|
LINK
From the article, "Zhu Weiqun, the head of the department in charge of talks with the Dalai Lama, told a news conference Tuesday that if Mr. Obama meets with the Dalai Lama, it would threaten trust and cooperation between China and the United States."
At first glance this seemed totally silly to me. But, does this demand make any kind of sense? Is there a plausible argument behind the Chinese government's demand that Obama not meet with the DL?
Although I am willing to consider such an argument, I don't know if such an argument is possible. Even if it was granted that Tibet shouldn't be the concern of outside nations, that is is a renegade province bent on destabilizing Chinese rule, surely the leader of that province should be able to meet with Obama to voice his perspective, right? If the concerns of the DL are not allowed to be heard -- that is, if the Chinese government can strong arm leaders from even hearing the concerns of the DL -- then how can any sort of informed opinion on the matter come about? And isn't getting as many facts as possible before coming to a decision an important principle for leaders from around the world?
|
oh, this sounds interesting
|
Fuck that, he shouldn't really be thwarted by that. It's so bad that the chineese are being like that, noone can see Dalai Lama public anymore because he doesnt like China (or because he escaped Tibet before China invaded it...  )
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
So this is what the post F91/TSL TL.net looks like
^________________________________________^
|
every time the US meets with the DL, China should start meeting with a representative of the United Indian Tribes of the northwest who are still considered independent entities, but who have been thoroughly fucked up the ass by the American political system.
That ought to make things interesting, and indirectly bring out the truth of things.
Considering how we are having such a hard time with our own shit, I don't understand why we are poking our nose in other people's shit.
Do you people realize that we still have troops actively stationed in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Persian Gulf, and !@#$!!$# CUBA. What are we doing spending all our money like this.
The 2005-2015 generation is becoming known as US's lost generation because any students popping out of school during these years are basically prevented from getting a job, and eventually, put years behind compared to other students graduating just a few years earlier or later. And all this time, who the fuck cares about some celebrity Dalai Llama.
|
On February 02 2010 20:17 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:LINKFrom the article, "Zhu Weiqun, the head of the department in charge of talks with the Dalai Lama, told a news conference Tuesday that if Mr. Obama meets with the Dalai Lama, it would threaten trust and cooperation between China and the United States." At first glance this seemed totally silly to me. But, does this demand make any kind of sense? Is there a plausible argument behind the Chinese government's demand that Obama not meet with the DL? Although I am willing to consider such an argument, I don't know if such an argument is possible. Even if it was granted that Tibet shouldn't be the concern of outside nations, that is is a renegade province bent on destabilizing Chinese rule, surely the leader of that province should be able to meet with Obama to voice his perspective, right? If the concerns of the DL are not allowed to be heard -- that is, if the Chinese government can strong arm leaders from even hearing the concerns of the DL -- then how can any sort of informed opinion on the matter come about? And isn't getting as many facts as possible before coming to a decision an important principle for leaders from around the world?
Not that I don't like Dalai Lama but Chinese have made the right move from a political perspective. According to them, Tibet is in fact a rebel province and Dalai Lama is seen as leader of the revolution. Obama meeting with DL would mean that he recognizes him and that he supports his cause and that is something Chinese would not want.
Consider it Obama saying "Oh hai! I'm in the neighbourhood so I thought I'd drop by and have a tea with your enemies." to the Chinese government if he would go through with meeting DL.
|
why Obama have to meet Dalai Lama?
|
The political reason is that by meeting with the Dalai Llama the US officially recognizes them and its seen as a show of support for that nation, which undermines the Chinese position.
Can you imagine the outrage if the Chinese or Russian representatives met with Al Qaeda to broker a "peace"? extreme example obviously but that's partly what the Chinese government thinks.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On February 02 2010 20:28 Chen wrote:
The political reason is that by meeting with the Dalai Llama the US officially recognizes them and its seen as a show of support for that nation, which undermines the Chinese position.
Can you imagine the outrage if the Chinese or Russian representatives met with Al Qaeda to broker a "peace"? extreme example obviously but that's partly what the Chinese government thinks.
Al Qaeda -> 9/11, suicide bombs, extreme messages of murder, genocide etc
Tibet/DL -> peaceful protests, extreme messages of independence, freedom and religious expression
=same?
I'd argue not.
|
incontrol, you're amazing. <3
but out of inc's butt I will go
coz now I'm about to show
why china went so low
nope, can't explain it.
|
On February 02 2010 20:27 emucxg wrote:
why Obama have to meet Dalai Lama?
childish maneuver on Obama's part to show the chinese the dominance of American influence in their domain, how Obama has been provoking the chinese with the arms deal with taiwan and now this after the chinese refused to play along with the copenhagen climate plan and the iran sanction.
Obama is hustling the chinese who is getting out of line on how the American government wants them to play along.
|
It's typical move from Chinese diplomacy. Protest and warn every time something don't go your way.
Maybe back up by trade sanctions and at the extreme cases go to war.
Obama will just think fuck you China, I will do what I please now that you've mentioned it. Obama can not afford to be seen stepping down against anther country especially China.
|
On February 02 2010 20:35 XsebT wrote:
incontrol, you're amazing. <3
but out of inc's butt I will go
coz now I'm about to show
why china went so low
nope, can't explain it.
Ahaha what?
|
On February 02 2010 20:39 haduken wrote:
It's typical move from Chinese diplomacy. Protest and warn every time something don't go your way.
Maybe back up by trade sanctions and at the extreme cases go to war.
Obama will just think fuck you China, I will do what I please now that you've mentioned it. Obama can not afford to be seen stepping down against anther country especially China.
definitely. just because things don't go their way, the chinese government begins to bitch. after that arms deal to taiwan, obama isn't going to skip this meeting. Their government can choke on it.
|
China does this to everyone who talks to the Dalai Lama, it's no big deal.
Obama just needs to ignore the Chinese government, say nothing, and everyone will forget this.
|
On February 02 2010 20:33 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2010 20:28 Chen wrote:
The political reason is that by meeting with the Dalai Llama the US officially recognizes them and its seen as a show of support for that nation, which undermines the Chinese position.
Can you imagine the outrage if the Chinese or Russian representatives met with Al Qaeda to broker a "peace"? extreme example obviously but that's partly what the Chinese government thinks. Al Qaeda -> 9/11, suicide bombs, extreme messages of murder, genocide etc Tibet/DL -> peaceful protests, extreme messages of independence, freedom and religious expression =same? I'd argue not.
The tibetan independence movement is hardly peaceful. There's a shit-ton of anti-Han violence in Tibet, and the most recent military crackdown was the result of massive rioting, on the part of the tibetans. Of course, you don't hear about Beijing or Shanghai getting planes flown into them by the Tibetans, but I think you should acknowledge that the current situation in Tibet is a lot more complicated than "give peaceful monks their independence, yo."
This article gives a somewhat more nuanced look at what's going down... The comparison to hypothetically rebellious Inuits in Alaska would probably a more apt analogy.
If you have a workable solution, however, to this issue I'm sure everybody would like to hear it!
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On February 02 2010 21:09 love1another wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2010 20:33 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On February 02 2010 20:28 Chen wrote:
The political reason is that by meeting with the Dalai Llama the US officially recognizes them and its seen as a show of support for that nation, which undermines the Chinese position.
Can you imagine the outrage if the Chinese or Russian representatives met with Al Qaeda to broker a "peace"? extreme example obviously but that's partly what the Chinese government thinks. Al Qaeda -> 9/11, suicide bombs, extreme messages of murder, genocide etc Tibet/DL -> peaceful protests, extreme messages of independence, freedom and religious expression =same? I'd argue not. The tibetan independence movement is hardly peaceful. There's a shit-ton of anti-Han violence in Tibet, and the most recent military crackdown was the result of massive rioting, on the part of the tibetans. Of course, you don't hear about Beijing or Shanghai getting planes flown into them by the Tibetans, but I think you should acknowledge that the current situation in Tibet is a lot more complicated than "give peaceful monks their independence, yo."
Yeah you are right. They are totally similar to the al qaeda. The DL actually just wants to stir shit. His cause is pretty baseless and evil too when you get right down to it.
lol
|
It looks like America is just jumping around in front of China saying "PLEASE KILL ME"
|
Zurich15366 Posts
On February 02 2010 21:13 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2010 21:09 love1another wrote:On February 02 2010 20:33 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On February 02 2010 20:28 Chen wrote:
The political reason is that by meeting with the Dalai Llama the US officially recognizes them and its seen as a show of support for that nation, which undermines the Chinese position.
Can you imagine the outrage if the Chinese or Russian representatives met with Al Qaeda to broker a "peace"? extreme example obviously but that's partly what the Chinese government thinks. Al Qaeda -> 9/11, suicide bombs, extreme messages of murder, genocide etc Tibet/DL -> peaceful protests, extreme messages of independence, freedom and religious expression =same? I'd argue not. The tibetan independence movement is hardly peaceful. There's a shit-ton of anti-Han violence in Tibet, and the most recent military crackdown was the result of massive rioting, on the part of the tibetans. Of course, you don't hear about Beijing or Shanghai getting planes flown into them by the Tibetans, but I think you should acknowledge that the current situation in Tibet is a lot more complicated than "give peaceful monks their independence, yo." Yeah you are right. They are totally similar to the al qaeda. The DL actually just wants to stir shit. His cause is pretty baseless and evil too when you get right down to it.
WTF Inc as if that is even remotely what he just said.
'... but I think you should acknowledge that the current situation in Tibet is a lot more complicated than "give peaceful monks their independence, yo."'
But I guess moderating is completely in vain here anyway, China thread #546 GO!
|
On February 02 2010 21:13 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2010 21:09 love1another wrote:On February 02 2010 20:33 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On February 02 2010 20:28 Chen wrote:
The political reason is that by meeting with the Dalai Llama the US officially recognizes them and its seen as a show of support for that nation, which undermines the Chinese position.
Can you imagine the outrage if the Chinese or Russian representatives met with Al Qaeda to broker a "peace"? extreme example obviously but that's partly what the Chinese government thinks. Al Qaeda -> 9/11, suicide bombs, extreme messages of murder, genocide etc Tibet/DL -> peaceful protests, extreme messages of independence, freedom and religious expression =same? I'd argue not. The tibetan independence movement is hardly peaceful. There's a shit-ton of anti-Han violence in Tibet, and the most recent military crackdown was the result of massive rioting, on the part of the tibetans. Of course, you don't hear about Beijing or Shanghai getting planes flown into them by the Tibetans, but I think you should acknowledge that the current situation in Tibet is a lot more complicated than "give peaceful monks their independence, yo." Yeah you are right. They are totally similar to the al qaeda. The DL actually just wants to stir shit. His cause is pretty baseless and evil too when you get right down to it. lol
I'm not saying anything about the Dalai Lama being violent, see my edited post. Whether or not he's a great guy, which he probably is, is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. China sees Tibet as a hopeless quagmire, only in a contested border region with South Asian powers that they are militarily obligated to hold. Furthermore, the presence of so many Han Chinese in the Tibetan territories makes it even more difficult for Beijing to say "Fuck it. You can go." And since the Dalai Lama is the head of the Tibetan independence movement, diplomatic talks with him would, as previous posters pointed out, be seen as the legitimization of a domestic rogue state.
Rapid, unplanned independence of a partially integrated society, is never a good idea... see Yugoslavia post-Tito. Therefore, given China's lingering post-colonial paranoia, and the ethnic volatility in Tibet, any hopes at a stable, independent, Tibetan state are for the distant future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
