty over Tibet.

    “Might makes right” has to be drawn somewhere. Certainly, within the confines of a home makes sense. You wouldn’t want someone to talk nonsense to one of your children, arm him with a knife and tell him to stab whenever he is unhappy at home.

    Otto, you see how what you are pushing causes more harm around the world? Should the world empower Mexico to take back California and the Western U.S.? Should the Hawaiians ‘rights’ for independence be encouraged? Should you and I pack up and leave so the Native Americans can have their land back?

    Should the world take a U.S. state and make it home for the gay and lesbians?

    Any group of humans can be divided and made into enemies. Is that the type of world you want to perpetuate for our collective future?

    Is ‘independence’ the ONLY option for ethnic disputes within national borders?

  63. July 15th, 2011 at 15:53 | #63

    @xian
    I understand your point. Maybe I am idealistic. I still believe U.N. works, just not so well, because the U.S. being the sole superpower right now undermines it. Though, the U.S. tries hard to play by its rules too. I hope one day U.N. becomes strong so people can see its mechanisms are in fact better ways to deal with conflicts around the world.

  64. July 15th, 2011 at 17:02 | #64

    Otto Kerner :
    YinYang,
    Most of the world outside of China — the Western world and India, at least; it’s hard to speculate about Africa and the Middle East or Japan — sees Tibet as clearly a case where China bullies a weaker people and justifies it on the basis of “might makes right”. But I’m sure you’re sure that they are all merely ignorant of the true realities.

    EditMore OptionsMoveDe-linkModerateSpamBlacklistTrash

    Regarding Tibet status as a self-rule nation I have gave the reason of its integration into China.

    India has annexed South Tibet. Why didn’t TGIE protest? And if India is sincere about the right of self determination of those Tibetan exiles, it should give independence to South Tibet and allow the Tibetan exiles to move there and create a new nation. India supported TGIE on the condition that it create trouble for China. All I see is geopolitics at work here.

    Come on, let’s be real, there are over five hunded language groups in the world and only 193 countries. If each group is to get a country it would be WWIII. Europe wouldn’t be immune to it. Should the Basque has their own country? The Romansh in Switzerland?

    If the west is really so concern about native rights why didn’t the west voiced out the wiping out of the culture, language, religion (defination of genocide) of the natives in Australia, Canada, US and NZ. There’s still hope of revival but I see nothing being done. You can easily get Tibetan language news/programs/shows channel in China. Can you say the same for others?

    http://www.youtube.com/user/TibetanNews

  65. July 15th, 2011 at 17:20 | #65

    I am first and foremost a realist. Look at Timor-Leste. As soon as it got independence Australia took advantage of the situation and claim territory from Timor-Leste. And what about Diego Garcia, Christmas Island, Canary Island and Malvinas etc?

  66. jxie
    July 15th, 2011 at 19:36 | #66

    About the number of South Koreans in China, it is from the Wikipedia entry “Koreans in China”:

    “The number of South Koreans in China was estimated to be 300,000 to 400,000 as of 2006; at the 2006 rate of growth, their population had been expected to reach one million by 2008.[25] By 2007, the South Korean Embassy in Beijing stated their population had reached 700,000. However, due to the global economic downturn in 2008 and the depreciation of the Korean won, large numbers of those returned to South Korea. A Bloomberg News article initially stated the proportion as 20% (roughly 140,000 people).[28] Between 2008 and 2009, South Korean government figures show that the number of Koreans in China dropped by 433,000.[1] The Sixth National Population Census of the People’s Republic of China reported 120,750 South Koreans in Mainland China, the largest single foreign group.[29]”

    If you want, you can follow through the links and you may find out the methodologies of which they came up the numbers that are wildly apart. My suspicion is that the census did a rather poor job in collecting foreigners’ numbers, for reasons such as lack of communcations to the foreigners, and census workers with the foreign language skills, etc. I would think the South Korean government should know more their people than the Chinese census workers.

    I golf quite a lot in China in different places. Let me just say if there are only 120k South Koreans in China, they seem to all come out golfing on the weekends.

  67. July 16th, 2011 at 02:03 | #67

    @jxie

    I’ve only ever been to Mission Hills, a Taiwanese friend of mine in Longhua is a member there, but it’s a good course.

    I would not be surprised if the figure was 267,000 (700,000-433,000) for all Koreans in Mainland China including those temporarily in the country on holiday and business visits, and those giving false answers or being mis-reported on the census (although it really would be surprising if these were more than 10% of the total). I would be very much surprised if the figure was 700,000 for those living and working in China when the census measured a much lower figure. Same goes for the figures for Taiwanese.

  68. July 16th, 2011 at 18:41 | #68

    @FOARP #55,

    Actually, I have no opinion on Tibetan independence, I merely support the rights of those so inclined to express support for it if they so wish.

    Alas, I wish we could all be so neutral. I’ve written that when you support a “people” – you are rarely neutral. You have already predisposed yourself to calling a grouping of people a “people.”

    Would you support the Talibans in the above name – or are they just terrorists? Would you support the Libyan people – Would you condemn NATO for denying the right of the Libyan people – who are predominantly loyal to Kidaffi – of self determination in the above name? Would you support the Confederates in the above name – or are they just secessionists?

  69. July 16th, 2011 at 18:53 | #69

    @Otto Kerner #59,

    Not sure whether you know about the general rule that when you link to external sources, they are generally further the discussion.

    All the links show merely a mechanism for secession where the broader population already has conceded that right to the minority – and for the minority to decide. That’s never been the point of contention. If China ever wants to grant the Tibetans, the Taiwanese, the Bai, the Shanghaiists, the smokers in a particular region, the bourgeogeis to decided whether they want to suceed, I will not be opposed. That’s the perogative of the Chinese people.

    The problem we have with Western support of the Dalai Lama is his espousal of unilateral – externally supported, even imposed – secession. The mechanism for secession where the broader population has not conceded that right does not naturally exist in most societies. It certainly does not exsit in the U.S. Not under its Constitution. That’s why the Civil War was fought in the first place. Here is the direct quote from Abe Lincoln.

    “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it be freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.”

    (for a clearer perspective of the American Civil War and what it stands for, see this excellent analysis)

  70. July 17th, 2011 at 10:41 | #70

    Allen,

    In context, I was responding specifically to FOARP’s statement, “Actually, I have no opinion on Tibetan independence, I merely support the rights of those so inclined to express support for it if they so wish.” I provided a sardonic rejoinder, and I realized later that it could be readily misinterpreted by those inclined to do so: I never like to frame the discussion as “China should copy the politics of the Western countries!” because none of the Western countries has an ideal political system and in many ways they are seriously flawed. I do think the Western democracies currently (not in the 1860s) are admirable on this one specific point: they allow the expression of secessionist sentiment by organizations. Do Tibetans have the same freedom, simply to express their opinions if they happen to be in favor of independence, or to create clubs and associations to promote that idea? Of course not.

    The Western countries do not have an ideal model of how secession should actually be practiced in a civilized country, beyond simply allowing people to discuss their opinions about it freely. Maybe no such model is possible, but, in any event, it was not what I was talking about in the first place.

  71. Charles Liu
    July 17th, 2011 at 11:55 | #71

    @Allen

    I’m afraid you may be wasting your time with Otto. I doubt he will ever conceed the opinions purchased by NED around the world would rightly be illegal under our own laws (for example the 2008 Olympic tourch relay protests coordinated from DC, after german government sponsored meeting involving US State Dept):

    http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/fulltext/56145

    I actually agree with Foarp (gasp!) that Chinese pple should be allowed to have an opinino (and they do, evident from numerous comments in Chinese blogsphere), just my tax dollar shouldn’t be underwring China’s domestic politics like separatism or “a new constitution”.

  72. July 17th, 2011 at 20:26 | #72

    It’s ironic that you think it’s a waste of time to talk to me, but you also fundamentally agree with FOARP’s point, which is what I was agreeing with. My goal for participating in boards like this is never to convince the other people to change their opinions (which doesn’t come close to happening 99.99% of the time), but to understand their opposing views more clearly.

    I agree with you that the NED should stay out of China’s internal affairs, including supporting people like Liu Xiaobo. If the U.S. government was really willing to back Tibetan independence (or play hardball in support of meaningful autonomy), then they would simply declare that they will not treat Tibet as an internal issue. Unless they are willing to go that far (which they certainly are not), meddling from the NED does more harm than good on Tibet as well.

  73. July 18th, 2011 at 01:59 | #73

    YinYang :
    @C. Custer
    Look, Ray is right, you are focusing on the difference like something between 50% and 49%, and that’s a fair criticism because your main response (comment 17) is that, despite it being short, and yes, despite you saying you have more to say.
    But, sure, please take care of your overtime assignment. We are all China geeks so we will be around.
    You said:

    If there’s no restrictions on travel to and in Tibet, then please book me a ticket to Tibet.

    Your point is taken – for foreigners, it is more restrictive. You have ignored @r v #3 comment above however. Again, Ray’s point. Also, with many ‘activists’ itching for a jasmine revolution in China, don’t expect the Chinese government to be stupid.
    Again, you are focused on the incy wincy number. There is no restriction on Chinese nationals moving around is there?

    I’m not sure what the restrictions on Chinese nationals are. I’m inclined to say there are none, although I suspect that does not apply to the media. My guess — and this is just a theory — is that aside from the media currently stationed in Tibet, no one else is allowed to report on Tibet at all. So, while a Chinese reporter from, say, Beijing, could travel to Tibet, he couldn’t conduct research there, or issue reports, unless there were special circumstances.

    Again, that’s just a guess, but it’s not a totally uninformed guess as I have some friends in the domestic media and, as you’ll recall, have worked there myself. Anyway, I will ask around about this, because now I’m curious.

    Aside from that, I read the interview linked in comments #5 and #6….so what? I’m supposed to take the word of some random dutch guy I’ve never heard of? How is that any more credible than the People’s Daily, or a Free Tibet student group in the US? My point is, until I can freely travel there the way I could anywhere else in China, I’m going to assume they’re hiding something…why? Because they’re hiding the whole goddamn province, at least as far as foreigners are concerned. Domestic travel may be less restricted, but domestic travelers can’t write uncensored reports on Tibet and publish them, so that doesn’t do an awful lot of good.

    I’m not saying the situation in Tibet is bad or good or whatever — I really don’t know. But if you tell me that I can’t go anywhere in Tibet because some ethnic Tibetans rioted in 2008….well, I’m going to be pretty suspicious because (1) what does that have to do with me? and (2) there were riots in Xinjiang more recently, and I can still travel there easily and move around unrestricted.

    Anyway, if anyone wants to continue claiming travel to Tibet is unrestricted, my offer about the ticket from before still stands 😉

  74. July 18th, 2011 at 05:35 | #74

    “My point is, until I can freely travel there the way I could anywhere else in China, I’m going to assume they’re hiding something…why? Because they’re hiding the whole goddamn province, at least as far as foreigners are concerned.”

    Actually just to some foreigners. (and you don’t know the restriction until you tried, which you haven’t).

    And it’s “RESTRICTION” not “ban”, thus, not “hiding” anything.

    LOTS of US cities have “curfew restriction laws”. http://www.youthrights.org/curfewana.php. Are they “hiding” those cities, by your logic?

    🙂

  75. July 18th, 2011 at 05:50 | #75

    @Allen

    I wrote a great long comment arguing my position on each of the matters you discussed in your comment. However, I deleted it because 1) actually these are things we have discussed many times before and, 2) it was essentially just a long-winded way of saying this:

    – I support the rights of people to advocate separatism. I do not support incitement. The advocacy of separatism is not incitement per se and should not be defined as such. Many states have separated peacefully (the Czech Republic and Slovakia, Norway and Sweden, Montenegro and Serbia, Denmark and Iceland, etc.). Still less is mere advocacy of greater autonomy a violent act, even if greater autonomy may result in eventual independence.

    @Custer –

    “I’m not saying the situation in Tibet is bad or good or whatever — I really don’t know. But if you tell me that I can’t go anywhere in Tibet because some ethnic Tibetans rioted in 2008….well, I’m going to be pretty suspicious because (1) what does that have to do with me? and (2) there were riots in Xinjiang more recently, and I can still travel there easily and move around unrestricted.

    Quite. If travel to Tibet is restricted because foreigners might incite violence, then why isn’t travel to Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia also restricted? Why does the PRC government allow foreigners access to any of its territory if they are such a risk?

  76. July 18th, 2011 at 05:59 | #76

    “Quite. If travel to Tibet is restricted because foreigners might incite violence, then why isn’t travel to Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia also restricted? Why does the PRC government allow foreigners access to any of its territory if they are such a risk?”

    They were restricted in terms of curfews, just shorter in duration.

    Obviously, you are just comparing apples and oranges. Tibet had much longer history of violent “uprisings” and “incitement” from outside. Clearly, policies of restrictions must be tailored to the specific conditions of regions.

    *

    “I support the rights of people to advocate separatism. I do not support incitement. The advocacy of separatism is not incitement per se and should not be defined as such.”

    Yet, you don’t define the differences.

    Besides, who cares what your personal definitions are? When you go “vote” for your politicians, do you make them put their personal definitions down and decide if you agree with their “definitions”?

    NO. You see the word “adovcate” and you just assume it’s OK, and not some CIA backed “Operation FREEDOM ADVOCACY”.
    Gee, how many times has that happened in Western history?! LOTS!

    You don’t vote with your “definition” in mind, then what does your definition matter.

    So, forgive us if we don’t put much faith/stock in your “definition”.

  77. July 18th, 2011 at 06:06 | #77

    “But if you tell me that I can’t go anywhere in Tibet because some ethnic Tibetans rioted in 2008….well, I’m going to be pretty suspicious because (1) what does that have to do with me? ”

    Surely, you are not blind to the FACT of foreign sponsorship of Tibetan “uprisings” since 1959?

    Maybe you should be asking the CIA before you go to any foreign countries and demand that they come clean, so that you know what you are getting into.

    Who knows, tomorrow CIA might be financing a violent riot in Xinjiang, and you could be in the middle of it. (And the Chinese police might mistaken you for a CIA agent. Just see that CIA guy who got arrested for shooting 2 people in Pakistan).

    Now, that would be YOUR tax dollar at work!

    Hey, CIA is hiding lots of operations in other countries. If that doesn’t justify some suspicion of foreigners, what will?

    And you ask what does it all have to do with YOU?! Please! You were paying for the riots.

  78. July 18th, 2011 at 06:32 | #78

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia-pacific/armed-men-attack-police-station-in-chinas-xinjiang-province-killing-officers/2011/07/18/gIQAcfmcLI_story.html

    Armed terrorist attack police station in Hotan, Xinjiang.

    Speaking of restrictions in Xinjiang, you may get your wish.

  79. July 18th, 2011 at 06:33 | #79

    @raventhorn2000

    “Actually just to some foreigners.”

    Actually, according to anonymous travel agents quoted by the BBC, tourism travel to Tibet has been banned for all foreigners since the middle of June:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13798650

    The Nepalese media reports the same, but with direct quotes from tour operator organisations who have also appealed to the Nepalese government:

    http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=33116

    The ban is reportedly due to be lifted at the end of this month. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs neither confirms nor denies that this is what is being done.

    Even in ordinary times the regulations are as follows:

    “Non-Chinese passport holders (including those of Taiwan, Hong Kong SAR, Macau SAR and other countries) must have an Alien’s Travel Permit as well as a valid passport and a visa (Travelers from countries having visa exemption agreement with Hong Kong do not need a visa) to visit Tibet. A visa can be obtained from the local Chinese consulate in your country. Since the government encourages group tours to Tibet the permit is issued only to tour groups traveling with a Chinese tour operator. Your travel agency will represent you to facilitate the application process. A permit for Tibet usually costs around 200 Rmb. “

    And

    “Sensitive border are as such as Mt Kailash and eastern Tibet also require a military permit and a foreign-affairs permit. For Tholing and Tsaparang in western Tibet you will also need a permit from the local Cultural Antiquities Department. All these will be arranged by the tour agency if you book a tour. For remote places such as the Yarlung Tsangpo gorges or the Bonri Kora in eastern Tibet, or for any border area, you need the tour agency to get permits for you. “

    What are the requirements for being a tour guide?

    “Article 28 The guide must meet the following requirements:
    (I) Be a citizen of People’s Republic of China with firm political position, love the motherland, safeguard the unification of the motherland, fight against the secession, support the socialism system and observe the laws and regulations;

    http://www.xzta.gov.cn/yww/Essential/Regulation/default.shtml

  80. July 18th, 2011 at 06:40 | #80

    “Actually, according to anonymous travel agents quoted by the BBC, tourism travel to Tibet has been banned for all foreigners since the middle of June.”

    Wow, since June? according to “anonymous travel agents”? Geez, not much of a “ban” in my book. Given the continuing terrorist threats, I would have banned travels to Tibet from 1980.

    ““Sensitive border are as such as Mt Kailash and eastern Tibet also require a military permit and a foreign-affairs permit. For Tholing and Tsaparang in western Tibet you will also need a permit from the local Cultural Antiquities Department. All these will be arranged by the tour agency if you book a tour. For remote places such as the Yarlung Tsangpo gorges or the Bonri Kora in eastern Tibet, or for any border area, you need the tour agency to get permits for you. “

    That’s not a ban, you need “PERMITS”.

    Whose fault is it when you don’t want to bother to get the “permits”?

    Do you have something to “hide” by NOT wanting to get “permits”?

    🙂

  81. July 18th, 2011 at 06:52 | #81

    @raventhorn2000

    So, you’re saying that you think foreigners should be banned from China?

  82. July 18th, 2011 at 06:59 | #82

    No, I said banned from Tibet. AND it’s not a ban right now, because your quotes specifically said you need “permits” to travel to Tibet.

    I don’t know how you can misread my words, when I was being perfectly clear.

  83. July 18th, 2011 at 07:06 | #83

    @raventhorn2000

    The quotes also say that no permits are being issued at the moment. If I refuse to issue a permit, I stop you from going – not so?

    Anyway, as you say here:

    “Given the continuing terrorist threats, I would have banned travels to Tibet from 1980.”

    So the question must be, why ban travel to Tibet? If you would ban travel to Tibet, why not Xinjiang? Inner Mongolia? Why not the rest of China?

    Or could this possibly be because you, with your precious American citizenship (and tax-paying status) that you worked so hard to gain, would also be banned?

  84. July 18th, 2011 at 07:13 | #84

    DL held a teaching in DC.

    1 local reporter attended, found “mostly journalists and non-Tibetans attending”.

    I supposed DL has to survive somehow, might as well be a Tourist Attraction. (One that conforms, at least superficially, to the Church of Western Democracy, as a symbol of the benevolent “tolerant” “diverse” orthodoxy that sends CIA agents to do regime changes all over the world).

    *
    Symbols are sometimes more revealing, because they say the OPPOSITE of the reality, and in themselves, the symbols of Orwellian new reality.

    What is DL, but a symbol of the facade of Democracy?

    One of Tolerance that sponsors terrorisms and dictators? (DL has admired Mao and Bush Jr.)

    One of Democracy that must resort to violent regime change and starving economic sanctions? (DL has funneled money to his family and the nobles in Exile, while letting his refugee followers mire in joblessness and high infant mortality, AND persecuted the followers of the Shugden Dorjee Sect).

    *Greater the symbol, the greater the facade.

  85. July 18th, 2011 at 07:20 | #85

    “One of Tolerance that sponsors terrorisms and dictators? (DL has admired Mao and Bush Jr.)”

    May I now infer that you believe Mao Zedong to have been a terrorist and a dictator? I think I now understand your reasons for leaving China and taking up American citizenship.

  86. July 18th, 2011 at 07:20 | #86

    “If I refuse to issue a permit, I stop you from going – not so? ”

    No, “no permits are being issued at the moment” is just that. I don’t know why you bother to reinterpret the words to mean more than what they are.

    Did you apply for a permit and were told that they don’t issue permits?

    Hey, if no one apply for permits, then “NO PERMITS are being issued at the moment”!!

    *
    “So the question must be, why ban travel to Tibet? If you would ban travel to Tibet, why not Xinjiang? Inner Mongolia? Why not the rest of China? Or could this possibly be because you, with your precious American citizenship (and tax-paying status) that you worked so hard to gain, would also be banned?”

    I would ban travel to all those places for all foreigners, for any place that foreign nations have sponsored terrorism in.

    And your 2nd statement is amounting to personal attack. Be warned, such comments will be moderated.

  87. July 18th, 2011 at 07:22 | #87

    “May I now infer that you believe Mao Zedong to have been a terrorist and a dictator?”

    No, you may not “infer”. I said no such thing. I only pointed out DL’s own supposed devotion to Democracy, and yet admiring Mao.

    You may “infer” that DL has no logical consistency, much like the “democracy” he pays lipservice to all the time.

  88. July 18th, 2011 at 07:29 | #88

    “I only pointed out DL’s own supposed devotion to Democracy, and yet admiring Mao.”

    Perhaps you should explain why exactly people in China shouldn’t admire Mao?

  89. July 18th, 2011 at 07:35 | #89

    “Perhaps you should explain why exactly people in China shouldn’t admire Mao?”

    Why should I explain something I didn’t write?

    You are continuing to divert from the topic by implying things I didn’t write.

  90. July 18th, 2011 at 07:47 | #90

    “I would ban travel to all those places for all foreigners, for any place that foreign nations have sponsored terrorism in.”

    Are you therefore conceeding that foreign nations have not sponsored terrorism, spying, subversion etc. outside Tibet?

    Again: if you believe all foreign citizens, regardless of nationality, background etc., to be a potential threat to China, why not ban them from the whole country?

    Do you, as a tax-paying American citizen, think you should be banned from anywhere where you believe foreign governments have engaged in the sponsoring of subversion? Even if this includes Beijing, Shanghai, Chengdu and other cities in which individuals accused of foreign-sponsored subversion on this blog and elsewhere (such as Liu Xiaobo) have lived?

  91. July 18th, 2011 at 08:00 | #91

    “Are you therefore conceeding that foreign nations have not sponsored terrorism, spying, subversion etc. outside Tibet? ”

    I said no such thing. I don’t explain your logical fantasies.

    “if you believe all foreign citizens, regardless of nationality, background etc., to be a potential threat to China, why not ban them from the whole country? ”

    I don’t make such blanket generalizations about “all foreign citizens”. And frankly, you are being ridiculously disproportional.

    “Do you, as a tax-paying American citizen, think you should be banned from anywhere where you believe foreign governments have engaged in the sponsoring of subversion? Even if this includes Beijing, Shanghai, Chengdu and other cities in which individuals accused of foreign-sponsored subversion on this blog and elsewhere (such as Liu Xiaobo) have lived?”

    All foreigners should banned from contacting Liu Xiaobo. But Liu Xiaobo does not occupy ALL OF Beijing. It’s quite obvious where Liu is. Why should foreigners be banned from where Liu ISN’T located? I don’t think the Chinese government is paranoid like you about mere proximity of foreigners in the same cities.

  92. July 18th, 2011 at 08:08 | #92

    @raventhorn2000

    “All foreigners should banned from contacting Liu Xiaobo. But Liu Xiaobo does not occupy ALL OF Beijing.”

    May I therefore infer that Tibetan people are at risk from meeting foreigners in a way that Beijingers are not? Just why would that be?

    I might also ask, if you believe your government, to which you pay taxes, to be so terrible, then why do you still pay taxes? Why do you still keep your US citizenship?

    Unlike most Americans, you still have the alternative of renouncing your American citizenship and taking up Chinese citizenship – why don’t you do this?

  93. July 18th, 2011 at 08:12 | #93

    “May I therefore infer that Tibetan people are at risk from meeting foreigners in a way that Beijingers are not? Just why would that be?”

    Longer history of foreign sponsorship of violence in Tibet, longer history of terrorism activities in Tibet. OBVIOUSLY!

    “I might also ask, if you believe your government, to which you pay taxes, to be so terrible, then why do you still pay taxes? Why do you still keep your US citizenship? Unlike most Americans, you still have the alternative of renouncing your American citizenship and taking up Chinese citizenship – why don’t you do this?

    NO, you may NOT ask personal questions as personal attacks against other commentors in this forum. (I don’t care who you think you are, you pay taxes to governments, as YOU did in China. By your logic, your money is being used to restrict YOUR travels in China. Suck it up and deal with it!!)

  94. July 18th, 2011 at 08:20 | #94

    “Longer history of foreign sponsorship of violence in Tibet, longer history of terrorism activities in Tibet. OBVIOUSLY!”

    I know you are tiring of my inferences, but if, in your view, Tibet has a longer history of foreign-sponsored violence than Beijing or elsewhere in China, then this implies that, in your view, there is foreign-sponsored violence in the rest of China.

    “NO, you may NOT ask personal questions as personal attacks against other commentors in this forum. (I don’t care who you think you are, you pay taxes to governments, as YOU did in China. By your logic, your money is being used to restrict YOUR travels in China. Suck it up and deal with it!!)”

    This is the first time I have heard an American saying that being described as a tax-paying American citizen is a personal attack, but then one discovers new things every day.

  95. July 18th, 2011 at 08:39 | #95

    “I know you are tiring of my inferences, but if, in your view, Tibet has a longer history of foreign-sponsored violence than Beijing or elsewhere in China, then this implies that, in your view, there is foreign-sponsored violence in the rest of China.”

    Of course, “there is foreign-sponsored violence in the rest of China”. What do you think the 2 Opium Wars were all about?? Such a generalized statement doesn’t say any thing about amount and type of specific threats in the rest of China, NOR what kind of responses may be prudent and logical.

    What are YOU trying to say? Any tiny amount of threat would justify a total lock down of the whole country? I think you are being ridiculous.

    *
    “This is the first time I have heard an American saying that being described as a tax-paying American citizen is a personal attack, but then one discovers new things every day.”

    You again infer things I didn’t say. You are making all kinds of wild inferences about my paying taxes. Did you pay taxes when you were in China? Then your inferences apply to you. ASK yourself those questions!!

    Your questioning me are personal attacks, and have nothing to do with the topic of this thread, BECAUSE you don’t ask yourself the same questions, nor apply the same inferences to yourself.

  96. July 18th, 2011 at 09:00 | #96

    Here’s the naturalisation oath of the United States:

    “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

    I wonder – without getting personal, and talking only in general terms, how could anyone who believes the US to be a sponsor of terrorism take the above oath? Particularly the part about having no mental reservation? And how could any Chinese patriot renounce all allegiance to China?

    As for me – well, I paid my taxes, and then I left the country. I did not take up PRC citizenship, or give up my own, and made no commitments beyond those that come from having friends and colleagues in the country.

  97. July 18th, 2011 at 09:07 | #97

    FOARP, how about showing some dignity? Stop putting words into other peoples mouth.

  98. July 18th, 2011 at 09:07 | #98

    Well, you stilled paid taxes in China, despite your citizenship and beliefs.

    So what does that say about your beliefs?

    And BTW, the OATH of allegiance is to the country of USA, not to any specific government, or its policies, or the belief that a policy is wrong, ESPECIALLY when the policy is SECRETIVE in nature.

  99. July 18th, 2011 at 09:11 | #99

    FOARP, now you are getting desperate in your argument. You said:

    I wonder – without getting personal, and talking only in general terms, how could anyone who believes the US to be a sponsor of terrorism take the above oath?

    Very simple, because we want the U.S. to do better, and given her position in the world, she can lead it towards more peace. That strengthens America.

  100. July 18th, 2011 at 09:53 | #100

    Speaking of OATHS.

    How many US politicians take oaths of office seriously?! Or do they lie, cheat, bribe, corrupt their way to the top, with their own self-interests serving as the only guidance?

    Do Americans take oaths and then do something different?

    Domestic terrorism, racism, corporate corruption, etc., technically, they all violate some “oaths”. And sponsoring foreign dictators, rendition, etc., I’m pretty sure the CIA is violating its “oaths” all over the place in the name of its own “loyalty”.

    As for my “allegiance”? I am loyal to ME, MYSELF, and I. I ALWAYS do what’s “best” for EVERYONE in the world.

    🙂

  101. July 18th, 2011 at 10:13 | #101

    Speaking of OATHS for FOARP,

    Your home country has a “1-China” policy, which you should be “loyal” to.

    I don’t know how you can sleep at night, knowing that your beliefs contradicts to your home country’s policy.

    Oh, do I infer that you spin your belief in some way that doesn’t contradict your home country’s policies? Something about your “support” and your “disagreements” with your government, perhaps?

    No wonder you expect such BS also from “free media”, Just look at your own above comments, replete with wild inferences, implications, distorting what others say, and of course, questioning other people’s “motives” in spite of similar contradictions from yourself.

    “without getting personal, and talking only in general terms,” you are stuffed full of “CNN-glish”.

    (I copyright and trademark the word, “CNN-glish”, but give fair use to non-profit purposes.) 🙂

  102. July 18th, 2011 at 10:25 | #102

    FOARP,

    Incidentally, even the premise your personal attacks against me were off mark.

    I think you got me confused with Charles Liu, who is a US citizen, I believe.

    But it was rather funny watching you going on a long limb on a tall tree.

  103. July 18th, 2011 at 10:34 | #103

    World Uyghur Congress changes stories on the attack/riot on police station in Xinjiang.
    Initially, the story broke out, the WUC explained that the “police opened fire on the peaceful demonstrators” first.

    Then, then WUC changed the explanation saying, when the local government refused to answer to the mob about some people who were arrested, “The local people got angry and attacked the police station”.

    Hmm….

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-china-rioters-clash-20110718,0,7161964.story

    Dilxat Raxit of the World Uyghur Congress told Reuters that police opened fire on peaceful demonstrators, which sparked the fighting.

    “The people cannot stand the government’s repression any longer,” he told the news agency.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/world/asia/19china.html?_r=1

    Dolkun Isa, The secretary general of the World Uighur Congress, the exile group based in Germany, said in an interview that the assault on the station took place after a crowd of perhaps 100 Uighur protesters massed there to complain about arrests of young men.

    Mr. Isa said that, judging by scattered reports, security officers have been cracking down in the last two weeks, searching Uighur homes and detaining many men and boys. Similar crackdowns, called “strike hard” exercises by Chinese officials, have been mounted occasionally in recent years to root out people who might foment unrest.

    Supporters of the detained youths gathered at the station and “asked for the local government to release their friends and family,” Mr. Isa said. “But the local government refused to give an answer. The local people got angry and attacked the police station, and some people were killed.”

  104. July 18th, 2011 at 10:36 | #104

    I guess pass on 2 different versions of BULLSH*T, and see which bowl the people of the West will swallow.

    🙂

  105. raventhorn2000
    July 18th, 2011 at 15:15 | #105

    Surprise, WUC’s story changes AGAIN, (or just more Bullshit passing, or passing gas by “Western New Agencies”): (now it’s “illegal land seizure”?! Do I sense the flimsiest sort of connecting the dot wildly by some tabloid pencil pusher?!)

    Funny quote of the day:

    “People of Earth, your attention, please. This is Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz of the Galactic Hyperspace Planning Council. As you will no doubt be aware, the plans for development of the outlying regions of the Galaxy require the building of a hyperspatial express route through your star system. And regrettably, your planet is one of those scheduled for demolition. The process will take slightly less than two of your Earth minutes. Thank you.

    There’s no point in acting surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for 50 of your Earth years, so you’ve had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it’s far too late to start making a fuss about it now. … What do you mean you’ve never been to Alpha Centauri? Oh, for heaven’s sake, mankind, it’s only four light years away, you know. I’m sorry, but if you can’t be bothered to take an interest in local affairs, that’s your own lookout. Energize the demolition beams.”

    -Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.

    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/china/Xinjiang-erupts-again-many-killed/articleshow/9278022.cms

    Western news agencies add that overseas Uighur activist group said the violence stemmed from illegal land seizure, followed by protests against it.and that more than 100 Uighurs had gathered to demonstrate against alleged illegal land seizure and to demand information about their kinsmen who they said had disappeared amid police crackdown in Uruqmi, Xingjian’s capital, in 2009.

  106. July 18th, 2011 at 18:29 | #106

    raventhorn2000 :
    “My point is, until I can freely travel there the way I could anywhere else in China, I’m going to assume they’re hiding something…why? Because they’re hiding the whole goddamn province, at least as far as foreigners are concerned.”
    Actually just to some foreigners. (and you don’t know the restriction until you tried, which you haven’t).
    And it’s “RESTRICTION” not “ban”, thus, not “hiding” anything.
    LOTS of US cities have “curfew restriction laws”. http://www.youthrights.org/curfewana.php. Are they “hiding” those cities, by your logic?

    Fine, book me a ticket then. If it’s just some foreigners, it should be easy to get me a ticket, right? After all, I’ve got a perfectly valid visa…I’m not on any watch lists…no criminal record in the PRC or in the US…and in fact I’ve worked for state owned companies on several projects designed to increase the understanding of China abroad. So if there’s no ban, you should have NO TROUBLE getting me a ticket. I look forward to hearing from you about it.

    Also, how do you know I haven’t tried? You don’t know a goddamn thing about me, and you’re making yourself look like an idiot. I have, in fact, tried twice to visit Tibet. The first time was back in ’09, and then again earlier this year. Both times I was advised that it was currently impossible for foreigners to visit.

    But of course, even when Tibet is “open”, only Lhasa and a few other tourist locations are open. The VAST majority of the province is not open to foreigners, ever. And the parts that are open are open only if foreigners are traveling with a government-approved tour guide.

    But the two times I’ve tried to go I’ve been told by the folks who run the travel agency that it’s not possible for foreigners to visit Tibet at this time. I will try again the next time I’ve got some time off of work, but that probably won’t be until next year as I just took a new job.

    (As for your comparison of a ban on travel to an entire province to curfew laws that prevent anyone from being on the streets for a few hours in a few neighborhoods of a few cities….please. That’s pathetic. To quote Bubbles from The Wire, “You equivocatin’ like a motherfucker.”)

  107. Antioxidants
    July 18th, 2011 at 20:34 | #107

    @C. Custer,

    “Fine, book me a ticket then…And the parts that are open are open only if foreigners are traveling with a government-approved tour guide…”

    Hi Mr/Mrs Custer, Great! I have some good news for you. Here is a local travel agency offering different travel packages in Tibet. They are run by French nationals residing in China and according to their website, they manage the whole thing themselves without government-approved tour guide. Here is what they said in the site:

    “We ensure that the people we work with (guides, drivers, cooks) are all Tibetan and we have 6 Tibetan partners, each of whom specialize in a different region of Tibet…”

    Here are the links:

    http://nicelymadeinchina.com/2011/05/28/global-nomad-travel-agency-lhasa-%E6%8B%89%E8%90%A8/

    http://www.globalnomad-tibet.com/

    Hope you have a good traveling experience and make sure to tell us what it is like there.

    @C. Custer

  108. July 18th, 2011 at 21:33 | #108

    I can never tell what the rules are with Tibet. A friend (an American) that I knew in China a few years ago told me that one of her friends (also not Chinese) had lived in a middle-of-nowhere small town in Tibet for a few months. I think that would have been 2002-03 or so. Totally anecdotal, of course, and I might not even be getting the detail of what I was told right.

    When I went to Tibet in 2006, there was supposedly a permit required, but I just bought a plane ticket and entered TAR normally without anyone ever saying anything about the permit. Of course, no harm came from it, since the NED and the Research & Analysis Wing had somehow forgotten to recruit me for subterfuge beforehand, so I didn’t even bother to try to undermine China’s sovereignty while I was there, let alone succeed in tricking the people into counter-revolution.

  109. July 18th, 2011 at 22:00 | #109

    They aren’t doing trips now, because Tibet is closed to foreigners, although it will supposedly open again on the 26th. As for the Tibetan guides, sure, they can offer that but (1) those guides may be government approved and (2) it doesn’t say anywhere that the Tibetan guide is the ONLY guide. Or that you can travel freely because you can’t.

    Now, it’s possible the guide restrictions have changed since the last time I looked into that very seriously (which was ’08, I didn’t bother this year because if Tibet’s closed anyway what’s the point…). But the restrictions on movement are still very much real, and it seems probably even more restrictive than I originally suggested….see, for example, this recent thread from the Thorn Tree forum, which is THE source for up-to-date information for foreigners traveling in China (and many other places too):

    http://www.lonelyplanet.com/thorntree/thread.jspa?threadID=2073289

    The highlights: Tibet is closed till July 26th, supposedly. Additional, some areas of Sichuan that are majority ethnic Tibetan are also closed: “all counties of western Sichuan in Ganzi Prefecture (Kham) are closed to foreign travelers. The only exception is Kangding (Dartsendo) town and Moxi, near the glaciers at Hailuogou. This closure started a week ago and will last at least until the end of the month.”

    Or check this report from a Tibet travel blog http://kekexili.typepad.com/:

    UPDATED JULY 14, 2011

    Currently, all prefectures of the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR), including Lhasa, are closed to all foreign travelers. Permits stopped being issued last week and the reports from Lhasa indicate that permits will not start being issued again until at least July 25 of this year. Of course, officially Tibet is “open” according to most Chinese consulates, embassies and even the Tibet Tourism Bureau, but in reality it is closed with no permits being issued. If you are looking for any official news of this, you probably won’t find it. This year marks the 60th anniversary of the “peaceful liberation of Tibet” and celebrations are scheduled to take place through the TAR. Foreigners are not being allowed to the region in case there are protests (or worse) during the anniversary celebrations. If you have booked a tour to Tibet between now and late July, I strongly suggest contacting your agency for a refund or moving your tour to later this summer or fall when the area reopens.

    and on Sichuan:

    On July 9, 2011, the Kangding police reported to Zhilam Hostel that all 18 counties of Ganzi Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture in western Sichuan is closed to foreign travelers. The only place that remains open is Kangding town. All other areas are supposedly closed, but I did not see any checkpoints on a recent trip to Litang. As of yesterday, there was a checkpoint along the way from Chengdu to Kangding and numerous checkpoints throughout western Sichuan. The Ganzi Prefecture government has said the closure will last until July 31st, 2011. All other Tibetan regions found in Qinghai, southwest Gansu and northern Yunnan remain open, at least for now.

    …This is why I said BOOK TICKETS, not just “find some link promising travel in Tibet.” Obviously, it is possible sometimes, and I hope with this stupid anniversary almost over, maybe it will be open for a while once it re-opens. But the movement restrictions still apply as far as I know, and as you can see above, for a foreigner to even go, one needs a travel permit, which isn’t true for any other province in China.

    So again…if there’s nothing to hide, why bother with all the red tape, the openings and closings? June and July are HUGE tourist seasons, I’m sure the tourism industry there loses millions every day foreign tourists aren’t issued travel permits…so there’s got to be a significant reason they’re willing to undertake that huge economic loss, right? But what is it?

    Tourists, even foreign ones, don’t cause ethnic trouble and riots. When the riots happened in ’08, it had nothing to do with foreign tourists. I can’t think of a signle ethnic incident ANYWHERE in China that was related to foreigners visiting the area…so, logically, we can conclude that they’re not afraid of what foreigners will do in Tibet, they appear to be afraid of what they might SEE there and the stories they might bring out…

  110. July 18th, 2011 at 22:02 | #110

    Otto Kerner :
    I can never tell what the rules are with Tibet. A friend (an American) that I knew in China a few years ago told me that one of her friends (also not Chinese) had lived in a middle-of-nowhere small town in Tibet for a few months. I think that would have been 2002-03 or so. Totally anecdotal, of course, and I might not even be getting the detail of what I was told right.
    When I went to Tibet in 2006, there was supposedly a permit required, but I just bought a plane ticket and entered TAR normally without anyone ever saying anything about the permit. Of course, no harm came from it, since the NED and the Research & Analysis Wing had somehow forgotten to recruit me for subterfuge beforehand, so I didn’t even bother to try to undermine China’s sovereignty while I was there, let alone succeed in tricking the people into counter-revolution.

    What a wasted trip.

  111. July 19th, 2011 at 00:20 | #111

    I traveled to Tibet for over a week at end of 2009 when it was supposed to be closed. It was beautiful. Hired some local guides and met many many friendly people. Went on a pilgrimage of local monasteries – going over several peaks over 4200 meters (if my memory serves) – camping and living in locals’ homes over a stretch of 5 days. One of my guides grew up in the exile community – risking his life to “escape” when he was 13 – and coming back when he was 21. He doesn’t have children yet, but sees no point of the current generation doing so now – now that the gov’t provides universal education. I’d love to post pictures, but since I never explicitly obtained permissions from people I met to post their pictures on blogs, I have erred on the side of caution.

  112. July 19th, 2011 at 05:33 | #112

    “Fine, book me a ticket then. If it’s just some foreigners, it should be easy to get me a ticket, right?”

    Why should I do your work? What are you? A “Communist”?

    Who said anything about “easy”? What are you suggesting? Are you trying to bribe me to get you through the backdoor?

    Hey, GET IN LINE with the rest.

    If it’s too tough, complain to your own “Riot Sponsoring Agencies” funded by your own tax dollars.

    “Also, how do you know I haven’t tried?”

    Because you didn’t know the difference between a ban and a restriction, and you were making assumptions.

    “But of course, even when Tibet is “open”, only Lhasa and a few other tourist locations are open.”

    I don’t see any citations from you about any of your assumptions here.

    “But the two times I’ve tried to go I’ve been told by the folks who run the travel agency that it’s not possible for foreigners to visit Tibet at this time.”

    Of course, you take the word of the Chinese travel agents, like you take the word of the Chinese government? REALLY!

    Maybe it’s your personality? as you say, “you’re making yourself look like an idiot.” And maybe they JUST DON’T like you as a person!!

  113. July 19th, 2011 at 05:56 | #113

    “Of course, no harm came from it, since the NED and the Research & Analysis Wing had somehow forgotten to recruit me for subterfuge beforehand, so I didn’t even bother to try to undermine China’s sovereignty while I was there, let alone succeed in tricking the people into counter-revolution.”

    Otto, I never took you to be stupid enough to get involved with NED.

    But hey, if you want a career as a patsy, I’m sure they will call you soon enough.

    Oh sure, you can take that gun into Tibet. No one will know! Righhhhttt…..

    Oh and take those “independence flags” in with you. You can hand them out on the street corners. It’s for a great cause….

    Now, show us your commitment to “Democracy”!!!

    LOL!!

  114. July 19th, 2011 at 06:13 | #114

    “(As for your comparison of a ban on travel to an entire province to curfew laws that prevent anyone from being on the streets for a few hours in a few neighborhoods of a few cities….please. That’s pathetic. To quote Bubbles from The Wire, “You equivocatin’ like a motherfucker.”)”

    That’s not a rebuttal, and you need to CHILL and clean up your foul mouth, before you find out what a REAL “BAN” means!!

  115. July 19th, 2011 at 06:20 | #115

    Speaking “easy” travel, I don’t know why some people complain so much when they travel abroad.

    Seriously, you are a GUEST in other people’s countries, don’t like their rules, don’t go, don’t complain. Why go, (pay the local taxes), and then complain about the rules? No one is making you go.

    You don’t see me whining about every little rule that I didn’t know about in US.

    Take a page from Americans, “Love it or leave it (and at least shut up).” Seriously, even FOARP has been saying something similar above. (And he’s not American).

  116. July 19th, 2011 at 06:49 | #116

    In 2008, around the time of the Lhasa Riot, I had an American friend, a lawyer, who decided to go to Tibet, and he and his wife really wanted to get to some of the highland places, but didn’t know how to get the permits to go there. Well, they asked around and found a way to get there, and had a great time.

    Well, that’s what I would call being good guests in foreign countries. When they didn’t know something, they ask, be nice and humble, and make no assumptions about places, even if they don’t like the different rules (or it might be red tape, hassle, or frustrating).

    Now, there are “easy” ways to get to Tibet. (I do know a few).

    But I’m not going to help anyone who has an attitude that assumes that China is “hiding something”.

    People with that kind of attitude should not go to foreign countries, they are simply too grumpy to enjoy anything.

    (Frankly, people with that kind of attitude shouldn’t be flying in planes either. Airport security will likely find them suspicious and hostile).

    *
    BTW, have you guys heard of one guy in US who got arrested on a plane for throwing peanuts at the stewardess? Yes, that’s the kind of attitude I’m talking about.

  117. July 19th, 2011 at 07:32 | #117

    raventhorn2000 :
    “(As for your comparison of a ban on travel to an entire province to curfew laws that prevent anyone from being on the streets for a few hours in a few neighborhoods of a few cities….please. That’s pathetic. To quote Bubbles from The Wire, “You equivocatin’ like a motherfucker.”)”
    That’s not a rebuttal, and you need to CHILL and clean up your foul mouth, before you find out what a REAL “BAN” means!!

    See comment #109. Yes, the government doesn’t use the word “ban”. However, foreigners cannot travel to Tibet without a permit. If the government stops issuing permits, that’s the same thing as banning travel.

    Anyway, if you took Otto’s comment about the NED seriously, I don’t know what to say…there’s obviously no point in arguing with you if that’s the case though.

    Also, feel free to ban me. I’m wasting valuable time here because I enjoy a good troll fight every now and then, but honestly, a ban would help my productivity significantly. Please go for it. I promise I won’t even switch the server on my VPN, so the ban will actually work!

  118. July 19th, 2011 at 08:14 | #118

    “e comment #109. Yes, the government doesn’t use the word “ban”. However, foreigners cannot travel to Tibet without a permit. If the government stops issuing permits, that’s the same thing as banning travel. ”

    NOPE. Stop issuing permits just means NO NEW permits. They didn’t cancel any existing permits that were already issued. SO OBVIOUSLY, foreigners who already had permits could still GO! NOT a ban.

    Your logic was simply flawed.

    “Also, feel free to ban me. I’m wasting valuable time here because I enjoy a good troll fight every now and then, but honestly, a ban would help my productivity significantly. Please go for it. I promise I won’t even switch the server on my VPN, so the ban will actually work!”

    Well, you admit your troll fights. That’s your business. Yes, banning would be good for you, I agree. Like in other instances of your life, you apparently need others to help you constantly. That says much about you, less about other people.

  119. July 19th, 2011 at 09:21 | #119

    @C. Custer
    Instead of saying anything worthwhile you are spamming. Your tale of Tibet being closed to foreigners is false. Did you read Jean-Paul Desimpelaere article? He has no problem visiting whichever Tibetan area he want. China reserve the right to disallow any visitors they think are going to cause trouble. The US and Canada routinely banned visitors they think are not in the visitors or business category.

    Your logic is also pathetic beyond belief. In case you don’t know the majority of Chinese citizens wouldn’t qualify for US visa. So by your logic, the US must be hiding their oppression of minorities and native American.

    The best way to deal with idiots is to ignore him. Don’t waste your time with him. When a dog barks at you there is no need to stoop to its level and bark back. His fould language here is simply a record of his inability to discuss a matter in a civilized matter.

  120. July 19th, 2011 at 09:53 | #120

    @C. Custer
    Your ‘motherfucker’ nonsense has to stop. It reflects much more who you are. It’s actually too much work for us having to moderate, so please help keep this forum civil.

  121. raventhorn2000
    July 19th, 2011 at 19:47 | #121

    And I re-iterate, Stop issuing permits just means NO NEW permits. They didn’t cancel any existing permits that were already issued. SO OBVIOUSLY, foreigners who already had permits could still GO! NOT a ban.

    Curfews in US cities, on the other hand, are BANS, because the cops are out there at specific times, arresting people for violating curfew. You don’t get a previously valid permit to get around curfews. It’s “go home, or go to jail.”

    So what is US hiding at night in the cities? Perhaps they don’t want the reporters seeing the rampant police corruption, cops taking bribes, beating up on homeless people, deporting immigrants, etc.? Perhaps they are committing “genocide”?!

    Given the state of US economy, I wouldn’t be surprised that they are resorting to that type of tactics to solve their poor and homeless problems. “Tent Cities” were real problems, now we don’t hear much about them any more, do we?

    But seriously, why do Western reporters hate talking to their own countries’ homeless people, and yet seem to enjoy talking to every poor sob in China?!

    Apparently, they can’t even find the homeless people in US, even though I pass by beggars almost every day in DC.

    Some would call that “incompetence” as well, but I think they just don’t care about their own countrymen.

    *
    There is an old story in Chinese history.

    A King’s favorite advisor was dying. The King asked the advisor, “any advice for me for the days to come?”

    The Advisor spoke, “Your majesty, beware of your favorite 3 servants, they mean to deceive you and usurp your authority.”

    The King said, “that’s impossible, they 3 are my most loyal and faithful servants. The 1st killed his own son to demonstrate his loyalty to me. The 2nd severed his own limb to demonstrate his loyalty to me. The 3rd refused to go to his father’s funeral to stay by my side.”

    The Advisor replied, “Your majesty is wrong. A man has nothing more precise than his children, his body, and his parents. If those 3 do not cherish those things in their lives, how can they cherish your Majesty’s well being?”

    Soon after, the Advisor died, and the King forgot the Advisor’s warning.

    A few years later, the King became ill, his 3 servants sealed up his Royal Palace, and prevented all people from entering to care for the King. The King died in starvation and illness in his Palace, his corpse left to rot. The 3 servants pitted the Royal Princes against one another, and massacred the families of many loyal nobles, then plunging the Kingdom into a state of Civil War.

    *
    The point of the story:

    Westerners in Western Media do not even care about their own countrymen in need, their own brethens, Yet they supposed to care about the “rights” of Chinese people, and other people?

    The Advisor was right. As the old saying goes, “Charity begins at Home.”

  122. July 19th, 2011 at 23:50 | #122

    Western reporters don’t talk to homeless people in the US because most of the actually homeless people in the US have serious mental problems. That said, they write stories about the homelessness issue all the time.

    As for the Tibet Travel permits, that’s not how it works. Look at what the expert Tibet travelers say online; when these areas are closed you either re-book your trip for later, or you ask for a refund from the tour group. The permits you get don’t just allow you to travel to Tibet at any time.

    You have foreign citizenship, right? If there’s no ban on travel, go to Tibet next March, aim to reach Lhasa on the 27th. If you can do it (legally) I will reimburse all your expenses.

    Alternately, find me a foreigner who has traveled inside the TAR in March since 2008 (regular travelers I mean; there have probably been some special government delegations that went)

  123. wwww1234
    July 20th, 2011 at 01:16 | #123

    @C. Custer
    Tibet Entry Permit is obtained through travel agents, who take up responsibility for arranging the tour including providing a guide. It is a routine for foreigners. Hong Kong and Macau (not Taiwan) residents possessing HKM cards (most do) are exempted. Tourists are free to roam around after the day trip. The recent interruption (for a month) is related to the cerebration ceremonies.

    There are health issues and especially, security issues.

    The small number of trouble makers often spoils the whole pot, like we have to waste/ discard all liquid on boarding the plane, simply because the machines cannot distinguish nitroglycerine (bomb making) from wine, and we have to take off shoes millions of times combined, simply because ONE nut tried blowing up a plane.

    One day, when others will stop their subversive activities, we can all travel freely.

  124. wwww1234
    July 20th, 2011 at 01:46 | #124

    @C. Custer
    +find me a foreigner who has traveled inside the TAR in March since 2008 ”

    numerous foreign tourists groups had visited Tibet since 2008. I made arrangement for my friends(US citizens) who visited earlier this year.
    skype the Sichuan China International Travel Service Skype: China3737 he is biingual.
    and make your arramgement.

  125. July 20th, 2011 at 04:47 | #125

    wwww1234 :
    @C. Custer
    +find me a foreigner who has traveled inside the TAR in March since 2008 ”
    numerous foreign tourists groups had visited Tibet since 2008. I made arrangement for my friends(US citizens) who visited earlier this year.
    skype the Sichuan China International Travel Service Skype: China3737 he is biingual.
    and make your arramgement.

    In March? Since 2008? I highly doubt it. Obviously people have visited since 2008, but it’s been closed every year around the anniversary of the 27th.

  126. July 20th, 2011 at 04:51 | #126

    wwww1234 :
    @C. Custer
    Tibet Entry Permit is obtained through travel agents, who take up responsibility for arranging the tour including providing a guide. It is a routine for foreigners. Hong Kong and Macau (not Taiwan) residents possessing HKM cards (most do) are exempted. Tourists are free to roam around after the day trip. The recent interruption (for a month) is related to the cerebration ceremonies.
    There are health issues and especially, security issues.
    The small number of trouble makers often spoils the whole pot, like we have to waste/ discard all liquid on boarding the plane, simply because the machines cannot distinguish nitroglycerine (bomb making) from wine, and we have to take off shoes millions of times combined, simply because ONE nut tried blowing up a plane.
    One day, when others will stop their subversive activities, we can all travel freely.

    What foreign tourist has “caused trouble” in Tibet? And what does “causing trouble” mean, exactly? The riots are the worst thing that’s happened there in years, and they had nothing to do with foreign tourists. If China is so concered about the “health” of foreigners, why is it so easy to visit places like Beijing, where the air is terrible for you? From a health perspective, my guess is that there are many places in China far less healthy than Tibet, at least for the things a tourist would be doing.

    Also, travel permits are arranged through travel agencies, but they can be granted only by the Tibet AR local government. The travel agency has no control over them, they’re just a middleman.

  127. July 20th, 2011 at 05:46 | #127

    “Western reporters don’t talk to homeless people in the US because most of the actually homeless people in the US have serious mental problems. That said, they write stories about the homelessness issue all the time.”

    “All the time” eh? I don’t see you do it on your blog! Sure, no one cares, it’s always someone else who do it “all the time”. How many is “all the time”? I think China has issued more Tibet travel permits to foreigners than your “all the time”.

    “As for the Tibet Travel permits, that’s not how it works. Look at what the expert Tibet travelers say online; when these areas are closed you either re-book your trip for later, or you ask for a refund from the tour group. The permits you get don’t just allow you to travel to Tibet at any time. ”

    Yeah, sure, where is your citation? Who said those areas are “closed”? All any one has said is “no new permits are issued”.

    “You have foreign citizenship, right? If there’s no ban on travel, go to Tibet next March, aim to reach Lhasa on the 27th. If you can do it (legally) I will reimburse all your expenses. Alternately, find me a foreigner who has traveled inside the TAR in March since 2008 (regular travelers I mean; there have probably been some special government delegations that went).”

    I don’t have foreign citizenship, and I frankly don’t care to disprove your assertions, for your attitude. If I know an “easy” way for foreigners to go to Tibet, I certainly would not share it with you.
    (1) What does your timeline have to do with me? If you are in a hurry, you should have prepared ahead of time.
    (2) http://en.radio86.com/special-reports/tibet-50-years-after/tibet-today/jean-paul-desimpelaere-return-tibet.
    He went to Tibet 1 year after 2008. Read and weep and suck it up. He knows his way in. Yeah, I bet you will just dismiss him as “government delegation” or some corrupt stooge. Thus, you won’t need his advice or help. Thus, you don’t get to go. S*cks to be you with your attitude.

    *
    Yeah, I know your type. You can’t find a real job in US, and run away to China, acting like some badas* attitude intellectual, teaching English in China. With no real motivation to get your act together to do anything else real (because reality is apparently too UNCOOL for you).

  128. July 20th, 2011 at 05:53 | #128

    “What foreign tourist has “caused trouble” in Tibet? And what does “causing trouble” mean, exactly? The riots are the worst thing that’s happened there in years, and they had nothing to do with foreign tourists.”

    Who’s a foreign “tourist”?

    If you are putting up your personal guarantees that “foreign tourists” won’t cause trouble, I think Chinese government can oblige.

    Next time there is a foreign tourist “causing trouble”, you get your as* thrown in a Chinese prison. Deal??!

    🙂

  129. July 22nd, 2011 at 00:59 | #129

    raventhorn2000 :
    “Western reporters don’t talk to homeless people in the US because most of the actually homeless people in the US have serious mental problems. That said, they write stories about the homelessness issue all the time.”
    “All the time” eh? I don’t see you do it on your blog! Sure, no one cares, it’s always someone else who do it “all the time”. How many is “all the time”? I think China has issued more Tibet travel permits to foreigners than your “all the time”.

    Yeah, because my blog is about China….did you miss the title?

    “As for the Tibet Travel permits, that’s not how it works. Look at what the expert Tibet travelers say online; when these areas are closed you either re-book your trip for later, or you ask for a refund from the tour group. The permits you get don’t just allow you to travel to Tibet at any time. ”
    Yeah, sure, where is your citation? Who said those areas are “closed”? All any one has said is “no new permits are issued”.

    See the links I posted. To read them completely, you’ll have to put your mouse over them, then click on them. A new webpage will then load. Hope that helps.

    “You have foreign citizenship, right? If there’s no ban on travel, go to Tibet next March, aim to reach Lhasa on the 27th. If you can do it (legally) I will reimburse all your expenses. Alternately, find me a foreigner who has traveled inside the TAR in March since 2008 (regular travelers I mean; there have probably been some special government delegations that went).”
    I don’t have foreign citizenship, and I frankly don’t care to disprove your assertions, for your attitude. If I know an “easy” way for foreigners to go to Tibet, I certainly would not share it with you.
    Nice dodge.

    (1) What does your timeline have to do with me? If you are in a hurry, you should have prepared ahead of time.
    (2) http://en.radio86.com/special-reports/tibet-50-years-after/tibet-today/jean-paul-desimpelaere-return-tibet.
    He went to Tibet 1 year after 2008. Read and weep and suck it up. He knows his way in. Yeah, I bet you will just dismiss him as “government delegation” or some corrupt stooge. Thus, you won’t need his advice or help. Thus, you don’t get to go. S*cks to be you with your attitude.

    Seriously, are you mentally handicapped? I’m not even saying that to be a jerk, I’m just wondering. As I’ve said multiple times, obviously Tibet has been open repeatedly after 2008, my point is that it isn’t open IN THE MONTH OF MARCH. (and often for a longer period of time surrounding that anniversary). Obviously it’s possible to go sometimes.

    Yeah, I know your type. You can’t find a real job in US, and run away to China, acting like some badas* attitude intellectual, teaching English in China. With no real motivation to get your act together to do anything else real (because reality is apparently too UNCOOL for you).

    As I said in the other thread, I could find a job easily in the US, and moreover, I don’t teach English in China (or anywhere else). Yeah, you’ve really got me figured….fucking idiot.

    (yinyang: if that counts as a “personal attack”, then I want his allegations about my personal life deleted as well, on the grounds that they’re libel.)

  130. July 22nd, 2011 at 01:00 | #130

    raventhorn2000 :
    “What foreign tourist has “caused trouble” in Tibet? And what does “causing trouble” mean, exactly? The riots are the worst thing that’s happened there in years, and they had nothing to do with foreign tourists.”
    Who’s a foreign “tourist”?
    If you are putting up your personal guarantees that “foreign tourists” won’t cause trouble, I think Chinese government can oblige.
    Next time there is a foreign tourist “causing trouble”, you get your as* thrown in a Chinese prison. Deal??!

    Not saying they won’t, saying they HAVEN’T, so why block them.

  131. raventhorn2000
    July 22nd, 2011 at 05:32 | #131

    “Haven’t”? You got that from your CIA pals or NED pals?

    OK, China hasn’t “block” any real “foreign tourists” either, CIA’s and NED’s don’t count. If you got blocked, then you are not a “tourist”.

    1 generalization deserves another, I always say.

  132. Antioxidants
    July 22nd, 2011 at 09:04 | #132

    Nowadays it became politically incorrect to say that the Tibetans are Not oppressed. But occasionally there are people that don’t give a hood about politically correctness, such as this Finn:

    http://tigerloong.wordpress.com/2008/04/03/the-riots-in-lhasa-by-eirik-granqvist/

  133. July 22nd, 2011 at 09:10 | #133

    raventhorn2000 :
    “Haven’t”? You got that from your CIA pals or NED pals?
    OK, China hasn’t “block” any real “foreign tourists” either, CIA’s and NED’s don’t count. If you got blocked, then you are not a “tourist”.
    1 generalization deserves another, I always say.

    Yeah those CIA and NED agents entering Tibet on tourist travel permits are a real problem. I suppose that’s what caused the riots in ’08, right?

    If that was the problem, why wouldn’t the Chinese government just say that — it’s not like they’re shy about calling the US out for spying when they have an example of it. So why would they say that it’s to protect foreigners “health” or because Tibet will be too crowded with the Serf Liberation Day celebrations?

  134. Antioxidants
    July 22nd, 2011 at 09:36 | #134

    @ C.Custer,

    “Yeah those CIA and NED agents entering Tibet on tourist travel permits are a real problem. I suppose that’s what caused the riots in ’08, right?

    If that was the problem, why wouldn’t the Chinese government just say that…”

    I actually has the same question as you. If I were the Chinese government I would be constantly reminding the world that the Dalai Lama is a CIA agent dating back to the early 60s. Dalai Lama himself admit as such, in the New York times.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/02/world/world-news-briefs-dalai-lama-group-says-it-got-money-from-cia.html

    The Chinese government is actually pretty clumsy in managing how the Dalai Lama is perceived by the world at large. Calling the Dalai Lama “a wolf in monk’s robes, a devil with a human face but the heart of a beast” only enhances his status, not diminish it.

  135. raventhorn2000
    July 22nd, 2011 at 17:33 | #135

    “Yeah those CIA and NED agents entering Tibet on tourist travel permits are a real problem. I suppose that’s what caused the riots in ’08, right?
    If that was the problem, why wouldn’t the Chinese government just say that — it’s not like they’re shy about calling the US out for spying when they have an example of it. So why would they say that it’s to protect foreigners “health” or because Tibet will be too crowded with the Serf Liberation Day celebrations?”

    And they can’t have a reason that they don’t bother to tell “tourists”?

    Why do they NEED to tell “tourists” about SPIES? What does that have to do with you “tourists” (as you say)?

    You seem to want to know a lot for a “tourist”! I think you are CIA! LOL! 🙂

  136. July 23rd, 2011 at 08:47 | #136

    @Antioxidants

    Why bother explaining same things over and over again to “foreign tourists”?

    They don’t care. They are brainwashed to believe in whatever their governments tell them. Most of them can’t even tell where Tibet is.

  137. Haikun
    February 2nd, 2012 at 20:14 | #137

    @Charles Liu wanna cite that statistic running dog?

  138. Haikun
    February 2nd, 2012 at 20:14 | #138

    @raventhorn2000 your talking about mainland Chinese right!?

  139. Antioxidants
    February 4th, 2012 at 19:32 | #139
  140. Antioxidants
    February 4th, 2012 at 19:52 | #140
  141. hahaha
    December 3rd, 2013 at 12:37 | #142

    please do not forget about the native people in europe also.
    like the sami people in scandinavia, they are still being rob and rape by the scandinavian people now.
    Sofia Jannok a famous sami singer once tour throw china ( beter singer than bjork).

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GZu8xECOdw

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.