Home > General > the Israel-Palestine conflict, a call for peace

the Israel-Palestine conflict, a call for peace

I was recently exposed to some very sad images of the Israel-Palestinian conflict and thought about what I might do constructively as a blogger. So, I have decided to make a plea to the world to help the two sides end their cycle of violence. I think we are way passed the point of taking sides. And, since this is a ‘China’ blog, I thought: it’s time to think big and how about it, China, a shot at this?

Categories: General Tags: ,
  1. October 21st, 2011 at 01:43 | #1

    yinyang,

    I can feel your passion… Without taking sides, I can say that what is happening in the Middle East is a human tragedy.

    At some point, I think we ought to do a multicultural video. In China we have 56 ethnic nationalities living side by side for millenia. People can complain about “political” rights and what not – but for 56 different groups to still maintain their identity and live relatively peacefully side by side – and integrating in many cases – throughout all these years, that says something.

    In Israel/Palestine – we have groups that want to exclude each other. Israel won’t have a multicultural state because they are afraid Jews will be out-bred by Palestinians. Many Palestinians see Jews as a cancer – as invaders into their land. In such environments, there can be no win-win – only distributive bickering and the resulting violence.

    In Europe, despite talks of “multiculturalism,” we have similar clashes, with Europeans demanding a “European” identity / culture to the exclusion of those of immigrants (Africans, Middle Easterners, and to a lesser extent, Chinese and others, too) (see eg http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2011/02/13/the-death-of-multiculturalism/).

    The way out of cycles of violence is not us against them, with us or with them type attitude. It is not even seeking of “truce.” And no – “Human Rights” and “Freedom” do not solve these intractable problems.

    The way out is to embrace each other – through visions of a multicultural identity and polity. Whatever the warts of China, that is what it has stood for, that’s what it should stand for for the world…

    This is how China can lead, by embracing its own roots, rebuilding itself, and ultimately offering to the world its tradition of multiculturalism and harmonious society that has allowed its disparate peoples to not only live in peace – but to build one of the great civilizations of the world.

  2. silentvoice
    October 21st, 2011 at 05:03 | #2

    And, since this is a ‘China’ blog, I thought: it’s time to think big and how about it, China, a shot at this?

    Sorry yinyang, super bad idea…

    Have we forgotten how China was initially unwilling to talk to DPRK on behalf of the US, but was roped in and eventually held the six party talks AS A FAVOR to Bush? A few years later, China owns the problem and the US conveniently blames China everytime talks fail or DPRK does something weird.

    There’s an old saying we should keep at heart: “不做中,不做保, 不做媒三代好“. 保 = guarantor or middleman… a thankless job.

  3. raventhorn
    October 21st, 2011 at 06:48 | #3

    I also don’t believe China should get involved.

    China didn’t create this problem, and there is no easy solutions to it.

    I would go further to say that we Chinese have been taken advantages of in the past for our involvements.

    We don’t get much thanks, just a lot of hassle and blames.

    I am reminded of an old saying, “To give advice to fools, is like throwing jade into the mud.”

  4. raventhorn
    October 21st, 2011 at 07:21 | #4

    I guess I just stated a reason why “Bystander effect” exists.

    Sometimes you feel charitable and want to help people, but then they don’t like your “help”, or they just don’t like you. So they turn around and blame you for the problems.

    If Superman actually existed, I’m sure US and NATO will find a way to blame him for some thing.

  5. Terry Chen
    October 21st, 2011 at 08:34 | #5

    Meddling in the internal affairs of others is just not the Chinese way. We should just stick to our own business as we have had for thousands of years.

    At best, China can use its veto power to protect certain countries from western imperialism, like they did for the case of Syria. Other than that, the most important thing is to maintain the economic progress China has enjoyed for the last three and a half decades and continue to improve our military.

  6. October 21st, 2011 at 08:40 | #6

    I also believe China is in no position to solve the Israeli-Palestinian issue. If we use the DPRK issue as a benchmark, China is as best a supporting actor. The US and DPRK are actually the main actors. The impasse is caused by this:

    DPRK “End embargo and we will discuss about giving up the bomb.”
    US “Give up the bomb and we will discuss about ending the embargo.”
    DPRK “End embargo and we will discuss about giving up the bomb.”
    US “Give up the bomb and we will discuss about ending the embargo.”

    It goes on and on. The US wants China to join the embargo against the DPRK which China refuse because it would escalate matter and caused hundreds of thousands if not millions of refugees to flood the border. If this scenario happened, would the ROK or US step in to help?

    The DPRK on the other hand want China to increase the aid to them which currently stand at a few billion dollars a year. So China is basically subsiding DPRK but got nothing in return. The DPRK does not consider China’s aid as help but rather they are entitled to it because they are the bulwark against “US imperialism”. In the DPRK, the Korean war is viewed as the DPRK bearing the brunt of the war to preserve the security of North eastern China. So basically they do not view China’s intervention as help, but rather they are the ones helping China!

    Basically, the key in solving the Korean peninsula crisis in US’s hand. The US can simply lift the embargo for just a trial period, maybe 6 months or so, and if the DPRK did not cooperate reinstate the embargo. I believe this is the only way for it to work. The DPRK leadership are not lunatic as portrayed, to them the bomb is security, and is using it as a bargaining chip.

  7. October 21st, 2011 at 08:56 | #7

    All nations except the involved should keep away from the Middle East conflict. WW3 will be most likely started in Middle East. The Bible says Israel will be surrounded by enemies. Israel is doing fine to protect herself with the jet fighters that are very useful in the desert. Let US, EU, China… isolate themselves from the conflict.

    As I said before, if it is about oil, shame on us. If it is a prolonged Crusade, shame on the misinterpretation of the religion and the Jews who control the US congress and drive us to the conflict.


    A joke:
    The terrorist would go to heaven and is promised to have 6 virgins (need one day for rest). However, the fine print does not include the quality and age of the virgins. As in their culture, female terrorists get nothing.

  8. silentvoice
    October 21st, 2011 at 09:17 | #8

    The stalemate in Israel won’t last forever. If current trends continue, Egypt and Turkey will be pushing more strongly against the US-Israel position. China should not take sides. She has a large Muslim population in Xinjiang on the one hand, and depend on Israel for technology (esp weaponry) on the other. Let the world superpower USA deal with it.

  9. October 21st, 2011 at 09:24 | #9

    I have actually thought far and deep on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. I will try to leave the history and politics aside for now. The US and the west actually want to end the stand-off but unfortunately what they are doing is making matter worse. In unconditionally supporting Israel in the UN and supplying hi-tech weapon, they make themselves looked to be condoning the atrocities committed by Israel. I am aware that Palestinian and other Arab insurgents groups are launching attack against Israel, which actually have close to 20% citizen of Arab descent, so the casualties are not always Jewish. However, it would be too simplistic to blame the Palestinian insurgents as agitators or terrorists. The Palestinian settlement of West Bank and Gaza are pretty much like the Warsaw Jewish ghetto of WWII. A few millions Palestinian live overseas as stateless refugees. And to top it off, tens of thousands of Palestinian have been killed for the past sixty years or so in conflict. Of course the same can be said for thousands of Israeli killed. So the grievance and suffering on both sides is very real. Definitely more on the side of the Palestinian as they are suffering more and don’t even have a country yet. The statehood that is on theory given to them the same day Israel was create in 1948 is still a pipe dream.

    The US is actually the single party most capable of solving this impasse. The US has given billion dollar of military aid to Israel and Egypt since early 1970s. Can you imagine what this money would do if instead it was channel to building the economy of the Palestinian areas? Let say, the US use $5 billion a year to invest and build up the infrastructure in Palestine, and add in the aid from the Arab countries and rest of the world, this money would guarantee a very good living for all. One can argue that it is already too late but I have to disagree. If the US is to use the $5 billion now in this way, it would be more constructive than giving hi-tech weapon to Israel and Egypt. For example, they can simply give $500/month to each Palestinian family. A grid like system should be put in place, whenever a rocket and attack was launch from a certain sector, this money would be cut in that sector. This would give the Palestinian mired in poverty a great incentive to prevent any attack against Israel.

    And when a society become better off, they would want to maintain the standard of living. Nobody enjoyed seeing their family members killed by guns and bombs but right now they see no hope and their only way to rant is to launch attack against Israel which on the surface is causing the suffering and poverty in their community. Solving this conflict probably would still take a few generation but at least it is a start towards conciliation. From what I see it is a better alternative to what is happening in the Middle East now. And unless China can step up to make this contribution, then it shouldn’t get involved beyond what is already doing, which is maintaining good relationship with the Arab world and Israel.

  10. colin
    October 21st, 2011 at 11:02 | #10

    China can not solve this issue for many reasons, least of which is that Isrealis do not like China. As far as I know, it wasn’t always like this, but after 9/11 and the power grabs by the hawks in Israel and the US, there has been a strong anti-china sentiment among the Jews in the US and in Israel. Media is much to blame, if not the original seed of this sentiment. It used to be that Jews and Chinese saw much similarity in each other, and shared sympathies, but that is now overshadowed by the myths and stereotypes perpetuated by the media. The Tibet issue being one of them. Economic fears another.

  11. October 21st, 2011 at 15:04 | #11

    @silentvoice

    I think there was a wikileaks report that showed that China was actually always quite critical of NK but did their criticisms in private.

  12. October 21st, 2011 at 15:24 | #12

    Here’s my view on it.

    I thought Palestine’s recent UN move was the right way to go. It is a means to achieve its ends through the international community and use the rule of law, which is on its side, instead of violence which the rule of law is not on its side.

    But this will have consequences as the US is a powerful ally and even though the world is wholly in support of Palestinian bid for official statehood (including with China’s wholehearted support), the US will likely do everything it could such as use economic pressure such as stopping its aid to Palestine (which relies on aid from other countries because there is an (illegal) Israeli blockade limiting transport of goods into Palestine).

    So China is in a position to now give aid to the Palestinians and fill the void when the US stops its aid once Palestine get official statehood (and they will from the General Assembly but the US will veto the Security Counsel for security counsel recognition).

    By filling that void, China increases its self interest in the world as a responsible actor and gets major credibility especially in the Arab world so there are some self-serving incentives. But it may also have some Israeli economic loses. Personally, I don’t think this will be the case as Israel knows its important ties with China is the single most important relationship it will have to its future economically and will likely continue with business as usual with China.

    So I fully commend China’s position with Palestine and Israel and hope it will continue to support Palestine once the US reduces its influences in Palestine and the Middle East as a whole. China is one of the few countries which has very good relations with both Palestine and Israel and this only shows that you can be critical of Israel (as China has been like most countries of the world except for the US a a few others) and still maintain good economic ties and cordial relations with it. Ultimately Israel is about self interest and if the world forces it to behave in a civilized manner it will not make a difference in the long run regarding how it acts economically.

    China needs to take an more active role in the world which I think will be for the good of the whole world. China has much to offer in its culture and the way it sees the world and its moral outlook. The world has suffered at the hands of the western imperialist mindset which has hurt the Middle East.

    I think the isolationist mindset that some Chinese have is not healthy for China. That’s not to say that the only other alternative is aggressive and interventionist like the US. There are middle grounds. Isolationism resulted in China’s century of humiliation. It’s time for China to take a more active and engaging role in the world.

  13. zack
    October 21st, 2011 at 17:57 | #13

    the Chinese do not have a missionary complex unlike the culture of a christianity influenced West; therefore they do not feel it is appropriate to interfere in the domestic affairs of others.
    Where other countries do meddle in Chinese internal affairs, i do think that requires reprisals

  14. scl
    October 21st, 2011 at 20:39 | #14

    Some problems are simply unsolvable. Israel – Palestine conflict is one of them. Palestine insists to go back to the 1967 boarder. Israel won’t go back to the 1967 boarder. End of story. Another unsolvable problem is Iran nuclear weapons. Unless Israel gets rid of its nukes, or Iran is defeated in an all-out war, it is practically unsolvable.

  15. pug_ster
    October 21st, 2011 at 22:37 | #15

    In this age of neocolonialism, the West particularity the US continues to keep its dominance in the world by having one country turned onto one another. Some countries are pawns, other countries don’t want to be played as pawns. When countries don’t want to play in the West’s world order serious consequences come to them. It happens today in the closeness of the Russia/China relationship when you the the West supporting the neighboring countries.

    In the Israel – Palestine conflict, US props up Israel at the expense of Palestinians. The US takes advantage of the Shite/Sunni conflict by taking sides with the Sunni friendly countries like Saudi Arabia against the Shite dominant countries like Iran. The thing is that China/Russia doesn’t play the foreign policy card enough to use the same dirty tricks that the West would use. But, until that happens, the people at Palestine would pay.

  16. October 22nd, 2011 at 11:45 | #16

    @scl

    I actually think that China’s Tibet question is as close to unsolvable as it gets. But I am quite hopeful for the Israel Palestine issues since the Palestinians went to the UN. This will provide them international support to balance out the US support and that will provide them with economic and other pressure on Israel to conform and as we have seen with South Africa, this works if done consistently. The problem with China’s Tibet question is that the whole world is on China’s side and will never apply pressure to China but at the same time many Tibetans and citizens in the west demand China bow to the whims of the Dalai Lama which isn’t gonna happen so there will always be an impasse.

  17. zack
    October 22nd, 2011 at 15:46 | #17

    @melektaus
    China’s Tibet question is solvable with time; i kinda doubt the TGIE will be able to sustain the battle forever; once the dalai lama goes, there’s noone else in the TGIE who has the charisma and media cult-it’s not for lack of trying though.
    Lamaism will be split, even further after the DL’s ‘reincarnation’; there’ll be those who accept the dalai lama born in China and those who accept the DL born elsewhere asn Lamaism will thus experience a divergence of thought;
    exactly how tenzin gutso knows the next dalai lama won’t be born in China is probably a mystery up there with how the Catholic Church determines if someone is a saint or if something is a miracle.

    But time is on China’s side; as China develops and more and more Tibetans have more of a stake in China’s future, it’ll be in their interest to support the status quo; education and science will further dilute the dalai lama’s mysticisim and grip over his followers so if he urges his followers to riot and rebel, they’ll pay it as much heed as if the current pope were to compel all christians in India to riot and revolt.

  18. October 23rd, 2011 at 11:13 | #18

    @zack

    The TGIE will be able to sustain the fight because they are religious zealots and will continually do what they have been doing for the last 50 years and I think there will always be a small element in Tibetan society that will obey them because there will always be a religious aspect to that society. When the dalai is gone, it may actually get worse. The current Kalon Tripa is peddling the same genocide/colonialism rhetoric and speaking with a forked tongue. He says that he is for the one China policy but then undermines China’s legitimacy by saying that China “invaded” Tibet and is “occupying” it and “colonizing” it.

    That will continue to spur on nationalism. I really don’t see the situation as getting better and it very well may get worse. Tibet will not be a secular society any time soon. I think you’re just fooling yourself to think that. There will be large elements of dogmatism and even terrorism in that society even if it is a minority view it will be a prominent aspect of that society. The only way I see it getting better is if the west stops its propaganda campaign against China and its support for Tibetan independence which inspires and encourages people inside Tibet to seek independence and I don’t see that happening soon.

  19. Otto Kerner
    October 23rd, 2011 at 15:26 | #19

    zack :
    @melektaus
    Lamaism will be split, even further after the DL’s ‘reincarnation’; there’ll be those who accept the dalai lama born in China and those who accept the DL born elsewhere asn Lamaism will thus experience a divergence of thought;

    Mark my words: the people who accept the Dalai Lama born in China will be some non-Tibetans (irrelevant to politics in Tibet) and some Dorje Shukdän followers. The Chinese will quickly discover that the Dorje Shukdän followers, regardless of whether they have valid claims of mistreatment, just aren’t very many people. Even then, I’ll bet most private citizens who venerate Dorje Shukdän will still reject the Chinese Dalai Lama. Everyone else will reject him unanimously except when they are being actively bribed or threatened to pretend to support him. The government’s handpicked Dalai Lama will be a PR disaster.

    exactly how tenzin gutso knows the next dalai lama won’t be born in China is probably a mystery up there with how the Catholic Church determines if someone is a saint or if something is a miracle.

    If you believe in Tibetan Buddhist lama reincarnation, then you believe that they have conscious control over their rebirths. So, the Dalai Lama knows where to avoid being reborn because it’s his conscious choice. If you don’t believe in Tibetan Buddhist reincarnation theory, then obviously there is no next Dalai Lama except as a title assigned to someone.

    But time is on China’s side; as China develops and more and more Tibetans have more of a stake in China’s future, it’ll be in their interest to support the status quo; education and science will further dilute the dalai lama’s mysticisim and grip over his followers so if he urges his followers to riot and rebel, they’ll pay it as much heed as if the current pope were to compel all christians in India to riot and revolt.

    I doubt it. The only long-term solution to the Tibet problem is repopulate Tibet. Otherwise, Tibet will eventually become independent, just like Ireland eventually became independent of England, even if the Tibetans of that day have forgotten the Tibetan language. If Tibet is not repopulated, they will never give up their hopes of independence, like the Republic of Ireland; if Tibet is partially repopulated, it will be a quagmire like in Northern Ireland; if Tibet is thoroughly repopulated, it will be placid like Hawaii. I hope the world is done with ethnic cleansing and colonisation at this point, but it would be the smart realpolitik thing to do.

  20. October 23rd, 2011 at 16:57 | #20

    @Otto Kerner
    I think the United Kingdom describe the present Tibet better. The Republic of Ireland example at best describe the situation in South Tibet.

    Present region of Tibet is so vast and secluded that that presently it requires a sophisticated road and rail system to link the region together. Otherwise, it consists of remote region under local rule. Without it Tibet wouldn’t even exist as a single entity. The present Dalai Lama system of government survived many centuries because it was propped up by the central government of Beijing since the 13th century. Now the TGIE was propped up using foreign fund. Without this funding, it wouldn’t survive.

    Hawaii has a better chance of becoming another Republic of Ireland than Tibet. Lhasa is now such an important tourist attraction that the demographic represent the composition of China, namely people of all regions converge over there. If you are realistic, you should know that Lhasa is actually the seat of power in Tibet.

    Let’s not kid each other. Only a fool believe that the incarnation was done smoothly and the selection process is without flaw for centuries. The Dalai Lama position was created because of political neccessity. Politics have always been a driving force. The TGIE is a political entity, so is the CCP.

    Tibet didn’t break away after the fall of the Tang, or the Yuan, or the Qing. You should study your history. In a match between TGIE and CCP, I have no doubt who will be the final victor. Like I have said many time, the TGIE is an exclusive political entity, the CCP is an inclusive political entity. time is running out for the TGIE not the PRC.

  21. October 23rd, 2011 at 17:04 | #21

    @Ray
    In case you don’t know when the Easter Uprising happend, few Irish people supported it. It is only after the heavy handed approach by the British govn’t in executing the ring leaders that turned public opinion against them. At that time, Ireland matter little to the British govn’t so they grant it independence (but kept N.Ireland), Tibet is historically, politically, defensively too important for the PRC.

  22. Otto Kerner
    October 23rd, 2011 at 17:24 | #22

    Ray, there are historical weaknesses in your first post. The Dalai Lama government of Tibet was created in the 17th century, not in the 13th century. It was originally created with extensive western Mongol assistance, but not with Beijing’s support — after all, it was created at almost the exact same time that the Ming was being overrun by the Qing. Between the 13th and 17th centuries, the Phakmodru, Rinpungpa, and Tsangpa dynasties ruled Tibet with little if any central support. Later, in the 18th and into the 19th centuries, the Dalai Lama’s government did come to rely on support from the central government. However, history obviously shows that the plains of Central Tibet can be ruled by a single government without support from Beijing, since it happened several times. Incorporating the eastern Tibetan areas into a single state was also not impossible, since they were all united 1300 years ago by the Tibetan Empire, but I agree that that would probably never have been accomplished again without modern roads and communications.

    The demographics of the capital city don’t really matter that much. The capitals of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia were historically dominated by Slavs and other non-Baltics, but that alone didn’t stop those countries from becoming independent.

    I’m curious what you think the comparison is between Monyul (so-called South Tibet) and Ireland.

    Re: the other Ray,

    The majority of Irish didn’t support the Easter Uprising, but they were trying to be realistic … why would they support a rebellion that wouldn’t work and wouldn’t accomplish anything? Later, they got mad and they stopped worrying so much about being practical, and things spiralled out of control. In Tibet, most people didn’t support the uprising in 2008, also because they didn’t believe it would accomplish anything. The government’s response was equally heavy-handed. If they ever loosen their grip a little, I’ll bet the public’s anger at the government will boil over and things could easily get out of hand again.

  23. October 23rd, 2011 at 18:25 | #23

    @Otto Kerner
    Like I’ve said, “the present government of the Dalai Lama”. It was mean to be a continuation, I took 13th century as a starting point because before that, lama didn’t hold the main political power. It was because of the Yuan support of the lama class that they become increasingly powerful. Nevertheless, it would be unrealistic to believe that all Tibetan was under the rule of the power from Lhasa. And if we want to go back in time Songtsän Gampo prominence in history simply cannot be denied. Although he is a king he is also the top religious leader, the society evolve but some important essence remained.

    Doesn’t it looked surprising to you that the king and eventually monk occupied the same Potala palace. The same goes for the seat of government for the PRC. They run China from the same Forbidden Palace since Yuan, Ming (except a period in Nanjing), Qing. There is actually a continuation, the Dalai Lama position was not created out of thin air in the 17th century. I have actually told you that Tibet can only avoid NOT being part of China by not invading the latter. Unfortunately, it is a fait accompli and cannot be reverse.

    Well, we are talking about China, right? Tibet is still part of China since Tang. Same reason that North eastern China is still part of the PRC after the fall of the Qing. Don’t you find it interesting that what happened to the Romanov in Russia, and the Bourbon in France never happened to the Aisin Goro? There is a certain cohesiveness of China that you don’t want to see. Of all the Tibetan only those in TGIE actually believe that Tibet is a separate country. Are you so sure that the discontent of the Latvian etc are present in China today?

    As per your respond on the Easter uprising, the scenario you describe is very true but I have to disagree on your conclusion on the subject. It is true the majority of Irish at that time simply do not think about independence at all (same as present Tibetan). When they started burning items to set up a barricade, people actually took away the brand new items they looted from stores (same thing would happen if insurrection broke out in Tibet today). You actually missed the whole crux of the Irish independence issue. People got mad BUT it is the British government that grant independence. To the British government Ireland was not worth the trouble of keeping. However, they KEPT Northern Ireland, isn’t it? And if they did not grant referendum there would be no Republic of Ireland. Fast forward to present day, you still have the IRA trying “to free” Northern Ireland, how realistic is that. The TGIE unfortunately has the same belief.

    I believe some elements in the TGIE have always been hoping that by causing riots/insurrections, the central government would react the same way as the British. However, time and again the government side did not took the bait. The riots killed and wounded many people but you remained blind to it. please tell me how heavy handed the government side reacted? It is clear to everybody inside China that the TGIE is the violent side. However, if you still want to believe that all Tibetan Chinese think the CCP is evil and out to eradicate their culture, I think you should wake up from that illusion. The PRC is not the USSR. The USA has a better chance of breaking up than the PRC at the rate that is going. The much talked about China Spring didn’t come about but the European and US Autumn seems to be making the round as we speak.

  24. Otto Kerner
    October 23rd, 2011 at 21:27 | #24

    Ray :
    @Otto Kerner
    Of all the Tibetan only those in TGIE actually believe that Tibet is a separate country.

    Very few people would believe this is true other than Chinese nationalists who feel an emotional need to make themselves feel better. Ask them.

    If China had the same political system (i.e. basically democratic) that the UK had in 1919, they would find Tibet equally ungovernable and would eventually make the same decision that it was not worth holding onto.

    The riots killed and wounded many people but you remained blind to it.

    I am well aware of it and I have often said so. You feel comfortable making things up about me.

    It is clear to everybody inside China that the TGIE is the violent side.

    I see, so Chinese security forces have no guns, truncheons, tear gas, or detention centers in which they torture prisoners, is that it? I think in your mind violence only counts as violence when the wrong people do it.

    However, if you still want to believe that all Tibetan Chinese think the CCP is evil and out to eradicate their culture, I think you should wake up from that illusion. The PRC is not the USSR.

    Non sequitur. The PRC is not the USSR because it is more competently run and has better economic prospects, especially relative to the historical baseline, and also because ethnic minorities are a smaller proportion of the population in the PRC. That is true, and it is also apparently true that the PRC is highly unpopular among Tibetans (to it put very approximately, they think it’s evil and is out to eradicate their culture). Of course, no one can prove this for certain one way or the other because Tibetans do not have freedom of speech or of the press to talk about such subjects.

  25. October 23rd, 2011 at 22:01 | #25

    @Otto Kerner
    Like I have said many times, the PRC treats its minority better than pretty much all the major powers in history, the US, UK, USSR included. I always find it funny when people don’t want to face this fact. It seems you are the one who want to feel better by your own agenda. You are the ones who is delusional if you think the PRC thought Tibet ungovernable.

    The PRC has strict rules against torture, if you suggest that prison term for running separatist activity is torture I have nothing to say. The PLA would not be able to put down the insurrections of 1959 without the support of the local Tibetan, if you study history the PLA garrison is badly outnumbered and supplied. The victory against India also would not happen without Tibetan scouts and porters. Even the Karmapa talked of the year 1959 as year of liberation. Don’t believe me watched his interview with BBC.

    Your argument that the Tibetan Chinese are not Chinese and hate all other Chinese is really getting old. I have pointed out repeatedly that the TGIE is advocating an inclusive and racist agenda and will go nowhere. What do you think will happen to those Tibetan in exile that convert to say Christianity or Islam and want Tibet to stay part of China? See, there is actually no freedom of speech, religion or thought in TGIE. You had been had, sucker. Being part of China, actually give the Tibetan a better choice. With you guys, there is only one way, that is to act as a dog to bite China. Falling to do so will receive no funding or worse being ostracize. Frankly, I am the realist you are not.

    Who gained the upper hand in the last Panchen Lama vs Panchen Lama tussle? Want to guess the outcome of the future Dalai Lama vs Dalai Lama tussle? Don’t you see you are also a one trick pony. This is an Israeli-Palestinian article but somehow you turned it into a Tibetan vs other Chinese one. If you one day talked about free Hawaii, California, Kurdish, or Basque I would believe you actually mean what you say. For now I will just treat you as a hypocrite. Please come back and say “Free Palestine and peace for Israel/Palestinian brotherhood.”

  26. Otto Kerner
    October 23rd, 2011 at 22:15 | #26

    Ray :It seems you are the one who want to feel better by your own agenda.

    That’s a tu quoque. I’m saying you want to feel better by your agenda. That doesn’t become less true of you regardless of whether it is also true of me.

    You are the ones who is delusional if you think the PRC thought Tibet ungovernable

    Well, I didn’t say that. Tibet is governable through the use and threat of massive violence. Tibet would be ungovernable if China had a democratic system like the UK had in 1919.

    The PRC has strict rules against torture

    Very few people besides you believe that those rules are followed.

    The PLA would not be able to put down the insurrections of 1959 without the support of the local Tibetan

    Fascinating, but almost certainly false. I’d love to know what your source is for that.

    Even the Karmapa talked of the year 1959 as year of liberation. Don’t believe me watched his interview with BBC.

    Fascinating, but almost certainly false. I thought I had seen all of the Karmapa’s interviews with the BBC already, and I don’t remember him saying that. Can you provide a link?

    Don’t you see you are also a one trick pony.

    It says a lot that you feel the need to resort to insults.

  27. raventhorn
    October 24th, 2011 at 05:56 | #27

    “Very few people besides you believe that those rules are followed.”

    At least there are rules, unlike the Western legalization of “rendition-tortures” against their own citizens.

    “Fascinating, but almost certainly false. I’d love to know what your source is for that.”

    Western authors and CIA’s own assessment of 1959 uprisings. PLA didn’t have that many troops in Tibet during 1959, and logistic support was difficult at best during that time, as YOU well know.

  28. Otto Kerner
    October 24th, 2011 at 06:01 | #28

    raventhorn,

    It makes no difference whether there are rules that are not followed or no rules at all.

    Western authors and CIA’s own assessment of 1959 uprisings. PLA didn’t have that many troops in Tibet during 1959, and logistic support was difficult at best during that time, as YOU well know.

    Great! So, please cite some of these Western authors and the CIA’s assessment. I’ve never heard anyone make this claim before.

  29. raventhorn
    October 24th, 2011 at 06:50 | #29

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1959_Tibetan_uprising

    The CIA officer, Bruce Walker, who oversaw the operations of CIA-trained Tibetan agents, was troubled by the hostility from the Tibetans towards his agents: “the radio teams were experiencing major resistance from the population inside Tibet.”

    Conboy, Kenneth, and Morrison, James. The CIA’s Secret War in Tibet (2002) University Press of Kansas. ISBN 978-0-7006-1159-1

  30. raventhorn
    October 24th, 2011 at 07:06 | #30

    http://knizky.mahdi.cz/23548671-THE-CIA-S-SECRET-WAR-IN-TIBET.pdf

    A good case in point was Team S. Agents Thad and Troy had started out well,
    identifying a sympathetic Tingri farmer and bivouacking at his house since the
    onset of snow the previous winter. Thad had gotten particularly close to his host’s
    daughter; by early spring, her abdomen was starting to show the swell of
    pregnancy. This sparked rumors among suspicious neighbors, who reported the
    case to district officials.
    Alerted to the possible presence of an outsider, a Tibetan bureaucrat arrived that
    May to investigate. Quizzed about his daughter’s mysterious suitor, the farmer
    folded. He brought Thad out from hiding, and they took the bureaucrat into their
    confidence and begged him to keep the matter a secret. Feigning compliance,
    the official bade them farewell — only to return that same night with a PLA squad.
    Thad was captured immediately; Troy, concealed in a haystack, surrendered
    after being prodded with a bayonet.
    Giving the PLA the slip, the farmer managed to flee into the hills. Nearby was a
    cave inhabited by Team SI, which also consisted of two agents who had spent
    the winter near Tingri. Linking up, the three attempted to run south toward the
    Sikkimese border. Just short of the frontier, the trio encountered a PLA patrol and
    was felled in a hail of bullets.
    That left just one pair of agents still inside their homeland. Team F, consisting of
    Taylor and Jerome, had occupied yet another Tingri cave since the previous year.
    Even though they kept contact with the locals to a minimum, word of suspicious
    movement in the hills eventually came to the attention of the Chinese. On 2
    November 1966, the PLA moved in for an arrest. The Tibetans held them at bay
    with their pistols until they ran out of ammunition; both were subsequently
    captured and placed in a Lhasa prison.
    As Team F’s radio fell silent, the Special Center was at an impasse. After three
    seasons, the folly of attempting to infiltrate “black” radio teams (that is, teams
    without proper documentation or preparation to blend into the community) was
    evident. Earlier in the year, this growing realization had prompted the center to
    briefly flirt with a new kind of mission. Four agents were brought to the Indian
    capital from Joelikote and given instruction in the latest eavesdropping devices,
    with the intention of forming a special wiretap team. For practice, they climbed
    telephone poles around the Delhi cantonment area by night. [5]
    In the end, the wiretap agents never saw service. In late November, the Special
    Center put team infiltrations into Tibet on hold. Aside from a handful of Haletrained
    Tibetans used for translation tasks at Oak Tree, as well as the radio
    teams already inside Nepal, Joelikote was closed, and the remaining agents
    reverted back to refugee status. “I was saddened and embarrassed,” said Indian
    representative Rabi, “to have been party to those young men getting killed.”
    ***
    The Special Center had also reached an impasse with its other main concern,
    the paramilitary force at Mustang. Despite the May 1965 arms drop, Baba Yeshi
    and his men had resisted all calls to relocate inside Tibet. Though frustrated, the
    CIA had continued financing the guerrillas for the remainder of that year. This
    funding flowed along a simple but effective underground railroad. Every month, a
    satchel of Indian rupees would be handed over by the agency representative at
    Hauz Khas. From there, two Tibetans and two Indian escorts would take the
    money to the Nepal frontier near Bhadwar. Meeting them were a pair of well-paid
    cyclo drivers also on the agency’s payroll. They hid the cash under false seats
    and pedaled across the border, where they handed the money over to members
    of the Mustang force. The money would then go to Pokhara, where foodstuffs
    and textiles were purchased at the local market and shipped to the guerrillas via
    mule caravans.
    By the time of the 303 Committee’s April 1966 meeting, the CIA was still
    prepared to continue such funding for another three years. In addition, the
    agency had not ruled out more arms drops in the future. The catch: Baba Yeshi
    had one final chance to move his men inside Tibet.
    Perhaps sensing that his financiers had run out of patience, the Mustang
    chieftain was jarred from complacency. Employing vintage theatrics, he gathered
    his headquarters staff in late spring and announced that he would personally lead
    a 400-man foray against the PLA. “We begged him not to do anything rash,” said
    training officer Gen Gyurme. “Tears were flowing as he began his march out of
    Kaisang.” [6]
    Traveling north to Tangya, the chieftain and thirty of his loyalists canvassed the
    nearby guerrilla camps for more participants. Another thirty signed on, including
    one company commander. Though far short of the promised 400, sixty armed
    Tibetans on horseback cut an impressive sight as they steered their mounts
    toward the border. Once the posse reached the frontier, however, the operation
    began to fall apart. A fifteen-man reconnaissance party was sent forward to
    locate a suitable ambush site, and the rest of the guerrillas argued for two days
    over whether Baba Yeshi should actually lead the raid across the border. After
    his men pleaded with him to reconsider, the chieftain finally relented in a flourish.
    Armed with information from the reconnaissance team, thirty-five Tibetans
    eventually remounted and galloped into Tibet.
    What ensued was a defining moment for the guerrilla force. Apparently alerted to
    the upcoming foray through their informant network, Chinese soldiers were
    waiting in ambush. Pinned in a valley, six Tibetans were shot dead, including the
    company commander. In addition, eight horses were killed and seven rifles lost.
    In its six years of existence, this was the greatest number of casualties suffered
    by the project. [7]
    As word of the failed foray filtered back to New Delhi, the Special Center finally
    acknowledged the limitations of Mustang. On the pretext of not provoking a PLA
    cross-border strike into Nepal, the guerrillas were “enjoined from offensive action
    which might invite Chinese retaliation.” Any activity in their homeland, they were
    told, would be limited to passive intelligence collection. The guerrilla leadership,
    never really enthusiastic about conducting aggressive raids, offered no
    resistance to their restricted mandate. [8]

  31. raventhorn
    October 24th, 2011 at 07:10 | #31

    I like this portion about Corruptions in TGIE’s rebel army:

    “CIVIL WAR
    Signs of dissent against Baba Yeshi were not new. Trouble dated back to 1962,
    when the Mustang chieftain reduced food stipends issued directly to individual
    guerrillas. He then turned a blind eye to — even condoned — the rustling of yaks
    and goats on the Tibetan side of the frontier as a ready, and free, source of
    protein. This rubbed many of the Hale-trained cadre wrong, who claimed that
    their commander was still charging the CIA for the meat and pocketing the
    difference. [1]
    During 1967, with the guerrillas sulking and spent, their demand for an audit of
    Baba Yeshi’s finances grew more shrill. Leading the call were six idealistic Hale
    graduates, including Rara, who had commanded the 1961 jeep ambush. All six
    later trekked to Darjeeling, where they made their demands known to Gyalo’s
    longtime assistant, Lhamo Tsering.
    When word of the complaints got back to Mustang, Baba Yeshi was, predictably,
    less than receptive. With little appreciation for standardized accounting
    procedures, he had few recorded finances to audit. Even if he did have books to
    open, his assumed prerogative as a Khampa chieftain left him with a perceived
    sense of immunity toward questioning by subordinates.
    In years past, Baba Yeshi’s aloof stance would have carried the day. But
    following the end of the Dalai Lama’s stipend and the curtailing of offensive
    action from Mustang, Gyalo and Lhamo Tsering feared that an open scandal in
    Nepal would provide a ready excuse for the CIA to target funding. Scrambling for
    a face-saving solution that would ease tensions at Mustang, they determined that
    Baba Yeshi should get a competent, respected, and untainted assistant. The
    trouble was, there were few Tibetans who fit that bill. Many of the proven warriors
    from the NVDA generation were past their prime. And although there were plenty
    of younger candidates, they had yet to amass the seniority and respect to lead
    effectively.”

  32. raventhorn
    October 24th, 2011 at 07:39 | #32

    @Otto Kerner

    “It makes no difference whether there are rules that are not followed or no rules at all.”

    If you are going to make absolutes like that, then no rules in the history of humanity has ever been “followed”.

    The difference is, some rules are at least there, AND followed SOME of the times. (better than NO rule at all).

  33. October 24th, 2011 at 08:31 | #33

    @Otto Kerner
    I have already told you I am a realist, any romantic notion I have is base on reality. I gave you my analysis of the situation and instead of retorting me on points give, all you can come up with is calling me a Chinese nationalist. Who is the one using personal attack then?

    UK has a democratic institution in 1919? You are more delusional than I thought. The UK is the biggest imperial empire at that time. Today, UK still hold on to Northern Ireland, Falkland, Channel Island, Gibraltar, St Helena etc.

    The Karmapa has been repeatedly harassed by the Indian intelligence service after he was found to be sympathetic to China’s cause. When I say you are a one trick pony, I am reiterating a fact. You have avoided all issues other than the Tibetan vs Chinese one.

    I have no qualm in saying I do not support succession from Kurds in Turkey, Iraq; Basque in Spain, Malay in Thailand etc. However, I believe they should have limited self rule and their local languages taught in school. I am not much of a religion fan but believe that PRC is going the extra step by supporting minority religious practice.

    Oh, and why in a “democratic” country like UK that the prince of Wales is not a Welsh? And why in a “democratic” country like the US that the First Nation do not have their own language or religious school supported by the federal government. When your government did all that maybe then we can discuss the issue at hand. Before that happened I think we are wasting each other’s time.

  34. October 24th, 2011 at 08:35 | #34

    @Otto Kerner
    And don’t you think there is something wrong with you that in this thread you never once even commented on the Israeli-Palestinian issue? Very telling.

  35. jxie
    October 24th, 2011 at 09:11 | #35

    @Otto,

    If China had the same political system (i.e. basically democratic) that the UK had in 1919, they would find Tibet equally ungovernable and would eventually make the same decision that it was not worth holding onto.

    The UK had practically the same political system in 1919 as in 1857 (with the exception of women’s suffrage), yet it didn’t conclude India was ungovernable in 1857.

    In 1919 the UK was a considerably weaker empire through the WW1. Ireland was not worth holding onto only because of the cost benefit calculation. It’s not as if in one generation or two the Brits had lost the valiance shown by Chard and Bromhead, which by itself is way overrated for empire building, the time for the UK was simply up. The proverbial dyke had just too many holes in it, and even with a boy’s all 10 fingers he wouldn’t be able to save it.

  36. Otto Kerner
    October 24th, 2011 at 13:21 | #36

    jxie,

    India was part of the British empire, but it was not part of the United Kingdom. The difference is very important, because the UK had democratic elections, including in Ireland, while the other imperial possessions generally did not. The comparison between Tibet and India is not very solid, because India has a much larger population than England had, which made it much easier for them to resist the British. Also, the British were never going to allow Indians to vote in UK elections, because they would end up running everything. Ireland is much smaller in population than England is, just as Tibet is much smaller in population than Tibet is, which makes it much easier to dominate them by force. The Irish resisted for hundreds of years before eventually gaining independence in the 20th century. The British thought the era of strong Irish resistance was over, but they were wrong.

  37. raventhorn
    October 24th, 2011 at 13:56 | #37

    @Otto Kerner

    “India was part of the British empire, but it was not part of the United Kingdom. The difference is very important, because the UK had democratic elections, including in Ireland, while the other imperial possessions generally did not.”

    Interesting hypocrisy. A Democracy as the head of an Empire, ruling over others that have no Democracies?!

    Well, That certainly proved Democracy worked so well, that it needed to enslave others?!

    Well, I guess we are down to the “Chicken-Egg” question again, which came 1st?

  38. jxie
    October 24th, 2011 at 22:12 | #38

    Otto,

    The point in contention, which was raised by you, was that the form of the UK government allowed them to let Ireland go — Ireland in this case, in your way of thinking is like modern-day Tibet. In your follow-up painful rationalization of why it didn’t let India go in 1857, apparently it’s mostly about the way and form how those royal subjects were incorporated in the empire. OK, why didn’t the form of the UK government prevent them from annexing Ireland at the first place in the earlier centuries, which involved bloodily putting down multiple rebellions? Didn’t the UK already have its parliamentary system and “democratic elections”?

    If the UK tried to keep Ireland in the Union in the late 1910s to the early 1920s, the Brits would have to do what it did in 1857: bloodily putting down the rebellion, and having some reforms to placate the rest of the seething but more docile population.

    Allow me to introduce a simpler version, and a realist’s viewpoint: the form of the government is red herring. Each nation state, or group of people, has its own set of goals and interest, which are in competition of the others’ all the time.

  39. Otto Kerner
    October 24th, 2011 at 22:25 | #39

    No, the difference is the form of government that was applied to Ireland. Ireland had democratic elections. India did not.

    The elections didn’t make Ireland totally ungovernable, but they allowed the Irish to organise which eventually made Ireland ungovernable unless the UK adopted policies that they didn’t want to adopt. They could have canceled further elections and used concentration camps like they did against the Boers, and that would have worked, but they chose not to go that route.

  40. jxie
    October 24th, 2011 at 22:36 | #40

    Heck, all they needed was declaring the IRA then terrorists, and passed the 1918 version of the Patriot Act. The hard part was the cost of fighting an angry Irish nation, which was acceptable in centuries earlier, but not immediately after the WW1.

  41. Otto Kerner
    October 24th, 2011 at 22:36 | #41

    raventhorn,

    The sources you cited show that Tibetans didn’t trust the CIA and that the PRC had some collaborators in Tibet as of the mid-to-late-60s at a time when the the rebellion had already been crushed. Well, obviously the Nazis had some collaborators when they occupied France, but that doesn’t mean that it was fundamentally anything other than a military occupation of a hostile foreign country. I’ll wager that Marshall Petain was more popular than any Tibetan collaborator has ever been, with the exception of the 10th Panchen Lama.

    Do you have any sources which support your claim, that Tibetan support was important to PLA military success in Tibet in 1959?

  42. Otto Kerner
    October 24th, 2011 at 22:56 | #42

    Ray :
    @Otto Kerner
    I have already told you I am a realist, any romantic notion I have is base on reality. I gave you my analysis of the situation and instead of retorting me on points give, all you can come up with is calling me a Chinese nationalist. Who is the one using personal attack then?

    Fair point. I didn’t think it would be interesting or productive to go through a whole discussion with you to make my point, so I skipped ahead to my conclusion. I don’t have a high opinion of your ability to have a meaningful or interesting conversation with me.

    Also, for the record, you didn’t really give me an analysis. What you said was:

    There is a certain cohesiveness of China that you don’t want to see. Of all the Tibetan only those in TGIE actually believe that Tibet is a separate country. Are you so sure that the discontent of the Latvian etc are present in China today?

    I see an assertion and a question, but not really analysis. I don’t think there is anything substantial for me to reply to. Maybe I missed the analysis earlier in your comment, but I went back and looked and I couldn’t find it.

    I think you were mistaken or lying when you said that the Karmapa called 1959 a liberation. Can you provide a link to show otherwise?

    You have avoided all issues other than the Tibetan vs Chinese one.

    I am interesting in various topics, but I want to talk about one thing at a time, because otherwise I think I’m afraid you will change the subject whenever it suits you. Let’s have separate discussions about the Basque country, the Falklands, etc. In view of the fact that this thread was originally about Israel/Palestine before someone (not me) started talking about Tibet, however, I will make a comment about that topic.

  43. Otto Kerner
    October 24th, 2011 at 22:59 | #43

    I support a two-state solution to the Israel/Palestine dispute, with Israel withdrawing from ~99% of the land in the settlements.

    Actually, what I would prefer in an ideal world would be a one-state solution in the Holy Land plus a Jewish state in North America. However, that idea is so far out of left field that it is nowhere near on anyone’s radar, so I don’t usually bother to include that as an option.

  44. raventhorn
    October 25th, 2011 at 05:22 | #44

    Otto Kerner :raventhorn,
    The sources you cited show that Tibetans didn’t trust the CIA and that the PRC had some collaborators in Tibet as of the mid-to-late-60s at a time when the the rebellion had already been crushed. Well, obviously the Nazis had some collaborators when they occupied France, but that doesn’t mean that it was fundamentally anything other than a military occupation of a hostile foreign country. I’ll wager that Marshall Petain was more popular than any Tibetan collaborator has ever been, with the exception of the 10th Panchen Lama.
    Do you have any sources which support your claim, that Tibetan support was important to PLA military success in Tibet in 1959?

    Well, I think I have more sources than you do for your assertion of “collaborators”.

    Seriously, the total failure of the CIA operation in Tibet, when the PLA was not that well supplied, is rather telling of the “popular” sentiments of the Tibetans at the time.

    DL’s “popular uprising” FAILED, he ran. By your theories, PLA’s supposed brutality in occupation and crackdown would have caused a massive uprising (as some posit today).

    Nope, REALITY didn’t pan out the way you wished.

    Just face it, CIA’s “collaborators” are no match for PLA’s “collaborators”. I guess we are down to judging the “feelings” of the “collaborators”.

    🙂

  45. Otto Kerner
    October 25th, 2011 at 06:55 | #45

    Ray,

    raventhorn doesn’t have any sources for your claim that “The PLA would not be able to put down the insurrections of 1959 without the support of the local Tibetans”, other than assuming it on the basis of the fact that they did put down the insurrections. Do you have any sources?

  46. October 25th, 2011 at 07:44 | #46

    @Otto Kerner
    Why are you wasting your time attacking your own logic. Your allegation that Tibet was held due to oppressive policy has even less of a basis as it is a figment of your own imagination. I am simply using your own logic to attack your allegation. The REALITY speaks for itself, Tibet is part of China and no state recognize it. What I said of 1959 is the reality. It is a also reality that CCP won the support of the people to form PRC in 1949. The result is better proof than any allegation you can brought about.

    Frankly, we are people on a different level. I tored apart your argument on Ireland and you have no respond to that. And you have avoided the issue of the prince of wales not being Welsh, Native American not having their own language or religoius supported like a plague, on this criteria alone the PRC is more of democracy than both the US and UK.

    You should count yourself lucky that raventhorn and I have entertained you for so long. You totally disregard his fact finding showing that the CIA support armed insurrection failed miserably due to no support.

    Do you have any source that proved you are not an idiot? This is the basis of your argument so far.

  47. Otto Kerner
    October 25th, 2011 at 08:38 | #47

    Ray,

    Personally, I really don’t think you’re an idiot. I think you have a skill gap insofar as you don’t know how to debate productively, but 90% of people also lack that skill, so it’s not like it’s particularly shameful.

    I would be happy to discuss the Prince of Wales or U.S. policies toward indigenous peoples with you if you have something to say about it. I just want those to be separate discussions, because I don’t accept you changing the subject all of a sudden. Do you want to have those conversations in this thread or should we move to the open thread?

  48. raventhorn
    October 25th, 2011 at 08:39 | #48

    @Otto Kerner
    Hey,

    I came up with at least 1 source, quoting a CIA guy involved at the time. If my interpretation is not good enough for Otto, I don’t see him quoting anything directing contradicting my conclusion.

    But of course, there is also the evidence of TGIE’s corruption and incompetence as I quoted above. So may be, TGIE and DL were just VERY VERY incompetent! 🙂

  49. October 25th, 2011 at 09:27 | #49

    @raventhorn
    Otto can’t came up with a source that he is not an idiot, so he obviously is one. Why are you wasting your time?

    Well, it seems that an idiot is allowed to set the discussion agenda and switch the topic whenever he lost the plot. But when I am doing it, it is now allowed! Do you see what is wrong with these bozos.

    This is a thread about Israeli-Palestinian issue. A holy than others figure come in and talked about the Tibetan issue, then raised the Irish independence issue. Basically, that’s why we are having problem with them. As long as they get to dictate to others, it is ok. Only they get to set the agenda and topic of discussion! They can bring in any point they want (even when proven wrong) but we are not accorded the same right!

    Basically unless this smug can address why he does not dare tackle at least the Native American language and religious issue, he is a hypocrite of the highest order, and simply not worth a serious discussion with. Anyway, raventhorn do you know what happened to the last Prince of Wales that is Welsh or Mary, Queen of Scot?

  50. Charles Liu
    October 26th, 2011 at 13:23 | #50

    @Ray

    I’ve asked Free Tibet folks I meet if they’re okay with Chinese government adopting US reservation system. You know what, not one of them were willing to subject the Tibetans to something far worse than what they’re b!tching about.

    And few are drawing the parallel between US reservation system and what’s happening to Palestinian territory:

    http://www.bearcanada.com/fae/israel/genocideingazaintro.html

    Look at the map in historical progression, if nothing is done that Palestinians will be living in tiny pockets of reservation, cut off from each other, and become dependent on diseased meat and all the alcohol they can eat/drink, with their will to fight completely eradicated.

    Second thought, maybe the Chinese should do the same thing as US/Israel, because the track record of success.

  51. raventhorn
    October 26th, 2011 at 13:43 | #51

    @Charles Liu

    “Second thought, maybe the Chinese should do the same thing as US/Israel, because the track record of success.”

    Yep, apparently, as usual, Chinese were too busy playing the “nice guy”, when the real genocide nations are becoming “HR champions”.

    OK then, put Tibetans on “reservations”, and call them “nation within a nation”, but don’t give them any real authorities, no aid. Put their personal properties under the “Trusteeship” of the Central government, Use/Waste that money with no accountability for a century or so.

    *Oh, I know, why should China even bother doing that??!! China can just buy some land in US and let the US government hand them “sovereignty within a nation”. No cost to US.

    Simple! Much better!

    Problem solved!! 🙂

  52. melektaus
    October 26th, 2011 at 14:14 | #52

    @raventhorn

    China is buying land in Iceland and Russia. Maybe these places will be Chinese Zion. 🙂

  53. October 26th, 2011 at 16:34 | #53

    @Charles Liu
    Like I have said many time. The PRC has more Tibetan supporters than does TGIE. Like other Chinese , modern Tibetan Chinese aspire to be a govn’t official, or businessman, or at least a professional.

    To pretend that the Tibetan Chinese are somehow different from other people is a form of racism.

  54. Otto Kerner
    October 26th, 2011 at 21:24 | #54

    raventhorn :
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1959_Tibetan_uprising
    The CIA officer, Bruce Walker, who oversaw the operations of CIA-trained Tibetan agents, was troubled by the hostility from the Tibetans towards his agents: “the radio teams were experiencing major resistance from the population inside Tibet.”
    Conboy, Kenneth, and Morrison, James. The CIA’s Secret War in Tibet (2002) University Press of Kansas. ISBN 978-0-7006-1159-1

    Actually, raventhorn, I took another look at this and I realised I had misread the source you’ve quoted here. I thought it was talking about hostility to American CIA agents in 1959. I looked up the source on page 220 of The CIA’s Secret War in Tibet. It is talking about the situation in 1966. You have cited no sources about Tibetan popular attitudes toward the rebellion in 1959.

  55. raventhorn
    October 27th, 2011 at 05:42 | #55

    @Otto Kerner

    I thought the TGIE considered it all to be 1 long uprising, Let’s just say 1966 was CIA’s SUMMARY analysis of the whole thing.

    Afterall, CIA didn’t get to see the actual reflection of Tibetan sentiments, until the WHOLE thing collapse.

    Like I said, you don’t have anything that contradicts that assessment. So, I got more relevant evidence, more than just political speeches. 🙂

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.