Written Interview with Kalon Tripa Prof. S. Rinpoche
Filed under:-mini-posts, General, politics | Tags:dalai lama, tibet
Add comments
When looking at the Tibet issue, I pay special attention to the term “Greater Tibet”. I have repeatedly read the text of your statement on ‘Greater Tibet’ (including the English version). You said, “Tibet is Tibet. There is no greater or smaller Tibet”. However, the fact of the matter is, during the dialogue process between the Envoys of His Holiness the Dalai Lama and Beijing, the issue of one autonomous administration for all the Tibetan people has been raised. Obviously, it seeks to unify Tibetan areas in Sichuan, Yunnan and Qinghai Provinces into the present day Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR). Given the size of administration, it is indeed a ‘Greater Tibet’. Therefore, on account of that, the ‘Greater Tibet’ which Beijing asserts is not wrong because the reference was made from the present status of Tibet. You have, on one hand opposed the usage of word ‘Greater’ as in ‘Greater Tibet’, while on the other hand, maintained that ‘size should not matter whether big or small’. Are not these two statements contradictory?
Kalon Tripa Prof. S. Rinpoche: Before answering your questions, we would like to stress two important points which are the root cause of difference in perceptions between Dharamsala and Beijing. The first is lack of trust and confidence in the mindset of Beijing’s leadership as illustrated by the popular Tibetan saying, “Tibetans are ruined by hope, and Chinese are ruined by suspicion.” Beijing views everything with suspicion and always fear that to consider anything which is proposed by Dharamsala will bring consequences of disaster or loss of face. Therefore, they always project every petty issue as a potential threat of separation.
With such mindset, Dharamsala could not convince Beijing, no matter how sincerely the Tibetan side puts its faith in the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) leadership, or, no matter how rational and reasonable the request is.
The second is lack of political will in the PRC’s leadership to find a solution to the Tibet problem. The leadership always suffers from immeasurable fear that if they do anything with Tibet issue, it might bring more problems or may lead to the loss of Tibet. It is for this reason that we are not able to communicate with each other from a right perspective and in a positive manner.
National integrity cannot be maintained without mutual trust. We are afraid that if the present PRC leadership’s approach to minorities in general and Tibetans in particular remain unchanged, it might lead to separation or annihilation of the minority nationalities. Either of these ends will not be in the interest of anyone. If both sides are able to view each other with trust and self-confidence, this problem can be resolved quickly and amicably. Both sides will be in a win-win situation.
Another, small but important point is the nature of language. In Chinese and Tibetan languages, there is no difference in expression of “Great” and “Greater”. In the English language there are two different words. Thus “Great Tibet” may be understood as honorific word but when we use the word “Greater Tibet” it may create more confusion. This expression might encompass the national boundaries and may include the cultural and language domain. Therefore, in this reference we better use “Great Tibet” in English instead of “Greater Tibet”.
Now coming to your question, what I mean by saying – Tibet is Tibet – is that there is no smaller or bigger Tibet in the context of the constitutional provisions of national regional autonomy for the minority. The Tibetans are one minority nationality among the 55 minority nationalities of the PRC. One minority nationality must not be divided into “small, great or greater”. Of course, if all these autonomous areas are administered by one administration, then the area of administration of the autonomous region will definitely be enlarged compared to the present areas which are administered by several autonomous administrations. But it does not mean that the Tibet or Tibetans are becoming bigger or greater. So therefore, there is no contradiction in my statement.
Our basic concern is how the PRC presents this issue to the world. As a matter of fact, Tibetans are asking for one administration for all the Tibetan autonomous areas. But the tone of language in saying that Tibetans are demanding the “Great Tibet or Greater Tibet” sounds as if we are seeking separation or re-demarcation of Tibetan areas. This sentence appears to us as being formulated intentionally to mislead people.
Prof. Bi: The Envoys of His Holiness the Dalai Lama has raised the need of ‘One administration’ for the whole of Tibetan areas. However, others find this very intricate and complicating. Perhaps, the Dalai Lama’s side did not feel it necessary to condense the expression “One administration” by some other word which is more comprehensible and rich. Beijing’s assertion of ‘Greater Tibet’ is similar to giving a name to the concept of ‘One administration’. This is true according to economics of language. If in case the Tibetan government in exile (TGiE) has used a definite term from the very beginning, then there is no reason for the PRC to pronounce it differently. Therefore, does the TGiE feel the need and importance to have a specific term? How does it plan to respond to this in future?
Kalon Tripa: The constitution provides that “Regional autonomy is practiced in areas where people of minority nationalities live in concentrated communities; in these areas organs of self-government are established to exercise the power of autonomy”. In accordance with this provision Tibetans live in a concentrated community in a particular geographical area which is not scattered over different parts of the PRC, nor are these areas separated or divided by non-Tibetan areas.
Therefore, one organ of self-government is sufficient for all the Tibetans and that is the essence of the constitution too. We do not find any other word more suitable than “one administration or self-government” to define our aspiration. We also don’t believe that if we substitute this word by any other expression it will be acceptable to the PRC authority. If anyone can suggest more appropriate expression, we would welcome.
The basic objective for seeking one administration is not for political or economic interests. It is only for preservation and promotion of the unique Tibetan language, culture, spiritual heritage and traditions. One administration can easily execute uniform policy of education and culture, etc.
Prof. Bi: You have said, “Moreover, we are not seeking additional areas to be included in the Tibetan autonomous areas. It is only to make alterations in the administration. Instead of having several autonomous administrations, one autonomous administration should be established. It neither affects China’s borders with other countries nor its domestic boundaries between autonomous areas and non-autonomous areas, nor…” In my view, this explanation, has created more confusion. Whether TGiE’s request to unify all Tibetan areas under one administration implies redrawing of the boundaries of the provinces and autonomous region? If not, then how do you propose to implement one administration to all Tibetan areas?
Kalon Tripa: At present, autonomous areas in various provinces are already having well defined boundaries. There is no need to change these boundaries. What is going to be changed is the administration. Those with several self-governments will be substituted by one self-government and that self-government will be directly controlled by the central government instead of by several provincial governments.
One may argue that the administrative areas of those provinces will become smaller if autonomous areas within their province are governed by one self-government. Yes, this may be true but if the provisions of national regional autonomy are implemented in all sincerity then the provinces do not have much role to play in the autonomous areas. Therefore, the incorporation of autonomous areas outside the provinces or remaining within the provinces will not make much difference to the concerned provinces.
Prof. Bi: It is true that there is precedence of boundary re-adjustments in the PRC. If the ‘Greater Tibet’, which the Dalai Lama’s side seeks, is to be constituted, it is going to be the biggest re-drawing of the boundaries between provinces and autonomous regions since the inception of the PRC. This will, therefore, certainly mean redistribution of benefits, and it invariably relates to the issue which does not go well with the sentiment of the people. However, everyone knows that to maintain status quo is less expensive than to change it. Therefore, if the boundaries of the provinces and autonomous region are to be re-adjusted, there must be strong and compelling reasons to do so. I personally think that the central government would not take the political risks of such magnitude and the TGiE alone is not powerful enough to advance the re-drawing of the boundaries. How does the Dalai Lama’s side think and speculate on this matter?
Kalon Tripa: As mentioned in response to question no 3, we do not perceive that the change of administration does not necessitate the redrawing of boundaries. As a matter of fact, boundaries between provinces or autonomous regions may not have much importance as all of them will remain as an integral part of the country.
Nevertheless, changing boundaries between autonomous areas to non-autonomous areas may have some importance for the provinces and autonomous regions but we have never asked for inclusion of any non-autonomous areas into the Tibetan autonomous region.
Our recommendation is to integrate into one administration those Tibetan autonomous prefectures and counties which are already defined and recognised as autonomous areas.
Prof. Bi: You mentioned Beijing’s approach of “dividing concentrated areas of minority nationals” is unconstitutional. However, the constitution explicitly states that “Regional autonomy is practised in areas where people of minority nationalities live in concentrated communities; in these areas organs of self-government are established to exercise the power of autonomy”. It does not specifically mention about establishing one autonomous organ for each minority nationality. Article 2 of the National Regional Autonomy Law further adopts that national autonomous areas shall be classified into autonomous regions, prefectures and counties. Therefore, the present approach of the central government is in accordance with both the constitution and autonomy law. I think your understanding of the constitution and autonomy law is different from anyone else. How do you intend to settle this difference?
Kalon Tripa: The basic concept of national regional autonomy aims to preserve and promote the unique identities of the minority nationalities. To achieve this objective there is need to maintain administrative unity within same nationality, unless this unity is impossible due to geographical conditions. Apart from that, article 4 of the constitution says, “Any act which undermines the unity of the nationality or instigates division is prohibited”.
It is stated in the autonomy law that national autonomous areas shall be classified into autonomous regions, prefectures and counties. But it should be determined by the size and population of a particular minority nationality, in accordance with their areas of habitation, in establishing an autonomous region just as Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region and Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region. There is no reason or need to deliberately divide a particular nationality by establishing many autonomous prefectures and counties.
Dividing the Tibetan nationality despite the fact that they have lived together for centuries in one contiguous area is considered as a violation of the spirit of the constitution. This is the imperialist policy of “divide and rule”. If a minority nationality cannot integrate within itself, then it will become more difficult to integrate with the PRC. Emotional integrity is the sustainable cause for national integration.
Prof. Bi: If one autonomous administration is being implemented for Tibet, it implies that other minority nationalities can also claim the same. This means total upheaval of China’s minority nationality policy and a major shift in central government’s approach towards regional governments. At present, Han nationals whether residing in provinces, autonomous regions or municipalities directly under the central government, are all governed directly by their respective governments like the Tibetans. Both Han and Tibetan nationals are equal in this regard. If Tibetans were administered separately under one administration and the Hans under several administrations, as usual, doesn’t it mean inequality among nationalities? How do you look at this issue?
Kalon Tripa: Perfect equality among nationalities is the fundamental principle of Marxism and I hope even today this principle is being respected by the PRC. In order to maintain this equality and prevent the majority’s domination or chauvinism, the concept of national regional autonomy is envisaged. Therefore, the opportunity of self-rule for all the minorities is necessary.
The question regarding one administration or several administrations should be determined in accordance with their areas of habitation. Minority nationalities like Mongolians and Tibetans, who inhabit one contiguous region, can be governed by one administration and those minorities who do not inhabit one region may be governed by several administrations. These arrangements will not be in any way contrary to the principle of equality. On the other hand, it will grant equality to all the nationalities, regardless of their size or population.
Prof. Bi: The “Memorandum on Genuine Autonomy for the Tibetan People”, submitted to Beijing by the Envoys of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, raises the issue of public security in the Tibetan areas. In your presentation on ‘Greater Tibet’ in New Delhi, you have mentioned that establishment of one administration for all the Tibetan areas will help to contain local nationalism and ensure unity and stability of the PRC. In my opinion, there are several perspectives or standpoints on this. It is possible that the central government may thoroughly evaluate the effect of establishing an administration of the ‘Greater Tibet’. Under such circumstances, crucial point will be how far the central government is going to trust the administration of the ‘Greater Tibet’. In my opinion, it is very hard to believe, at present, that the central government will agree that one administration will contain local nationalism and enhance unity and stability in China. How do you think to break this entrenched ice?
Kalon Tripa: This question is difficult to answer because it does not relate to facts and principles. But it is related with the mindset and attitude of the present leadership.
Logically speaking, if they wish to achieve stability through emotional integrity and mutual trust, one administration will definitely enhance the possibility of unity. Even if they believe in using force in order to maintain unity and stability, it will be much easier to use force if there is one centralised administration.
Nevertheless, we do not have any handy methods to break the ice. However, whether we are able to break the ice or not, we shall have to put forward our aspirations and ideas clearly and sincerely without any ambiguity. There is no any other way.
Prof. Bi: I think ‘Greater Tibet’ is the biggest obstacle for people inside China to understand the issue of Tibet. Apart from that, other concerns of the TGiE such as religious freedom, economic development, promotion of education, protection of the Tibetan culture, etc. are understandable and I believe people inside China will also extend their support. However, it appears that the ‘unification of all Tibetan areas’ is the biggest difference between Beijing and the TGiE at present. If the dialogue process does not move forward, will the TGiE change its position on ‘One administration for all Tibetan areas’ in the future? Will the Dalai Lama’s side change its strategy of the dialogue process?
Kalon Tripa: This question cannot be entertained at this moment because there are no alternative suggestions that are forthcoming.
From our side, we consider the request for one administration for all the Tibetan nationality as reasonable and constitutional, apart from being the legitimate right of the Tibetan people. There will be no problem in implementing it if there is political will in the PRC leadership. As we have mentioned before the objective of our request is for the preservation of Tibetan language, culture and spiritual heritage.
If there is more logical and convincing alternative suggestions comingforth, His Holiness the Dalai Lama is always very open to any idea which is based on truth and reason.
（The Chinese translation of this interview has been published in Beijing Spring, February Edition 2010）
There are currently no comments highlighted.
February 25th, 2010 at 2:49 am
My comment as an attorney:
To seek a supposedly constitutional and legal right of “autonomy,” the advocate of that position must put the exact right in precise WORDS and terms that define the limits of such right.
For the TGiE representatives to be so wishy washy about the precise WORDING of such rights, after more than 60 years in Exile, that is the true cause of the problem.
The fact that the representative of TGiE is talking about how there is no difference between “Great Tibet” and “Greater Tibet” in Chinese, and there is a difference in English, is telling.
Is TGiE proposing the terms of the negotiations to Chinese government, or presenting them to the English speaking public in the Western world for publicity?!
February 25th, 2010 at 3:26 am
I don’t think my government would have much trust or confidence, either, in a “greater Native America” concept and expand the Native American Reservations System, effectivly relinquish “current statehood” and turn over “established sovereignty” over non-Native American citizens to Native governance (whom might I say are the rightful owners of the land, following the same logic.)
Is there political will in America’s leadership to find a solution to the Native American problem? Doesn’t seem so, and our subjugated vassals will just have to continue to rot in tiny pockets of desolate land whitemen don’t want.
Sounds totally absurd when we measure ourselves with the same bar, for some reason.
February 25th, 2010 at 4:23 am
r v,
Wasn’t this interview conducted in English? I thought that’s why the Kalön Tripa was commenting on the English language term. The note at the bottom says, “The Chinese translation of this interview has been published …”, so I guess it wasn’t originally in Chinese. Maybe in Tibetan?
February 25th, 2010 at 7:18 am
Charles Liu is attempted comparison is silly, if he were to accept his own argument than he must be agreeing that Tibet is a conquered nation and the Tibetans surely have the right redress the situation. The Chinese often uses this comparison, which tantamount to saying the White man did this in the past, it is our turn now!
February 25th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Otto Kerner,
I’d like to clarify the term “Greater Tibet”. When TGiE proposed governing all Tibetan areas under one single Tibetan administration, they didn’t condense the concept. Beijing calls it “Da Xizang” or “Da Tibet” in Chinese. “Da” in Chinese is ambiguous in that it may be translated into English as “great” or “greater”. Beijing adopted the term “Greater Tibet” when presenting it to the English audience, which TGiE is against. In the view of the vast majority of the Han nationals in China, what TGiE is demanding is definitely “Greater” because it covers the Tibetan areas now under the jurisdiction of Sichuan, Qinghai, Yunnan and Gansu.
February 25th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
Personally, I take this ‘interview’ with a grain of salt as they are merely expressing things in their point of view. This article is published in Beijing Spring, which is funded by the NED.
February 25th, 2010 at 6:36 pm
An old comedy skit:
— Can you help me?
— Yes, I can, but I may not.
Inner Mongolia’s line with other provinced was redrawn twice in 1969 and 1979 so that’s doable. As somebody who negotiates with others, you have to constantly ask what’s in it for the other side. A great salesman doesn’t sell his position, his product or his service, he sells how the other side may benefit from the deal.
TGIE and most who support TGIE’s cause, don’t seem to get that. Once you get that, the next is prioritizing what you ask — which brings up a question, why not abandon that TAR, Great/Greater Tibet issue altogether, at least for now?
February 25th, 2010 at 6:58 pm
“This article is published in Beijing Spring, which is funded by the NED”
Why am I not surprised? The west and their various overt and covert organizations are just trying to impede China’s development anyway they can, and tibet is one of these wedges used. It’s funny how the tibetans and the TGIE are such willing pawns in this great game, yet they are the ones who stand to lose the most. China certainly is in no rush achieve anything with the status quo, and yet the west and the US in particular, could turn around support of TGIE at any moment. Just ask the Kurds after the first gulf war.
@Lee #4: You’re right, Charles’ comparison is not accurate. China has not killed 99% of the tibetans like the europeans wiped out the native americans.
February 25th, 2010 at 10:26 pm
Kalon Tripa propose to form one administration of only Tibetan so his group could control all Tibetan. Some Tibetan community live in a province share by other Chinese ethnics. What Kalon Tripa is asking is the Tibetan community who are living in a multi ethnic province outside of Tibet to give up their autonomy and only listen to one government which is headed by his group. That is all he is trying to say. Except he is windows dressing his proposal so that he does not sound like he want to control all Tibetan.
I agree with r v, Kalon Tripa is wishy washy about the precise WORDING of such rights.
The best strategy for China is not to accept Kalon Tripa proposal. I can see his group is seeking independence for all Tibetan. First step will be to form one administration for all Tibetan, then fight with the central government under this one administration. The Chinese see through his strategies and decline his proposal.
Tibetan community living outside of Tibet already have autonomy. These Tibetan do not want to lose their autonomy to Kalon Tripa administration. Why give up autonomy of a community and replace it with the one administration of Kalon Tripa that have no say in their current affair. Kalon Tripa want to remove the autonomy of Tibetan community. He ask for autonomy for the Dalai Lama but remove autonomy of Tibetan community who disagree with the Dalai Lama. That is the reason for his one administration for all Tibetan.
February 25th, 2010 at 11:13 pm
Before the 9th round of talk between Beijing and TGiE, Kalon Tripa stressed that there is no room for TGiE to retreat.Personally, I don’t regard him as a capable politician.
February 26th, 2010 at 12:26 am
wuen,
“What Kalon Tripa is asking is the Tibetan community who are living in a multi ethnic province outside of Tibet to give up their autonomy and only listen to one government which is headed by his group.”
I think that would be an excellent point if those communities actually had autonomy, but they don’t: as almost everybody knows, their nominal autonomy is an obvious sham. Heck, if they really had autonomy, we could just ask the people there whether they want to join the Tibet Autonomous Region or not, and they could say yes or no through a referendum or through their elected representatives. But to opine about what they want based on this sham autonomy doesn’t carry much weight.
February 26th, 2010 at 12:58 am
@Otto Kerner
The Tibetan community outside of Tibet have their own school, leaders, National People Congress delegate and administration. What do they need more for autonomy.
If you don’t believe me, you could go see the following link
Ngawa Tibetan and Qiang Autonomous Prefecture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aba_Tibetan_and_Qiang_Autonomous_Prefecture
Hainan Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainan_Tibetan_Autonomous_Prefecture
And here is the full list of Autonomous prefectures of China
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_prefectures_of_China
You can see by this list that Tibetan have their own autonomous prefecture.
If you don’t know what is a autonomous prefecture in China you could go see the following site
Prefecture (China)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefecture_of_China
Where is your proof that Tibetan community outside of Tibet don’t have autonomy. Unless your definition of autonomy is not the same as China Constitution of autonomous prefecture. You do not respect the Constitution of China by saying every autonomous area should have their own referendum. You are an ignorant because you do not try do understand China Constitution.
February 26th, 2010 at 2:39 am
Wuen,
Almost everybody in the world loves their mother. However sometimes the mother is a bad mother, but we still love her and defend her because she is our mother.
One good thing about the US is that you can publicly denounce its government. You can shout it from the rooftop or you can publish it in the paper. You can organize many people who also think that our government has made a mistake or is going down the wrong path. Sometimes with enough people you can actually change the course of government or adopt new laws that deal with inequities. A good government can stand this test. A good government is influenced by its people.
I hope the Chinese people want to see Tibetan culture thrive. After all the Tibetan culture, like the Chinese culture is good for the whole world? I only hope Chinese government is really interested in seeking peace and happiness for all its people.
February 26th, 2010 at 2:41 am
Otto,
You missed the point completely.
If the TGiE is negotiating with Chinese government in good faith, then they should make their own terminologies clear in CHINESE!
instead of hiding subtle differences that would require any amount of translation to another language.
I say again, why would they even bother to point out the difference between “Great Tibet” vs. “Greater Tibet” in English?
It’s practically an admission that they never intended to negotiate in good faith with the Chinese Government.
They might as well claim that the word “Tibet” means differently in Chinese vs. the TGiE definition.
Newsflash: That sort of vague political double speak is worth exactly nada on the piece of paper the TGiE wrote them on.
February 26th, 2010 at 3:48 am
Mr. Wang Lixiong, a neutral writer who is extremely keen on Tibetan issues, concludes that both Beijing and TGiE have been propagandizing.
February 26th, 2010 at 4:00 am
“Mr. Wang Lixiong, a neutral writer who is extremely keen on Tibetan issues, concludes that both Beijing and TGiE have been propagandizing.”
If so, everyone who has any position on the matter is “propagandizing”, including Mr. Wang. (well, blame both sides is the universal final answer. It’s akin to blaming everyone and God for every problem.)
But if Mr. Wang is truly neutral, he should start by defining his meaning of the word “propaganda.”
I personally think such politically loaded words themselves, such as “propaganda”, have been far too often overused by those who carry out “propaganda”.
It’s a conclusory dirty label that is blindly thrown about against any political opposition.
February 26th, 2010 at 4:33 am
r v,
Looking at the interview, it appears that the interviewer brought up the subject of “Greater Tibet” and asked the Kalön Tripa about it in English. Under the circumstances, it would be natural for him to comment on the English term, since that’s what he was asked about. Your emotional reaction to this strikes me quite disproportionate. You might wish to consider why that’s so.
February 26th, 2010 at 5:30 am
Bill,
Both the government in Beijing and the TGIE are politicians. I’m afraid Wang Lixiong’s comment doesn’t add any information beyond that fact.
February 26th, 2010 at 5:47 am
wuen,
Ouch. I am well aware of the existence of so-called “autonomous” Tibetan prefectures and counties outside of the TAR. My point is that they are not autonomous. Just to be clear, I’m not saying that the TAR itself is any better. You ask, “What do they need more for autonomy”, but the answer is straightforward: autonomy means self-government, so they need to be able to govern themselves. They have delegates and administrations, but those delegates and administrations are not chosen by the people who live there. They have to follow orders from the party leadership. The people who live in those areas can’t even express their opinions about politics freely, much less govern themselves. Therefore, they are patently not autonomous. This has nothing to do with the wording of the Chinese constitution, which can’t change the definition of the word autonomous. May I also remind you that the Chinese constitution is written in Chinese, which means that it does not contain the word “autonomous” at all. No translation is 100% accurate; perhaps 自治 has a somewhat different meaning, I don’t know.
Hong Kong is a Chinese territory that is mostly autonomous, so that would be a good model for further discussions about autonomy.
February 26th, 2010 at 6:55 am
@Victor #13
You states what you value for your country and these values are enshrine in the Constitution of the U.S. Chinese also value their right and it is also enshrine in the Constitution of China. Both country follow the system of a Republic. The Constitution take into account the culture of the people it represent. Because of the difference in culture, the constitutions of the U.S and China are interpreted differently.
You cherish the right to criticize anyone, Chinese cherish the right to defend against hurtful rumor. In China if someone say bad thing against the government, organization or person, he should file a lawsuit. If he does not file a lawsuit, then he is spreading rumor because he does not have proof to show in a trial.
Chinese culture is different then American culture. In China, a man word is worth more than a contract he sign his name on. For example, when the communist capture Chiang Kai-shek during the Sino-Japanese war, the communist wanted the KMT to fight the imperialist Japanese instead of the communist. Chiang Kai-shek give his word he will stop fighting the communist until the war with imperialist Japanese is over. The communist leadership believe in the word of Chiang Kai-shek and free him. There after, Chiang Kai-shek did not fight the communist during the war against imperialist Japan. This is the power of a gentleman word in China. A gentleman should deliver on his promise. This example should give you a idea why Chinese think differently about freedom of speech.
About Tibet culture, you can see plenty on the internet and youtube.
Here is some quick link
Tibetan Art
http://www.517ab.com/list.php?action=show&id=161
http://zt.tibet.cn/english/zt/xz_arts/menu.asp
Tibetan monks perform sand painting
http://hn.rednet.cn/c/2007/11/20/1376495.htm
Tibetan Art: Folk Carving
http://www.lotour.com/member/travel/13401/product-265953.html
Tibetan song
sing by Kelsang Metok
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nGRP9E9Z8I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LR18I8ibp98&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncn17vEHV-s&feature=related
sing by Tibetan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIYcc5ZRJFU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9F6PDEZM9LA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJvHTtGec7A&feature=fvw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd4aHp1nQws&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0x3PWF7oM8&feature=related
Tibetan influence in China
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZDGxg-sMaE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOYmLM4U64I&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6FoWskUO_U&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfyaNj37zgo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2PJMca9d7w&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MuPIzy-l2g&feature=fvw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jme9uqWb06w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZYiw-0z7Sg&feature=related
There are plenty more you could find in youtube and more in the Chinese internet domain if you can read Chinese or Tibetan.
As you can see, Tibetan culture is thriving in China. What is the Tibetan culture genocide talk about by Tenzin Gyatso? I hope the American will listen and see more Tibetan culture, not only the one coming from Dharamsala.
February 26th, 2010 at 7:12 am
@Otto Kerner
Here is the PRC Constitution in English
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/constitution/constitution.html
Proof to refute your statement about “They have delegates and administrations, but those delegates and administrations are not chosen by the people who live there”. The word delegate is the same as deputy in the constitution.
“Article 77. Deputies to the National People’s Congress are subject to the supervision of the units which elected them. The electoral units have the power, through procedures prescribed by law, to recall the deputies whom they elected. ”
The unit is the administration.
There is no talk about autonomy with Kalon Tripa and his group. He does not come to China in sincerity to find a solution but to poke in the eye of the Chinese. Chinese have enough of his lies and devious plan to seperate Tibet and Greater Tibet from China. One day the true Dalai Lama will come back in China to reclaim his place as the upholder of dharma since death of the fourth Dalai Lama.
You have big potential to succeed in the showbiz with the amount of imagination you show me when you talk about Chinese society. You are very creative in describing a fictional China. I think you will like the new movie Red Dawn that will come in 24 November 2010. This movie portray a fictional Russia and China who decide to invade America, of course America win at the end.
February 26th, 2010 at 5:55 pm
11. Otto Kerner Says:
I think that would be an excellent point if those communities actually had autonomy, but they don’t: as almost everybody knows, their nominal autonomy is an obvious sham. Heck, if they really had autonomy, we could just ask the people there whether they want to join the Tibet Autonomous Region or not, and they could say yes or no through a referendum or through their elected representatives. But to opine about what they want based on this sham autonomy doesn’t carry much weight.
+++++
Otto Kerner,
No they cannot. Not that this has any precedents either way, but somehow I think there is a difference at what level the autonomy is granted. An autonomous county in Sichuan Province, for example, is only autonomous within the province or from the provincial government. How can it redraw the boundary of Sichuan Province by itself?
As I said elsewhere in these discussions in the past, the Lhasa regime never had one administration in the so-called Greater Tibet, and the provincial boundaries were drawn in such a way that included all under the administration of Lhasa pre-1951 in TAR. There was no malicious “dividing” of the Tibetan people. In fact, China lumped all the different people into a “Tibetan” ethnicity even though they were very different, unlike what was done in India. The fact that the Dalai Lama eventually got his hands over Tibetans from all different places who came to the little village Dharamsala and created a unified national identity based on theocratic grounds after being in exile does not give his arguments any greater weight with regard to the situation in China itself. So see this for what it is, an attempt to redraw internal boundaries of China based on DL’s self-appointed authority over all Tibetans in China. Is this to be taken seriously then? We don’t even know if this is to the benefit of all Tibetans in China, much less if this is to the benefit of China and the affected provinces as a whole, which is what this discussion has to come down to, if it is to make any sense. Fact of the matter is, putting aside Han, western Sichuan is known as an ethnic corridor with many ethnicities including the Qiang living based on altitude, not continuguous geographic regions, and western Qinghai is the home of even more Muslim Hui, along with Mongols and Kazakhs, who are nomadic just like most Tibetans there. I highly doubt they want to have the “same uniform ethnic and cultural policies” as Lhasa, and I’m glad that they can find reprieve at the provincial level.
Yes, internal boundaries have changed before, but nothing like what is proposed for Greater Tibet, and on so repugnant a reason (to me) as ethnic gerrymandering, making China into an enclave patchwork. If anything, autonomous regions should try to integrate into the country gradually, while the country should provide supportive space to regional expression and culture as a sustainable sub-identity.
February 26th, 2010 at 6:33 pm
Lee @4,
Yes, Tibet was conquered/incorporated 700 years ago by China, history is very clear on this. Further, this American (I ain’t from mainland China, ain’t never been citizen of the PRC a day in my life) says if we can keep stolen land by preventing the rightfull owners from redressing the situation, then so can the Chinese.
Now what have you to say?
The point is not exhonorating China, but measure ourselves with the same bar. Perhaps we’ll see their problem, not unlike ours, also have a “long, complicated history”. Then perahaps we can develop some empathy to blanace our self-righteousness.
Is it still human rights when rights of 2 generations of Hans born to the land is ignored in pursuit of this “greater Tibet” redress?
When the same issue arised wrt the fate of the Hawaiian Kingdom, how did we, America, land of the free and home of the breave, decide?
February 27th, 2010 at 2:44 am
Otto,
Perhaps you should read more carefully,
The interviewer said:
“I have repeatedly read the text of your statement on ‘Greater Tibet’ (including the English version).”
So Kalon Tripa had an English version of his own statement, and then talked of differences of meaning of “Greater Tibet” in English vs. in Chinese.
Apparent to me that no one made an issue of it except for Kalon Tripa in the first place.
My emotional reaction is disproportionally laughing my as* off, regarding your questions about my emotional reaction.
I’m sure the great Dalai will call my laughter “childish,” and his own laughter “wise.”
I have the same answer for both of you: I don’t give a damn.
February 27th, 2010 at 2:54 am
Autonomy?
Surly, we’re not measuring Tibetan “autonomy” according to the American meaning of that word.
That’s rather American-centric view of legal systems.
February 27th, 2010 at 5:16 am
I like to know if the any States or city in the U.S. can ask for independence or secession from the U.S. By looking at the U.S. Constitution, it does not mention about the right to secession, indepence or autonomy for a State.
U.S. Constitution
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
Could the U.S. citizen ask for a referendum for independence or secession when the constitution does not give this right?
The States could put a referendum for independence, but it will not be recognize by the federal government because it will consider this referendum to be illegal. The States could NOT be independent. In 1861, when eleven southern states declare they wanted to join the Confederate States of America, the government of the United States of America declare war on the eleven states. “The government of the United States of America (The Union) regarded secession as illegal and refused to recognize the Confederacy.”
If I use the same logic as Otto Kerner about autonomy, that mean all states of the U.S. have no autonomy because they cannot join the Confederate States of America. So why does he suggest China to give autonomy when a country like the U.S. does not?
From Otto Kerner
“if they really had autonomy, we could just ask the people there whether they want to join the Tibet Autonomous Region or not, and they could say yes or no through a referendum or through their elected representatives”
I believe the group of Kalon Tripa want to form something similar to the Confederate States of America with the one administration of Tibet Autonomous Region including Greater Tibet. China will not allow it. The group of Kalon Tripa will stab Chinese in the back whenever they got the chance like the riot in 2008 in Lhasa before the Olympic. How could the Chinese trust such a group. They should stay in India. It was Nehru who receive this group of hooligans and give them a safe heaven. Now it is the responsibility of Indian government to care for them. China does not need to give them a place to live.
February 27th, 2010 at 7:29 pm
Nimrod,
I’m afraid you have rather seriously misunderstood what I meant. All I said is that, if a particular area was autonomous, we could ask the people there what they would prefer, i.e. it would be possible to ask them. I did not say that we must ask them, or that the results must be binding on anyone else, although of course I do think it would be nice if that were the case.
I actually pretty much agree with your description, “As I said elsewhere in these discussions in the past, the Lhasa regime never had one administration in the so-called Greater Tibet, and the provincial boundaries were drawn in such a way that included all under the administration of Lhasa pre-1951 in TAR. There was no malicious ‘dividing’ of the Tibetan people. In fact, China lumped all the different people into a ‘Tibetan’ ethnicity even though they were very different, unlike what was done in India,” with the caveat that borders were never static and tended to move around somewhat, and political power isn’t always just a yes/no proposition. When the King of Nyarong was building an empire in Kham in the 1860s, the Lhasa government sent an army to stop him, even though that area was well beyond the Lhasa regime’s area of direct control. But I do think the boundaries of the TAR is a fair mock-up of the status quo ante bellum. So, the argument for an expanded TAR fails on historical grounds, and must be supported with some other sort of arguments if it can be accepted at all.
Your description of “western Sichuan” is far too general. Large parts of western Sichuan are fully Tibetan and are not an “ethnic corridor with many ethnicities”. Other parts are inhabited by a variety of peoples. Why lump them all together into the same category?
You say, “I highly doubt they [the people in Tibetan autonomous areas in Qinghai] want to have the ‘same uniform ethnic and cultural policies’ as Lhasa”. Well, then, I imagine you would have no problem with simply asking them for their opinions, either through elected representatives, a referendum, or simply through discussion in a free press, right?
February 27th, 2010 at 7:31 pm
wuen,
So, you are actually complaining about my “imaginative” description of China while at the same time citing to me the Chinese constitution as if that were an accurate description of how things really work? I’m sorry, I don’t have any more time to waste on this kind of silliness.
February 27th, 2010 at 7:34 pm
r v,
“Autonomy?
Surly, we’re not measuring Tibetan “autonomy” according to the American meaning of that word.
That’s rather American-centric view of legal systems.”
It has nothing to do with one or another view of legal systems. I’m talking about the question of what words mean. Autonomy is an English word that has a particular meaning. It cannot be re-defined by the Chinese constitution, a document written in Chinese. Are you next going to accuse me of being to too English-centric in my understanding of English words?
February 27th, 2010 at 7:42 pm
@Otto Kerner
This is my opinion of you. You do have a big imagination of China because you do not read the constitution. You said that the autonomous prefecture have no elective representative, I show you that you are wrong by pointing at the constitution. You describe a China that is not represented in the Constitution.
You should not concentrate on my opinion of you but on the argument you presented to me to defend your ideal. You have not show me any valid argument to prove my statements are wrong.
By reading your statements, I believe you want to promote people in China to ignore the Constitution by saying anyone in China have the right to secede from China or join another confederation when the Constitution does not grant this right. You also degrade China by saying the societies in China does not work like the Constitution. This is an ignorant remark by you. How do you know how the societies in China work. How is law drafted in China if it does not follow the constitution?
I know you want to misinform other people, but you fail. Your arguments does not stand when the rule of law is apply to it.
For example, do you believe the states in America have the right to secede from the U.S? According to the Constitution of the U.S. the answer to this question is NO. So why should China autonomous prefecture be able to secede if the Constitution does not grant this right?
February 28th, 2010 at 2:01 am
Otto,
“It has nothing to do with one or another view of legal systems. I’m talking about the question of what words mean. Autonomy is an English word that has a particular meaning. It cannot be re-defined by the Chinese constitution, a document written in Chinese. Are you next going to accuse me of being to too English-centric in my understanding of English words?”
Nope, I would say, that China didn’t “redefine” an English word into some Chinese version.
I would say, you are attempting to redefine a Chinese word translated into English and say it doesn’t fit.
Not my problem if you can’t find a good enough English word to fit the Chinese word.
I would then say, you better start by understanding the Chinese word (in the Chinese legal context) a lot more.
Otherwise, whatever English word you think might fit, is purely based upon your misunderstanding of the Chinese word and the Chinese legal system.
February 28th, 2010 at 8:50 pm
r v,
It’s clear from the Dalai Lama’s and the Kalön Tripa’s comments that what they want for Tibetan areas is not 自治 as the term is currently used in Chinese law, but what they want is “genuine autonomy”, which, based on their description, matches the meaning of the English word “autonomy”. Actually, I think it’s likely that the Chinese word 自治 means the same thing and Chinese law is using it incorrectly (just like Chinese law uses 市 in a very strange way to refer to a large, primarily rural area in the case of the 地级市), but I don’t feel like I am qualified to say for sure what the meaning of 自治 is.
Now, wuen’s rejoinder was that the Tibetan communities outside of the TAR already have autonomy and the Kalön Tripa is asking them to give it up. Since wuen used the word “autonomy”, I wanted to respond to that word, but maybe it would be better if we simply agree that Tibetan Autonomous Prefectures and the Autonomous County do have 自治 as it’s defined in Chinese law, although they don’t have autonomy as the word is used in English. Now, the question is, is 自治 something valuable — would anyone really feel bad about losing 自治 if it meant getting the opportunity to join a group that is actually autonomous?
Warren Smith argues in his book Tibetan Nation that the sense of Tibetan nationalism among Tibetans outside of central Tibet (roughly the area of the current TAR) has been greatly strengthened during the Chinese occupation, much as the concept of a distinct Palestinian nation is primarily something that was developed in reaction to the Israeli occupation. If this is correct, I would expect that most Tibetans in Qinghai and Sichuan would be enthusiastic about joining an expanded TAR if the only alternative is the status quo.
February 28th, 2010 at 9:33 pm
It is funny though that the TGiE is pursuing the ‘genuine autonomy’ while referencing the Chinese constitution, and telling the Chinese what the ‘essence’ of their constitution is, and how they lack trust and self-confidence.
March 1st, 2010 at 12:05 am
Otto,
“would anyone really feel bad about losing 自治 if it meant getting the opportunity to join a group that is actually autonomous?”
It’s not a question of who would feel bad. It’s a question of what did Tibetans have historically and what TGiE wants now.
It is well established by even Western Historical books that the Dalai’s, for several hundred years, have not been able to exert their political power over what is called “Greater Tibet.”
Tibetan “autonomy” in your sense, haven’t existed beyond TAR for that many years.
So what has the Tibetans lost since “Chinese occupation”, if you mean by 1959?
*and if TGiE wants to change that status quo (that has been in place for hundreds of years), that’s their own problem.
Tibetan Nationalism, as consequence, is nothing more than the result of their propaganda to try to change the status quo.
*But if you want to talk about who would feel bad? Why not talk about the other ethnic Chinese who will be living under the hypothetical “Tibetan autonomy” in Qinghai and Sichuan?
Tibetan Nationalism?!!
I would call it Tibetan Elitism or Tibetan Radicalism.
As far as I’m concern, there is a status quo, and it’s the TGiE and the West who are trying to stuff change down China’s throat.
March 2nd, 2010 at 8:21 pm
Dear Wuen,
I have been to Tibet and China many times. I have travelled through both areas extensively. I know the situation first hand. I see, without doubt the marginalization of the Tibetan culture from first hand experience. You yourself must go there to see with your own eyes and not rely on anything you read or see on youtube.
I can give you many examples of the supression of Tibetan culture if you are interested. However, you should not rely on me for evidence either. You will only know by going yourself and interviewing Tibetans and Chinese alike who live in the Tibetan region. In mainland China you will find it very difficult to get anyone to talk about this issue.
If we rely on the idea that what we read or what we are told is true, then we are lost. Nothing replaces first-hand experience.
Thank you for responding and thank you for your intelligent input to this conversation.
March 2nd, 2010 at 10:31 pm
@ Victor
Please do give many examples of the suppression of Tibetan culture. I would like to hear it.
I have been to Tibet twice. 2008; 6 month before the riot and 2009. As a Chinese with a American passport, I felt a closed and watchful eye when we travel even though we have a few governmental workers in Tibet traveling with us. In the 2009 trip, my father was brave enough to ask one of the members of the PLA if they beat up the monks. As predicted, they of course said no. And that was that.
March 2nd, 2010 at 10:46 pm
Hey Victor,
I am with Jason. Please do provide ample examples of your first hand experience of how Tibetan culture is suppressed. Please, spare no details.
March 3rd, 2010 at 6:02 am
@Victor
Victor — you are not a cultivated person. You do not know how a society culture blossom into splendid arts. The link I provided to show the culture of Tibetan should open your eye about the truth of Tibetan society.
Do you like what you see about Tibetan culture in China? These beautiful arts represent many years of cultivation and refinement in school, carving, industries, performance, religion, etc. If Tibetan live in a suppress society, they cannot build these splendid arts you see in Tibet.
I see you are a hollow person without any understanding of the development of cultures and arts. I know you mislead people by saying the Tibetans live in suppression of their culture. I don’t know what you saw in Tibet, but you miss the beautiful arts in display all around Tibet by the Tibetan. That show you don’t care about Tibetan culture.
You know art only if someone tell you that it is art. You cannot see it by yourself.
March 3rd, 2010 at 6:51 am
Dear Flags and Jason,
Not sure this is appropriate in this forum so i will briefly give a few examples. Much of the Tibetan population until just a few years ago was nomadic or agrarian. A simple life involved with raising the various seasonal grains, mostly barley or raising herds of Dzo (Yak). Rarely done for much of a profit the farmers and herders were content to care for their families and herds, happy with their simple life. Being steeped in Buddhist culture most families were and still are very passive, and especially kind to strangers. Unfortunately this makes them very vulnerable as well. (Speaking generally here.) Then in 2005 i noticed many new fences all through the Amdo and Kham region being constructed by Chinese workers. Tibet is an immense, vast region, even quite harsh in most areas. So i was very surprised to see these huge areas bisected with never-ending barbed wire mazes of fencing. All through Amdo and Kham – huge areas. This strategy effectively disabled many nomad families from herding the yak to the various seasonal areas. Cutting or manipulating the fence means prison time, and Chinese prison time is synonomous with harsh daily physical torture. The fences severly limited the nomadic community from pursuing their lifestyle (culture) and moving their herds, an already arduous task considering the weather and the distances between summer and winter grazing areas.
Then mandates were enforced by the Chinese military in many areas that a family could only have a certain limited number of yak, no more than 40, making it almost impossible to make a living with a herd. The nomadic culture is suffering tremendously. Many nomads have been relocated to urban housing that would make your stomach turn. It is the sadest thing to see these people who loved the freedom of the vast expanses forced to live on top of one another in endless strips of huts – like refugee camps – on the edges of towns, with no herds and no source of income, with no medical care, just slowly and painfully dying off.
Their young children are forced to attend Chinese schools, to forsake their own language and speak only Chinese. With the peer pressure of the wealthier Chinese children, whose parents own the vast majority of the businesses in the Tibet region, and with the obvious unspoken depressed influence of their own parents many of the Tibetan children are naturally (in order to fit in) emulating the Chinese children. It is sad to see them smoking cigarettes when they would never have indulged in tobacco before. In another generations time the Tibetan language in Tibet will not be heard in some areas.
Fortunately the language will not die, due to the strong Tibetan communities outside Tibet.
These are only two examples of the Tibetan culture being marginalized within Tibet.
All community activities are overseen and organized by a Chinese military presence. Chinese monks are hired to spy within the monastic communities as well. Many monks have been tortured and killed. The vast majority, i would estimate 90% of all Tibetans are not happy with the Chinese presence despite all the propaganda to the contrary. They ALL, except for the severely compromised or brainwashed, love the Dalai Lama. However they risk imprisonment if they are caught speaking his name or displaying his picture in their own homes.
The small percentage of Tibetans who are exemplified by the Chinese as doing well have compromised their own spiritual beliefs, have forsaken the Tibetan lifestyle and have been rewarded with small businesses or positions within the government. I am speaking very broadly and generally here. There are many counter examples and thousands of different types of cases. It would take a small book to make my case.
It has been dangerous at times for me, having been detained and questioned on several occaisions by the Chinese military after having stumbled into areas where abuses had recently taken place.
The Chinese people are not blameless, neither can they be blamed for following the only policy open to them. The military cannot be blamed, neither are they blameless. They too are following the only option afforded them. There is no dissention allowed among the people or the military as it runs the risk of imprisonment and the Chinese people seem to be too busy simply trying to scratch out a living. They have little choice other than to be faithful and obedient to the only mother they have.
March 3rd, 2010 at 7:13 am
Dear Wuen,
I am very impressed with the Tibetan art. Tibetan art also benefits the Chinese. It also does not mean that there is no repression. Because art exists does not mean that people are not killed or maginalized. Some of the best Tibetan art is confiscated by the Chinese government, taken for the purpose of display to show that the culture is not in jepordy.
Also be aware that many temples and the art on the walls were destroyed and defaced by the Chinese military during specific periods of time. Books were burned and high lamas were tortured and killed because they happened to carry influence with the people who looked up to them for spiritual guidance. This was completely unnecessary as the vast majority of lamas are etremely passive and would almost never advocate harming another being. However because they had the potential to galvanize the people they were “taken out of the picture.” Many of the tortured, through their ordeal, also prayed for the salvation of their captors knowing that their karmic future was in severe jepordy. The Tibetans are easily overrun.
But please Wuen, for your own satisfaction, go to the region and honestly ask the people. I beg you to do your own investigation before you believe anyone. Don’t just blindly follow what they would have you believe. See with your own eyes.
Thank you Wuen.
March 3rd, 2010 at 7:45 am
@Victor
Victor — I know you support the TGiE, the story you tell me is the same as the one I read at TGiE website such as freetibet.org or “Tibet Justice Center”. I have link to show more story you could tell to mislead people.
A Generation in Peril: The Lives of Tibetan Children Under Chinese Rule
http://www.tibetjustice.org/reports/children/detention/d.html
Testimony from a resetttled nomad
http://www.freetibet.org/campaigns/testimony-resetttled-nomad
These link are taken from the TGiE website. I know the TGiE is untrustworthy in the information they give about Tibet in China. Their article are bias and full of untrue event. Their strategy is to take one Tibetan problem in China and expanded his story to include fictional problem against the government. These articles are as trustworthy as the articles from New York Times about weapon of mass destruction in Iraq and Israel is a peaceful country who want justice by starving and killing Palestinian.
If the Tibetan have problem in China, they could always file a lawsuit in China. I know the the 14th Dalai Lama and his group is destroying Tibetan culture by persecuting Dorje Shugden followers. What do you have to say about the persecution of Dorje Shugden society by your leaders? Could the Dorje Shugden society file a lawsuit against 14th Dalai Lama in Dharamshala?
March 3rd, 2010 at 8:10 am
@Their young children are forced to attend Chinese schools, to forsake their own language and speak only Chinese.
This has been disputed by a professor in a UC school. Tibetan children has a choice of picking Chinese or Tibetan. They are not forced to take Chinese.
@Fortunately the language will not die, due to the strong Tibetan communities outside Tibet.
Don’t forget, there’s 2 Tibetan schools in Shanghai.
@However they risk imprisonment if they are caught speaking his name or displaying his picture in their own homes.
It’s understandable since Dalai Lama has been the front man of the CIA that desperately lured him out of Tibet and leave his beautiful palace.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12804
Dalai Lama is a symbol of treason.
Didn’t DL also said in a NY Times interview that the CIA had their agenda for “helping” Tibet. Meaning to dismantle the communist state. Another example of why the Chinese hate the DL.
March 3rd, 2010 at 10:34 pm
@Victor
The examples you provided at #39 is not convincing. You do not have the name of the group, people, military and school. If you file a lawsuit in China with this information, it will not be accepted by the court — any court in the world will refuse it because of lack of evidences and references. Your examples are similar to the stories from the TGiE. Both does not contain the name of the school, people involve and the date and time of the actions. These references are necessary to file a lawsuit in China. You failed to convince me about the repression of culture in Tibet by your examples.
I will give a example about suppression of Tibetan culture by the TGiE in Dharamsala with proof to show it is a true story.
Dalai Lama sued for repressing religious freedom
http://www.answerbag.com/article/Dalai+Lama+sued+for+repressing+religious+freedom/ef336080-50f6-49ec-1aa6-aa5a9a4d530c/lama
Here is a example of a petition to start a lawsuit initiated by HH. the 13the Kundeling Rimpoche, Spiritual Head of the Atisha Mahayana/Vajrayana centres
http://docs.google.com/View?docid=d4f7j8p_175fgnghj
This petition have all the necessary information to start a lawsuit by including names and references. The story of TGiE suppressing a Tibetan religion is true.
March 4th, 2010 at 1:32 am
Victor, #39
Dude, the resettlement of the nomads is a perfect example of people choosing to see what they want to see. The resettlement is a Climate Change Induce Resettlement (CCIR). It’s a program designed to stop desertification in TAR and the surrounding regions.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yjgmqoh
http://tinyurl.com/yjgmqoh
This kind of programs will always have their consequences, both positive and negative, as well as some unintended ones. As I have told Otter Kerner, you should looking into things in a bit more detail rather that just settling into an easy and comfortable narrative. But I have a feeling that it doesn’t matter what China does, the western narrative will always be negative.
Even more balanced articles like the Washington Post Article below tend to give more prominence to the western narrative and relegate the position and opinions from the PRC to the back if at all. Hope you will be different, and be able see things for what they really are.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/19/AR2008091904053_2.html
Just in case people don’t get that far, this is from the very end of the article.
“Nomads are human beings — they also want to maximize their interest,” said Tanzen Lhundup of the Beijing-based China Tibetology Research Center. “It’s impossible for them to protect the environment voluntarily. So they need guidance and control. In my opinion, the first step is control.”
“If we don’t do this, the grasslands will continue to disappear and in the end, the nomads will still suffer. So in the end, as the Chinese saying goes, short-term suffering is better than long-term suffering,” Tanzen said.
Nomadic culture will not disappear, he added. “First, not all the nomads are being moved, just some of them. Second, nobody is stopping them from carrying on their culture, their religion, their customs. They can still sing and dance.”
March 4th, 2010 at 1:54 am
Dear Wuen and Jason,
I only speak from personal experience. Wuen, I have never heard of the TGiE until i saw this blog. I cannot support them since i do not know what they stand for or who represents them. However, I have met and interviewed many Tibetans and Chinese over several years and my experience and conclusions are drawn from those interviews and what i see with my own eyes. I tend not to believe much of anything i read from news agencies as they seem to have their own agenda – to sell their service – and many times their sources are disseminating propaganda. I do not or have not ever written of my experiences until now and this is the last post i will make.
My point is that you cannot argue against personal experience. All your links and arguments are from other sources, not from yourselves or your own experience. Jason, your news article doesn’t even list an author or give a byline, You are relying on others for your information. Most of you are relying on information that supports your own personal belief, which is even worse. You have contempt prior to investigation. If you had the courage to investigate for yourselves then you might experience the truth. Your truth might be different from the truth i found since my travels have been confined to mostly the formerly Amdo and Kham areas (Quinghai and Sezchuan approximately). I also visited not only the poorest and most desperate, but also some of the so-called middle class of Tibetans and Chinese in the formerly eastern areas or Tibet/western area of China.
Your arguments are meaningless without experience and you are falling into the trap of believing blatant propaganda. You might be saddened to know that you fall into the same category that 99% of all people fall into, easily riled into an angry or argumentative state based on false information. If you’re going to get angry then at least get angry about the truth of your own real experiential findings, not someone else’s. I challenge you to disprove me but i will only accept facts from your own experience.
March 4th, 2010 at 2:51 am
@Victor
I do not denied that there are social problems in Tibet or elsewhere in China. These problems can be redress by using the law to protect oneself. The judicial system in China is improving and the court trial is open to people who like to attend. If you want to help these people who you referring in your examples, you could guide them to file a lawsuit. Society problems will not be solves unless these problems are confronted directly in the court of law.
The reason I don’t believe you is because your stories does not fit one personal experience point of view. For example when you say: “All community activities are overseen and organized by a Chinese military presence.” You state a fact that cannot be verify by one person. I don’t think you have visited all of Amdo and Kham area. This statement of yours must have come from others sources but your own. Here is another example of yours statement that contradict a personal experience: “They ALL, except for the severely compromised or brainwashed, love the Dalai Lama.” Did you really visited all monks in Amdo and Kham to state this fact? I could show you your others statements that contradict one personal experience point of view; sufficiently these two statements prove that your stories of your personal experience in Amdo and Kham are false.
For this reason I don’t believe in your personal experience story. I assume you are fabricating facts to discredit the Chinese government in Tibet — with these stories you are discrediting yourself. You are not telling a personal experience stories but a propaganda from the TGiE. In addition you have not refuted the arguments from Jason and Flags of the Republic successfully. Your counter argument by using your personal experience does not stand because I just refute your personal experience in Amdo and Kham. You have lost all credibility in my view.
March 4th, 2010 at 3:18 am
“Second, nobody is stopping them from carrying on their culture, their religion, their customs. They can still sing and dance.”
LOL. And they can also sing “天路” while they’re at it!
March 4th, 2010 at 5:37 am
@Victor
Considering that you read it, you would able to see the author’s main source of his article which is Peter Harclerode and his book, “Fighting Dirty: The Inside Story of Covert Operations From Ho Chi Minh to Osama Bin Laden”.
It’s hypocritical of you to accuse others of relying on others to make a point while you ignore it for making your own points.
March 5th, 2010 at 8:11 pm
i feel very sad for you all. be kind please. we don’t have much time.
March 5th, 2010 at 9:53 pm
@Victor
I am still waiting for you to counter my arguments at #46.
Your writing of your past experience in Amdo and Kham is full of inconsistency and hyperbole. Since you fail to write a adequate personal experience like Jason #36, you fail to convince me about your stories. If I need to classify your article at #39, I would put it in the propaganda folder because all the fact you stated is missing the first person singular pronoun, first person plural pronoun, first person singular possessive adjective and first person plural possessive adjective that refer to you or your group as a witness except for one.
For this reason I believe your personal experience in Amdo and Kham is a lie. You write as if you never been there except at one place at one time — but you manage to see a lot of thing far and wide.
Your writing at #39 contain the truth of your intention.
March 5th, 2010 at 10:31 pm
@ Victor: I had the same feeling that wuen wrote about. Your account didn’t seem like a first hand account at all, there were no personal stories, the wording wasn’t how a person normally relates their own experiences, etc. When I go somewhere, I relate the name of the town, specific places where I met people, something personal that happened to me or to them, something that separates it from a series of “talking points”. You have none of those listed in your remarks. I can understand omitting names but that would not hold me back from identifying more specific aspects of the stories I might have heard. I can relate numerous stories from people I met in China where they talked about how, for instance, the war with Japan affected their own families with specific instances of what occurred, or even stories from the CR that involved their personal family members. Intense political opinions tend to be related to personal experiences. The last thing I would do is speak very broadly and generally.
March 9th, 2010 at 6:52 am
Re Victor, Wuen, Steve
I had a chance to talk to a Tibetan nomad family from Qinghai province (Haixi Mongolian&Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture) back in 2005. They seemed pretty happy with the new house the government built for them. They told me they use the house mostly in the winter when the weather gets unbearably cold. For other seasons in the year, they still live in their tents and raise their herds on the pastures.
And here is an account by someone who visited the nomads participating in the new housing program. The account is in Chinese. The author said it is not a forced relocation program by the government. He participated in a meeting of nomad families discussing house building issues. For three hours, these families could not decide whether to use wood or stone to build their new houses. The area produces neither wood nor stone locally. These building materials are to be brought from outside on government expenses. But these nomad families had a hard time agreeing on building materials. The new housing program makes it easier for the government to provide water, electricity, medical care, and education for the nomad families. However, the author said these nomads do have one big complaint. That is, the new housing compound is far away from their pastures. But the author thinks for those people who accuse the new housing program for destroying the nomad way of life, they must have never live in tents themselves esp. in northern Tibet where the conditions are harshest. About the fences on the pastures, the author said the nomads build fences to keep out the wild animals who are competing for feeding grounds with their herds. But the method does not seem to be effective against the Tibetan wild donkeys who are becoming increasingly bold. (for the original Chinese account, pls see the last entry titled “网友Nirvana：西藏一些情况介绍” at http://davidpeng.wordpress.com/2008/04/ )
March 9th, 2010 at 7:40 am
Also, here is an account of the new housing program in the rural areas of Shigatse Prefecture by prof. Goldstein who did his field research in the area:
“The general housing program is part of the CCP’s attempt to raise the standard of living of rural Tibetans. More specifically, it is a part of the Western development program initiated in 2000. The housing program now underway is meant to encourage and financially assist villagers to build new houses. Initially the government’s idea was to have these new houses built along main roads, but this is not what is going on now in the areas we are conducting research in Shigatse prefecture. I am not sure when this began in the TAR, but think it probably began at different times in different regions. I recall that there was a lot of new housing by roads near Lhasa in 2004-5 (at the time of the 20th anniversary of the TAR in 2005 when many top Beijing officials were coming to Lhasa).
Right now the villagers where we work have a 5 year window to decide whether to participate and rebuild. In these areas every household is eligible, and the government subsidy is a grant not a loan. However, there is a sliding scale of support and poor households get more money and materials. For example, In one village, poor households got 25,000rmb (some materials some cash), and rich ones 11,000rmb. In all of these cases the households can build wherever they want, including right next to their current house (and are doing so), This is a popular program in the areas where we work and is voluntary.
Moreover, in addition to economic status, how much subsidy a household gets depends also on what kind of a building he chooses. For example, in one village, 25 hh [households] are rebuilding this year (2006). Of these, the ones who built new houses got 12,000 rmb (17 hh did that), but the ones who did just a major rebhab, got paid 8,000 rmb (5 hhs did that) and the ones who changed only the face of the house (from mud bricks to stone), the government paid 5,000 (3 hhs did that). In some cases, people wanted more elaborate houses that cost more than that so took loans to finance the rest.
Consequently, as a result of this program. there is a building boom in rural areas that is affording rural Tibetans who are carpenters, stone masons, painters, and those who have tractors and trucks etc., increased access to non-farm income, and that is having a very positive impact on the overall standard of living. So in my view, this is a relatively benign program aimed at improving the quality of life and goes along with government interest in speeding up rural electrification, running water programs, etc.
That is what I was trying to convey.”
… …
“It’s created a RURAL building boom. In the villages where we have been conducting fieldwork on change and modernization since 1997, the subsidized building program is voluntary and popular and does not require relocation to new villages of towns. And It is having a very positive impact on the overall standard of living by providing increased access to non-farm income to many rural Tibetans.”
http://www.studentsforafreetibet.org/article.php?id=1034
March 9th, 2010 at 11:27 pm
@May,
B.S. propaganda. Like Victor said, “did you go therre?” I have also been and i must say the tibetan have a terrible life now. Many think because economic opportunity it will make someone happy. Not true for tibetan. They are happy with old simple lifestyle. I have also seen so many new fences blocking nomadic herding. Also government housing very bad for them. Very very small and thousands close together. Before they were nomads, far apart from the next one. Also as victor says they love dalai lama very much and want old lifestyle and their land back. Everything was stolen from them. I think nobody has been there.
@Wuen. it is too strong to say it is a lie #50. You have never been either. no one of you has been to see. you only believe propaganda. Tibetan alduts and children are in forced re-education, it is true. Go see.
March 10th, 2010 at 2:58 am
@ Jianjun
You sure sound a lot like Victor. And write a lot like him too. All them mistakes look really contrived. It is a bit suspicious that what you written above got the more complex aspects English grammar correct while the mistakes are restricted to omissions and (likely purposeful) incomplete fragments. Proper tenses are much harder for a non-native English speaker to master than proper sentence structure.
Are you sure you not Victor pretending to be someone else?
March 10th, 2010 at 4:00 am
@Victor/Jianjun: my mother is correct, you are the same person. Multiple identities will not be tolerated on this blog. If you do it again, you’ll be banned. By doing so, you have also destroyed your credibility with many of our bloggers and confirmed that you are willing to lie to make a point. I now have no confidence that you were actually in the places you named and I would think I an no longer alone in that assessment.
March 10th, 2010 at 6:29 am
idiots!
March 10th, 2010 at 11:54 am
I have my utmost respect to one that being self-critical.
March 10th, 2010 at 11:29 pm
@Victor = hainan88 = Jianjun = idiot
This is my personal understanding of these signature names. Why do you change your signature names instead of presenting a valid argument?
March 10th, 2010 at 11:43 pm
@ wuen: Victor and Jianjun are the same person, while hainan88 is someone completely different. I believe you owe hainan88 an apology. Maybe it’s best that you also stick to valid arguments rather than worry about multiple aliases.
March 11th, 2010 at 12:03 am
@ Steve
I am sorry I cannot change my stance. These hainan88 and Victor signature names are the same to me. I can’t prove it directly. My argument is Victor and hainan88 are the same person because they are opposite of one another.
March 11th, 2010 at 12:47 am
What’s obvious as propaganda is the first few lines in DL’s speech today.
DL celebrates the “51th anniversary of the Tibetan people’s peaceful uprising…”
uh… Last I remember, 1959 uprising was not that peaceful. Frankly, it could be termed a Tibetan Jihad, called by DL himself and well funded by the US.
*
Brought to you by your legal cushions, we save your as*es one at a time.
March 11th, 2010 at 8:18 pm
r.v. As I went through arguments from different perspectives, yours are the most understanding with clarity and rationality. I just hope 14th DL, his supporters in exile community and westerns who promote or actively work for free tibet cause can reach this level of practical understanding on an important issue that they work so hard.
>> “As far as I’m concern, there is a status quo, and it’s the TGiE and the West who are trying to stuff change down China’s throat.”
We should also point out such status quo was made in part by nature history of Tibet regions, not just by PRC. Tibetan exiles try to paint a pinky false hope that PRC will give them a huge favor by doing things they themselves could not achieve is a pure dream. On the other hand, the fact that they present such a bad attitude towards PRC and show it at every opportunity make their position sounds even more funny.
Simply put, 14th DL and his exile supporters are like bunch of dogs tracing their own tails, and can not present a cohesive and convincing argument at any moment.
In 14th DL’s recent public speech about “peaceful uprising”, he publicly supports Urghur separatist cause, then call on Tibetan officials in China to pay visit to oversea exile communities in an effort to start up some sort of unofficial or official dialogs. This shows 14th DL is such naive person, lacking of any political intelligence, even reaching his kind of age.
March 11th, 2010 at 9:05 pm
Tanjin,
It is historic. Tibet was once a powerful and violent military empire that rivaled the size of Tang Dynasty China. And what the TGIE is claiming as “Greater Tibet” is its former empire, one that has not existed as a single unity since over 600 years ago.
That alone should reveal much of the aggressive and militant ambition of the TGIE.
Even in Exile, the TGIE maintains a society of castes, ruled by fear and secrecy.
Exiled Tibetans complain of rampant nepotism and corruption among the ruling TGIE elites. DL’s family members appointed to key positions in the TGIE. Donated money and “taxes” spent without any accounting, while Tibetans in exile suffer huge infant mortality rates.
If DL and the TGIE are actually capable leaders capable of governing their people in exile, then China might have something to worry about and take them more seriously.
But all they do is talk and complain and cry for help.
March 11th, 2010 at 10:57 pm
@ Wuen #61: Wuen, Victor/Jianjun and hainan88 live in completely different countries. Just because you want to believe something doesn’t make it true.
March 11th, 2010 at 11:14 pm
@Steve.
Since you are the administrator, I cannot dispute with your claim. I do not know how you infer these signature name are from different countries. I respect the code of conduct of this blog and I admit I made a breach of conduct. I apologize for my action of deviating from the subject of conversation and associating Victor with hainan88 without substantial proof.