Coverage of Tibet
March 27th, 2008 at 10:51 am by David FarrarSome members of the local Chinese community are protesting about what they see as biased coverage of what is happening in Tibet.
They may have a point. Indeed there are a number of reports which have not been well publicised about sole violence from ethnic Tibetans.
But at the end of the day, the blame for the faults in any coverage lies with the Chinese Government for banning media from being able to be in Tibet and report first hand what is happening.
If a Government does not allow journalists to verify first hand the claims of that Government about who did what, then it should be no surprise that their claims are not given much weight. Plus let us be brutally frank – the Chinese Government has a history of lying. Now in this case they may actually be telling the truth, but unless one can verify it, then it is like the little boy who cried wolf.
Tags: China, Media, media bias, Tibet
March 27th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Tibet is just a red herring. The real issue is not a free Tibet but a free China. The focus on Tibet is based on the fact that the left care more about the “national question” than any real human rights.
How about we get freedom of speech and freedom of the press for China before we start worrying about ethnic autonomy?
Vote:March 27th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Well said, Blair. It is a longstanding ludicrous situation how our media has been so willing to give completely opaque totalitarian regimes the benefit of the doubt.
Vote:March 27th, 2008 at 11:18 am
After being in Tibet in 2000 one could see a ticking time bomb for the Chinese. A squawky Chinese quarter of Lhasa dominated by Karaoke bars and a Tibetan quarter where there isn’t a Chinese.
Vote:Since the big 1959 Chinese invasion and the expulsion of the Dalai Lama, the Chinese have had NO success in embedding in a Chinese administrative line.
The Chinese want economic development, Tibetans couldn’t care a wink they just want to live their Buddhist life. The Chinese have attempted to overcome that by importing thousands of Han Chinese. But no contact with the Tibetans.
Time is short in Tibet. The Dalai Lama is 72 and there are already conflicting stories about how the Tibetans and also the Chinese are going to elect a new Dalai Lama. Just remember the difficulty when the last Panchen Lama died wsith two versions running around. The death of the DL and no way out for Tibet could see an ethnic disaster resembling that of the Balkans and even World War II Europe
March 27th, 2008 at 11:25 am
And here is something that will cause a ruckus:
“A Tale of Two Peoples: Why do Palestinians get so much more attention than Tibetans?” By Dennis Prager.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1991185/posts
In brief: 1) The Tibetans don’t commit terror.
2)The Tibetans don’t have Oil-money nations backing their cause
3)The Tibetans aren’t being “oppressed” by Jews.
4)Oppression committed by a non-european race is never regarded as seriously.
5)The Left that dominates the worlds media will condemn a democracy more readily than they will condemn a Communist nation.
6) The UN’s structure results in condemnations of Israel being endemic, while there are none of China.
7) TV. Thanks to China’s totalitarianism, Tibet does not get TV coverage, while Israel, which allows the press to operate freely, gets set up constantly on TV.
Vote:March 27th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Tibet is just a red herring. The real issue is not a free Tibet but a free China.
100% agreed. I would hate to think if Tibet were to become independent people would conclude that everything the Chinese govt did was OK because it was being done to genuinely Chinese people.
And of course this is ignoring the problems of other ethnic minorities in China, such as the Uighur, Mongols and Hui, but none of them have Hollywood movie stars lining up to meet their leaders.
Vote:March 27th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Further to Blair M’s comment, here’s something from the latest Wall Street Journal:
A Letter to Beijing
March 26, 2008
“In an extraordinary show of courage, 29 Chinese intellectuals published an open letter on the Internet Saturday, listing 12 suggestions for handling the “Tibetan situation.” The letter calls for dialogue with the Dalai Lama and warns Beijing that the “one-sided propaganda of the official Chinese media” could stir up “inter-ethnic animosity” and aggravate “an already tense situation.”
In China, such a missive could get its authors jailed, or worse. But the letter’s signatories know what they’re risking; several have previously been detained or placed under house arrest. They include Tiananmen activists Ding Zilin and Jiang Peikun; Wang Lixiong, a Tibetan historian currently under house arrest; and Liu Xiaobo, president of the Independent Chinese PEN Center.
The letter urges Beijing to ditch its “Cultural Revolution-like language,” and challenges it to produce evidence to support claims that the Dalai Lama “orchestrated” the rioting. It also says that China should allow “credible” national and international media to return to Tibet “to conduct independent interviews and news reports.” As for trials, they should be “open, just, and transparent.”…………..
The way China treats these suggestions — and how it deals with the open letter’s authors themselves, in coming days — will say much about how seriously Beijing takes their ideas.”
Vote:March 27th, 2008 at 11:36 am
from the Herald article –
” Auckland University research assistant Johnson Yuan, 22, says he has found hundreds of examples where news outlets were “cropping images and putting clips which were totally unrelated to the Tibet demonstration and then blaming China”.
He claimed that “instead of showing a whole picture that includes rioters attacking the Chinese police, they would crop it such that it made the Chinese police look bad …
“And also use images of violence in India and Nepal, saying those dark-skinned Indian police officers were Chinese officers attacking the monks.” ”
Of these over 200 pictures, why haven’t we seen one then?
Vote:March 27th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Having been there and bought the T shirt a number of times as they say I find it ironic that the Socialists can turn a blind eye and yet stamp their feet about Fiji given that Fiji has just been the beneficiary of $140M from guess who and NO it wont be spent on the roads Most of it will find its way into bank accounts in various tax havens.
I guess this is pragmatic politics If your told Black is White then depending on the size of the teller you either agree vigorously and deny it.
Can help smile at the shuffle of feet and furtive looks at the ground by Hulun when the subject of human rights is raised
Vote:March 27th, 2008 at 11:45 am
While some local Chinese (and Helen Clarke) seem unsure who has done what in Tibet, can they not see that China’s suppression of media coverage is at the heart of their “problem”.
What is beyond doubt is that it was China that invaded and forcibly occupied Tibet, driving Tibet’s leader into exile. Tibet never invaded China – is that too complicated for some of these moral contortionists to understand?
Vote:March 27th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
3-coil,
Never is a long time. Tibet ruled a lot of China around 1000 years ago.
Vote:March 27th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Meanwhile the 7′s continue in Hong Kong (China…) and nobody seems to be worried – yet the Olympics…. different story eh.
Vote:March 27th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
I would have thought it obvious that Rugby and FTAs are way more important than consistency in Human Rights advocacy…
Vote:March 27th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
ok Tibet topic again
first of all, Tibet (as Chinese call it Xizang) has been under the Chinese central government since Tang dynasty. Sometimes I wonder why there are not much people crying “Free Aoteaora” or “Free New Mexico”.
2nd, there are TWO spirit leaders in Tibet, Dalai and Panchen. They are masters and students to each other, influcing the “front” and “back” Tibet. after 1949, both Dalai and Panchen were invited to Beijing to join the new government (Tibet joined the 1911 Chinese revolution against Qing dynasty just to mind you).
3rd, there is no 1959 invasion of Tibet. The liberation army was in there soon after 1949 till 1951 liberation army controled Tibet and Tibet was never a country recognized by UN. Tibet was in slavery system before 1949 and the changes brought by the communist party were strongly objected by some royals. After both Dalai and Panchen were invited to Beijing. Panchen stayed, Dalai returned to Tibet and planned separation with support from CIA and Indian government. Dalai fled to India after a failed coup in 1959. he was not “forced” to leave. he fled.
4th, the 10th Panchen passed away in 1989. Both Chinese government and Dalai selected a 11th Panchen. In history, a Panchen was never selected by a Dalai. and both Dalai and Panchen selection are led and monitored by Chinese central government since the Qing dynasty, even the seal of ruling are given by the Chinese emperors.
5th, there are 55 minority groups in China, they are called “Zhonghua minzu” together with the Han. besides some extremist in Xinjiang and Xizang, most of these minority groups are living in harmony with the Han, and cross group marriage are common. In fact, the 2nd emperor of Tibet married two dauguters of the Chinese emperor in 639/640, the Potala Palace – residence of Dalai lama since 17th century was built for this marriage – what irony is that? The Han’s “China” as a country, was actually conquered by several of the minority groups in history, Yuan dynasty and Qing dynasty, were in fact not Han.
there is just some bits and pieces – Dalai is not the ONLY spirit leader of Tibet, he was supported by Indian government and CIA during cold war for apparent reason, he has been promoting separation for years and now he claims all he wanted was some HK-like region? what a bullshit. India also occupied much of Tibet’s land why we never see Dalai claiming the land from India?
Now, there are problems with China for sure. One of the problem is failed to recognize which class to support during the revolution and last 20 years. After the 1959 coup, the communisty party are supporting the royals, the monks, they were treated really well in Beijing, or in Tibet, but the life of the normal Tibetan was not improved as much as the eastern region – same problem as in some western region. There will be unrest among the normal people who now watch flashy tourists, merchants, reporters walking alongside them. The white collars in Shanghai would never go on steet to riot loot.
I have to say, to ban the western media in Tibet after the riot was a really bad idea. It’s a fucking stupid idea probably from some really old mind who still use his cold war thinking. if you have nothing to hide why the fuck would you ban the media for? this is such a stupid idea and there is no turning back. I can tell u the few casualties in the riot are Han merchants, Han employees. 5 Han girls working in a fashion shop were burnt to death. but there are NO western media to report these, all they got, was some Nepal police beating on monks – and you couldn’t really tell whether it’s in Nepal or in China – in fact a Germany TV channel says that’s what happened in Tibet.
Now, I for one, can still distinguish a country, from a government. As a Chinese, we have strong ties with Tibet for centuries. It’s a strategic piece of land to site between India and central/eastern China. Britain and India already tried to occupy Tibet since early 20 centuries, are you saying what they did were right and Chinese did is wrong?
As once a citizen under the government of the communist party, I have to say, they still have a long way to go. They are a young government, established on years of war and exploitation and they did a bloody good job to feed 1.3 billion people. Look at Chechen – would you rather have another Chechen in Tibet?
The CIA world fact description on China was actually quite good, “After 1978, his successor DENG Xiaoping and other leaders focused on market-oriented economic development and by 2000 output had quadrupled. For much of the population, living standards have improved dramatically and the room for personal choice has expanded, yet political controls remain tight.”
it’s a different government, the consitution says communist party is the ruling party (I’m not suggesting what’s written in consitution is always correct), you can’t change the situation without changing the constitution, you can’t change the consitition without some “dramatic changes”, you can’t initiate some “dramatic changes” while the communist party is taking control of the armies.
enough grunt.
* ban media in Tibet is stupid, there are no execuses. this young government still has much to learn, to improve.
Vote:* Tibet was, is, and probably for years to come, will be, part of China. There is always thoughts of separation – not just in China, but riot loot and burning civilians are not peaceful protest.
* Dalai lama is a tool.
March 27th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
That’s right Sam, like banning Scouts from Fiji but letting the 7′s team in.
It’s just politics and Helen Clark is showing via her pursuit of the FTA that she is comfortable with Tibetean people being killed as long as she has some good news to help her on her way to her 4th term.
Vote:March 27th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
unaha-closp
Yuan – the Mongol Empire, and Qing – the Manchu Dynasty are two minority groups that ruled most parts of the China for hundreds of years.
Tibetan has never “ruled a lot of China around 1000 years ago” afaik, the closest thing I could think of is the An Shi Rebellion, which was not intiated by the Tibetans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Shi_Rebellion
Vote:March 27th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
longbow is probably a bit too charitable to the Chinese government (anyone who thinks killing sixty million people with five year plans is “doing a good job feeding 1.3 million people” needs meds), but most of what he says is not far from the truth. Tibet pre revolution was an opressive, feudal society, and if you take the Great Leap Forward out of the equation, the Tibetians have done pretty well out of Beijing’s rule, relatively speaking. The Dalai Lama is indeed a tool. Free China, not just Tibet.
Vote:March 27th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
I dearly hope the Olympics are called off or boycotted. A complete farce that they were ever granted to China in the first place, even without taking recent developments into account.
The Dalai Lama is seeking autonomy, not independence. China’s response has been to suppress Tibetan culture and begin a process of genetic and cultural assimilation.
Yes, the West did this in the past….not sure why that makes it ok today.
Vote:March 27th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
BlairM
there are way too many problems with Chinese government than the few words I mentioned in previous post. actually don’t get me started. be it history, or current days. 60 million pple died of hunger in the 60′s. 10 years of chaotic cultural revolution strike China backwards for 50 years. Deng’s policy made a new-rich class who are tightly associated with the communist party.
and yet today, we have no way to gurantee that any of these will not repeat. democracy is much needed but there will be years to come.
however, things are generally moving (albeit slowly) towards the bright side – more problem follows I reckon, but can you imagine a North Korea government ruling 1.3 billion people?
Vote:March 27th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Longbow, name one substantive difference between the philosophy of the Chinese and North Korean governments. Bet you can’t.
Vote:March 27th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
push:
the leadership is not established by order of succession
the national people’s congress has the power to elect and sack any of the high ranking officials including the nation’s chairman and premier, and change of the constitution.
it’s a multi-tired election system and there will be years to come for some “dramatic changes” to happen at the top.
Vote:March 27th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Josh
Dalai claimed Tibet is “an independent nation”. those ppl acting in TV with Dalai posters and “FREE Tibet” banners are not asking “grant Tibet autonomy”. I have never heard him seeking autonomy until couple weeks ago I heard one of his representitive in radio. and how funny it is, that the Chinese official name of Tibet, is Xizang(Tibet) Autonomous Region?? the current chairman is a Tibetan. in fact Dalai was one of the first chairman of the Automomous Region, CIA supported him to start a coup then he fled to India and now he want Autonomy?
(keep in mind that HK didn’t return to China until 1997)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet_Autonomous_Region
it might be a bad example to suggest “West did this in the past … why that makes it ok today”, it would NOT be ok for China to just invade, say, Thailand and set up a new government there.
oh wait, isn’t that what U.S. just did in Iraq?
Vote:March 27th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
the leadership is not established by order of succession
Only because Chairman Mao’s children were too idiotic. But Mao’s politicla children, not his biological children, run things now. And succession is not that bad anyway – or do you have a problem with Charles becoming King of New Zealand when Queen Bess dies?
As for elections they are just a filthy sham, and your vague promises of great things to come are just that, promises – the same promises we have been hearing from China ever since the 70s, but all we get is Tiannemen Square. Let’s face it Longbow, North Korea at least don’t pretend to be anything other than what they are, a naked brutal dictatorship. They don’t try to hide the exercise of naked force, they just do it.
BUt since you are so clean to fill us in on what those old bastards in Beijing are up to let me ask you another question. Are they paying you to shovel their propaganda shit in New Zealand Dollars or nice shiny Yuan?
Vote:March 27th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Who was it again who wrote this?
Vote:March 27th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
push:
now this is the point when it gets sad. i can assure you those Falun gong ppl, or those crying out loud in TV with “Free Tibet” banners are on someone’s payroll. Dalai’s two elder brothers were on CIA’s payroll for a long time.
no, those “old bastards” in Beijing are not paying me in any currency, or weapon, or drugs, even vouchers. it gets sad when i’m giving a rather balanced view (as a Chinese) on the communist party, one like you would suggest i’m a paid gun, and i didn’t see you question Dalai, Falungon, or any of those appeared in TV, are paid by someone else.
i said before and i will say it again – the Chinese government has a long way to go. it has many problems, but it also helped to establish a rather stable environment for 1.3 billion people to live and progress in the last 20 years or so. it is different from what you get in the the current Western world, which I don’t need to remind you again, were much worse in the recent past. i want more democracy in China – but can you tell me how? at right now? do you expect someone like Dalai would be able to sustain 1.3 billion people or suddenly a republican party and a democratic party emerge from the China?
Who cares about Charles? the Queen is only the symbolic chief of state anyway, and voice of republic is not unheard of.
my cousin was there in Tiananmen square in 1989. it went well until it turned to a riot. i know what happened after riot. i don’t want to see that again, but i don’t think the students in 1989 would be able to establish a stable government. mind you most of the student leaders were transfered to U.S. how ironic is that?
i didn’t promise anything. there will be years before any “major changes” could happen. it’s just not going to happen anytime soon to please you or me, or anyone. it probably won’t even happen in my life time.
frankly i don’t give a damn about boycotting Olympics in Beijing. but if it’s the same bunch of people who insist on “Tibet is an independent country”, “China invaded Tibet in 1959″, i seriously doubt their intelligence and source of information.
the Chinese government made a stupid move banning western media, which give those people another reason to bash the Chinese government. they may deserve the bash this time, but i still want to make my point, which for some might be hard to accept.
btw “Only because Chairman Mao’s children were too idiotic” is rather low. it just shows some westerners have no idea about what was going on, possibly with blood handed grand grand parents invading every human livable continent on the planet, yet insist on criticizing others.
Vote:March 27th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
heres a website with 150 photos of killed and injued Tibetans.
http://wikileaks.cx/leak/tibet-protest-photos/index.html
Note some are of demonstrations in west, but are CLEARLY labelled as such
Vote:March 27th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
> Tibet (as Chinese call it Xizang) has been under the Chinese central government since Tang dynasty.
are you sure this isn’t more like saying that Cuba was under Soviet central government? maybe even less true.
Vote:March 27th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Here’s some info on CIA involvement in Tibet and the likely consequences upon the Tibetan people.
Vote:March 27th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
> I have never heard him seeking autonomy until couple weeks ago
with all due respect that implies you don’t listen to him. I haven’t listented to him very closely but I have been aware that he was asking for autonomy – of course that could just be political maneuvering. As to him being a tool – we are all tools, the CIA or the Chinese will use anyone or anything they can. But I don’t think it is plausible in the strong sense of him being handed a script every time he visits a leader and told exactly what to do.
> oh wait, isn’t that what U.S. just did in Iraq?
the USA isn’t annexing Iraq so it is a weaker case. If you have a problem with Iraq you should have a problem with Tibet.
> I can assure you those Falun gong ppl, or those crying out loud in TV with “Free Tibet” banners are on someone’s payroll.
Why pay when you can get them for free? you don’t need to pay people like Falun Gong. and many NZders are as excited about free Tibet as things like nuclear power – It doesn’t take any more conspiracy to explain why you might get protesters.
China doesn’t need to pay for you I presume. China probably does pay people to comment on threads like this – but only a tiny fraction of the total number of comments. Same for the CIA, often on media outlets like Indymedia people such as myself have been accused of being paid by the CIA – i assure you I am not.
> possibly with blood handed grand grand parents invading every human livable continent on the planet, yet insist on criticizing others.
hmm… you are sticking to the talking points quite well aren’t you.
Vote:In the end either Britain SHOULD own HK, Canada, NZ, USA etc or China shouldn’t own Tibet – you don’t get “China is allowed to be wrong, because some random other country were wrong a long time ago and is now right” as a legitimate point.
March 27th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Hmm interesting that – during more or less exactly the time China was supporting the Vietnamese actively against the US, the US was passively supporting the Tibetans against China.
Vote:March 27th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
” Plus let us be brutally frank – the Chinese Government has a history of lying”
So does the American and British Government and so do the western media for that matter.
The only story out of Tibet that would sell in the Western media would be united heroic uprising of the Tibetan people against Chinese oppression regardless of how nuanced or widely actual Tibetan opinions raised.
So the Chinese government are damned in they dont allow access, but would be even more damned if they did.
So the responsibility is partly the Chinese government and partly our sensationalist and unethical media.
Vote:March 27th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
GNZ
> are you sure this isn’t more like saying that Cuba was under Soviet central government? maybe even less true
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Tibet
> with all due respect that implies you don’t listen to him
he was the chairman of the autonomous region, then he started a coup funded by CIA, then he fled to India establish an “exile government” and wrote a constitution, now he asks for autonomy. i heard him.
> the USA isn’t annexing Iraq so it is a weaker case. If you have a problem with Iraq you should have a problem with Tibet.
if you read the whole sentence i meant Tibet is different from another country say Thailand, which although was once governed by Chinese government in the history (Yuan dynasty).
and you fell for my diversion. not to mention Tibet is different from Iraq.
> Why pay when you can get them for free?
have you met any of them? do you know what falungong really is?
> In the end either Britain SHOULD own HK, Canada, NZ, USA etc or China shouldn’t own Tibet
i never said “China is allowed to be wrong”, it’s easy for someone to point fingers now, than actually solve a complex issue like Tibet or Taiwan. isn’t it really annoying sometimes all you get in the western world are ppl pointing fingers, after all those years of slavery, invasion and exploitation? you didn’t suddenly invented a civilized culture with all the bells n whistles of prosperous and democracy did you?
there are many problems in China, many problems with the communist party. it takes time. it took over 40 years for the country to even start chasing the development of rest of the world. let me know if anyone has some great idea and put it to work.
Vote:March 27th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
longbow, I find your insights into South West Asia interesting, thank you for sharing them with us.
Vote:March 27th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Thanks for your input on this debate Longbow.It is always good to hear the other side of the story.
I had my eyes opened recently when I read about life in pre-1949 Tibet.Far from being some Buddhist utopia,Tibet was a ruled by Taliban type thugs who practised torture,slavery and with the common man being in abject poverty.
The ruling Lama`s then would recline in their lavish palaces,chests puffed out in pride how deserving they where and that the serfs that they ruled must have had evil past lives so deserved their current misery.The reality was a little different than Brad Pit and the smiling monks!
Vote:March 27th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Caution posters, The chinese POSTERS here under the FTA, could run the party, ps remember New Zealand under clark has been and for ever(SHORTLY) will be a part of china, i expect war ships , and a flood of rubbish workers. I can say this not worring about demerites as the person with two surnames clark/davis hasnt releised details, but when your country is now asian WHY WORRY should I SPEAK CANTONISE OR MANDARIAN, to the bros who hate my grammar, UPU
Vote:March 28th, 2008 at 12:03 am
From the linked Herald article:
Good on them. I do hope they take the time to acknowledge that skykiwi is not going to have the plug pulled on it. They can even criticise state-run media outlets (like TVNZ and RNZ) with precisely no fear of harassment or intimidation.
Vote:March 28th, 2008 at 8:08 am
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Tibet
Longbow, read it yourself with a little consideration of how the old world worked.
You send some officials to a country and some soldiers every now and then and get involved in various official decisions and suddenly you think you have annexed a place – I’m sure the soviets did all of that in Cuba and the rest of the communist world – but no one seriously thought for example cuba was part of Russia.
Maybe Vietnam is a closer to home example.
> then he started a coup …
OK I’m painting him like Nelson mandella, I accept he could have done some nasty things in his younger days. I means not listened to him lately .
> and you fell for my diversion. not to mention Tibet is different from Iraq.
er – I’m addressing the Iraq point not the Thailand one. I didn’t have a major issue with the Thailand one so it didn’t need a response. But er… congratulations on your brilliant diversion…
> have you met any of them? do you know what falungong really is?
yes, and yes. If any of my relatives said they wanted to join I’d tell them they were out of their minds. how about you?
> you didn’t suddenly invented a civilized culture with all the bells n whistles of prosperous and democracy did you?
But now it is invented, don’t reinvent the same thing. As regards China as a whole, some things are hard, some are easy – there are no excuses for screwing up the easy decisions.
Vote:March 28th, 2008 at 8:12 am
towaka,
Vote:The soviets also did a lot of good for many of the countries they captured. when you are a primitive society a strict central government can be, useful. It might cost a lot of lives but you’ll be dragged kicking and screaming into the 20th century or at least the 19th.
March 28th, 2008 at 8:15 am
longbow: do you know what falungong really is?
I do know that their leader believes himself to be an alien / supreme being that is elevated beyond mortal conception. He admitted as much in a Time interview a few years back. To my mind they’re just another fruit loopy cult with a relatively charismatic leader.
Vote:March 28th, 2008 at 9:38 am
GNZ
> Maybe Vietnam is a closer to home example.
the closest example i could think of, in the bloody Auckland traffic this morning, listen to Manukau council on whether they should flying Maori flags, is Tuhoe.
Tibet to most Chinese nowadays is a remote piece of land, a land tied with the central China for centuries in blood (2nd emperor of Tibet married 2 daughters of Tang emperor one of the largest temple in Lhasa is for the princess), a fancy tourist destination requires you to be physically fit (and thus only a handful of my friends in China has been there).
55 minority groups in China living in harmony with the Han, just about every one of them are receiving special benefits and funding that’s not available to the Han. Birth-control, probably one of the most controversy policy from the communist party – allow minority groups to have 2 or 3 children, some times even if just one of the couple is a minority group. the central government spent billions each year on autonomous regions to help with their economical, culture and religious development. every year in the CCTV new year gala minority groups are guranteed spots to perform their singing and dancing. Manzhu (Manchu), (one of the biggest) minority group who created the Qing dynasty, are common in my home city (and no one still blame them for slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Han after they conquered the city of Yangzhou and Jiading in 1645), no one could tell the difference between a Manzhu and a Han.
forget about Tuhoe. the closest example would be Mongolia, yet still not exact. Mongolia was under Chinese central government since Yuan dynasty. It claimed independence in 1921, with the royals influenced by Russia. Later much of its land were occupied by Russia – and that’s what exactly would happen with “free Tibet” – only difference is India already occupied much of Tibetan land. the “inner Mongolia” became an autonomous region in 1947 and is still part of China today, the economy development is much better than the “outer”, “independent” Mongolia – all that Russia wanted was land and resources. not quite the closest example actually, as Mongolia was recognized by UN as a country in 1961, and the ROC government in Taiwan, was pressed by US and didn’t object. are they really happy about their “independence” today?
all i wanted to say is, there is probably nothing quite like Tibet to China. The fact most Chinese calling it Xizang instead of Tibet shows how much difference between us and the westerners as they look at the issue. it’s far far from a “China invaded Tibet in 1959″. westerners need to realize the “Chinese” nowadays is not just the Han living in mainland speaking Mandarin, but includes 56 groups with many dialects even more than a handful written symbols.
> If any of my relatives said they wanted to join I’d tell them they were out of their minds. how about you?
good on you.
i met a follower in Beijing in 1997, years before they “became” a problem in the eyes of the CCP. i spent half an hour on a debate with him. in the end, he has nothing to say but i can’t convert him back. a Chinese proverb “a person who is seriously ill, would take any advice from anyone”. the culture revolution and unbalanced ecnomic development in China is to blame for hundreds of thousands of followers to believe it.
>But now it is invented, don’t reinvent the same thing. As regards China as a whole, some things are hard, some are easy – there are no excuses for screwing up the easy decisions.
i kinda agree except that i can’t see the “easy decisions”, not on Tibet, or democracy in China.
Vote:the communist party definitely made a huge mistake to ban western media in the first place. if the media had nothing to report, they would grab anything they can get. none of the picture posted above could confirm anything – people dies everyday in China and some can be seriously human right issues, but the Chinese has learnt how to handle with riot and sensitive minority group issues. i hope they can learn another lesson this time – change the way they think and open up more.
March 28th, 2008 at 10:20 am
To address the actual issue: I Chinese in New Zealand are unhappy with media coverage they are seeing them they will find what they want on any TV screen in China.
Planes leave daily.
Vote:March 28th, 2008 at 11:08 am
“longbow”, your name is appropriate. Have you heard the saying “drawing a long bow”………..?
Iraq had invaded Iran in the 1980′s and 1 million people died. Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 and murdered thousands of people. Iraq massacred hundreds of thousands of its Kurds and Shi-ites. Iraq breached all principles of its treaty with the UN. When did Tibet do all that?
The USA invaded Iraq and removed the evil dictator and then held elections for the Iraq people to choose their own government. Did China do that for Tibet?
Vote:March 28th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Tibet was in slavery system before 1949. Is Communism not also a slavery system?
I question the legitimacy of ANY regime that only exists through force. Communism claims to represent “the people”, yet Communist rule has only ever been established through the murder and forced oppression of a large percentage of the people. I think there is no difference between a Communist regime or a Nazi one or Saddam Hussein’s one or the Taleban. They all only exist through terror. A violent minority works its way into control because the majority are too peace-loving to resist them and once the violent minority are in control of the institutions of society, it is too late for the majority to take opposing action. Then follows hell on earth until a leadership arises that are willing and able to make a change, like Gorbachev and Yeltsin in the USSR, and Deng Xiaoping in China. But we need to be clear that the truth is that rulers like Mao and Stalin were monsters and it is evil to think good of them at all.
The difference between reform in the USSR and reform in China, is that in the USSR the regime ceased to be prepared to murder people any more. That is much more morally good than the Chinese Communists.
Vote:March 28th, 2008 at 11:26 am
“longbow”, why should we assume that anyone who is protesting and asking for freedom is being paid by some other enemy of the state? Can you not see that people DO WANT freedom, it is a perfectly natural thing for all people to want without anybody else paying them to make trouble?
Vote:March 28th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
NO BLOOD FOR KIWIFRUIT!
Vote:March 28th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Murray -
Pakeha is migrant to this land as well. on any given day more Kiwi fly to OZ than Chinese fly to China to watch state media. i can assure you most Chinese don’t really like (or to some extent, trust) the state media. that doesn’t mean manipulative western media report are correct, or the Chinese on protest “prefer” Chinese state media over western. all they wanted was facts, and balanced view.
PhilBest -
did i compare Iraq with Tibet?
>Is Communism not also a slavery system?
Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of a classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
all i can tell you that today’s China is more leaning towards Capitalism than Maxism based Communism.
i probably don’t have time to go over the modern history of China cause of work. Deng probably has as much controversy as Mao. in one sentence, ppl sign their names asking to remove the western media ban in Tibet this is unthinkable in 40 years ago. it takes time.
i’m not going to agree you with how or why USSR fell. one of the reason is how America played his cards smartly. “China regime (is still) prepared to murder people” just shows you still thinking in the cold war way and have no clue about the current situation in China.
i’m not suggesting everyone who is protesting and asking for freedom are being paid – i said some Falungong ppl were getting paid to stand infront of Chinese consulate in Auckland. i said Dalai’s two elder brothers are paid by CIA for a long time. i said some ppl acting in the TV before the western media are paid. and i know some of them have no other source of income and it’s not a secret.
well, most of what i said are not exaggerated, they are first hand experiences or simple facts – many of them can be varified from western resources – that some westeners found hard to accept. i picked up the name from the history on Britain archers btw.
i want more freedom and democracy in China, now. can you tell me how?
Vote:March 28th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Never feel comfortable in China Always feel watching eyes . No matter how it may seem to be Westernised especially as regards the young always feel that under the surface this is a giant Trojan Horse to suck us all in and then when the time is right…………………………….. leave it to you to fill in the pieces.
Vote:March 28th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
longbow, you said THIS:
“it might be a bad example to suggest “West did this in the past … why that makes it ok today”, it would NOT be ok for China to just invade, say, Thailand and set up a new government there.
oh wait, isn’t that what U.S. just did in Iraq?”
What the US does when it invades a country, is that it removes evil leadership and then holds elections for those people to choose their own government, and those countries end up independent of the US and free to choose their own course. Germany. Japan. Iraq. Lots of others. When Communist countries invade another country, they take all rights away from those people.
Vote:March 28th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
“Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of a classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production”.
Yes, that is very nice, Longbow. But it is impossible to establish such a system without lots and lots of violence, even killing of lots and lots of people. Therefore, this system is evil.
As I said before, I do not believe that Communism is the result of a “people’s revolution” at all. A “people’s revolution” is what happened in the USSR in 1989 and later. Communism was imposed by way of a violent minority only, and it only lasts as long as that violence continues to be used. The Communists in the USSR ceased to use that violence, and the “people’s revolution” resulted in democratic elections. If the Communists in China also ceased to use violence, the result would be that the people would choose democratic elections.
But I agree with you that political freedom to have elections is not the same thing as allowing people to own property and make money, and that although the Chinese people do not have democratic elections or other political freedoms like in the West, the economic system is now closer to Capitalism. It is interesting to have this discussion with you. Are you in the Chinese Communist Party?
You ask how to get more freedom and democracy in China. This is a big problem because you have Communism for so long. But the government must allow people to speak freely and argue about politics and the best way forward. It is very likely a problem that people who have positions of power will not like what is actually the BEST way forward when somebody else suggests it.
I still believe that what the USSR did was right, and to allow elections to be held. It is because humans have chosen to be good and not evil, that they will no longer shoot protesters and drive tanks over them. But perhaps China still has too many uneducated people who would vote for a government that would do stupid things? Perhaps China should immediately allow MOST of its people to vote, at least the literate ones, and introduce universal voting rights later. That is what actually happened in many democratic nations 200-100 years ago.
Do you understand what “gd” said above? Is it possible that one day the Chinese Communist Party will just take everything over again, so that all private owners and overseas investors will lose everything? Of course Western people should suspect this, while the Chinese Communist Party still has such power.
Vote:March 28th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
quick lines before heading home
i left China in 1999, i visit China about once every 2 years since then. probably because i’m still kind of local, i feel rather comfortable. i went to pub all the time, where foreigners are common place and i havn’t met anyone said he feels being watched (maybe because i’m not in a sensitive city like Beijing or Lhasa). the political and economical atomosphere is rather relaxing, i have friends in other smaller parties, as well in communist parties. many of my friends are doing ok in their job, all of them bought apartments and some bought cars (NZ$20k~30k range). the communist party is not an iron fist dropping a shadown upon everyone’s daily life. none of them or their relatives were ever arrested, tortured, or even questioned by the police. in fact i have a couple classmates in the police force – yeah i heard some stories from one of them but nothing as “drawing a long bow” as described in some western media.
i’m not saying China has great democracy/human rights or the communisty party is absolutely right. there are many problems. many low skill workers in wester regions are not well protected (miners die in accident quite often). the control of internet BBS/blog became a lot tighter since Hu took the powerr, which was quite unexpected for me. generally speaking, it has been moving to the bright side albeit slowly. for normal citizen, most of theme (i believe including some Tibetan) want a stable society to work and get a better life, want their safety and private properties protected (well as long as u r not trying to turn over the government..), which is exactly what’s happening in most parts of China in recent years. peaceful protest to the government is not uncommon and there were no need of excessive forces.
give pressure/boycott the communist party for all you want for better democracy in China, but it would take time. it would take a lot of time. and in the meantime, there is little i could do. that was part of reason i left – not saying NZ doesn’t have its own problem, i do feel living in NZ can be much relaxing, politically or environmentally.
> Is it possible that one day the Chinese Communist Party will just take everything over again
i sense a fear. which is probably typical for some westerners. there IS a problem with communist party’s leading – it controls the army, it is the leading party according to the consitution. i would like to see that getting changed. the military should be independent and the national people’s congress should hold the ultimate power. there are many debate around similar issues in China. yet, in a sentence, it take time. i believe most ppl would rather have a stable government in China, and progressivly improve its democracy and human rights. i doubt anything could be done over night. manipulative wstern media reports or blunt accusations would only fuel the nationalism among Chinese and make it a lot harder for any real change to happen from the inside.
Vote:March 28th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Nice post, longbow. Nice to have this discussion. I hope things do continue to improve for the Chinese people, and that the hardliners (and possibly war-mongers too) do not get the upper hand. There was a joke in Russia a few years ago, “Communism is the longest route from Capitalism to Capitalism”……..
Vote:March 28th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Yes longbow your insights are very valuable. It would be interesting to get more of your perspective on other threads too, and I hope you continue posting over time, and also encourage your friends to do likewise. I have some Russian friends who grew up in the USSR and they have shared with me insights that I could not have got anywhere else, as although I have travelled (but not to China), it is of course not the same thing at all as having lived in the region. Thanks.
Vote:March 28th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Re Mongolia etc,
>are they really happy about their “independence” today?
People interestingly enough don’t seem to place that sort of economic welfare at the top of their priority list when making these sorts of decisions. If all of the British empire had stayed together then maybe we would all be better off – we certainly were hurt economically after we got cut off from the British market and one could make a similar argument about much of Africa. But even in complete disasters like Zimbabwe they are still nostalgic about the revolution. Anyway I doubt China would object too strongly if Mongolia eventually surrendered themselves to China so i presume in the big scheme of things the option remains open – possibly inevitable.
Overall that sort of nationalist “independence” argument holds little weight with me – but where does it lead us if I can say to you “I can run your life better than you can, and I have the power to do it – so I should”?
Vote:March 28th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
.
Vote:March 29th, 2008 at 1:25 am
thanks all.
GNZ –
Mongolia not just hurt economically but lost vast piece of land to Russia with years of military occupation. they were tricked into going independence, then used and abused by Joseph Stalin and his scuccessors for years. i don’t support “i can run your life better than you can and i have power so i should” (which seems to be what the Labour government has been doing) – but if someone’s making a decision that would change million’s people’s life like that, they better think a lot harder than the Monglian royals did.
i should keep myself from offtopics but can’t resist this – is New Zealand ever gonna recognize the Tuhoe region as an independent country?
Vote:March 29th, 2008 at 1:37 am
longbow. No, apart from in Manukau City Council, which I read most of NZ will abhor. Bad decision. They’re fools.
Vote:March 29th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Firstly Longbow EVERYONE is either a mirgrant or a descendant of one in there islands. WTF did race become the issue here? Or is this the leftie set up be called a racist and should play my “I’m a maori” race card now for a free turn?
Secondly the people were commenting were NOT migrants, they were in ther main visitors on visas if you had bothered to listen to the intros.
Thirdly. how many kiwis fly to Oz (apparently just to watch the evening news) and then tell them what they should be saying?
As for the rest if anyone bothered to read your screeds after hitting the first three out three comments being wrong it wasn’t me.
Vote:March 29th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Longbow,
> Mongolia not just hurt economically but lost vast piece of land to Russia with years of military occupation.
You point seems to rest on China being better than Russia and loosing some to Russia being worse than loosing all to China – prior to Deng Xiaoping that was not entirely clear, and Russians might also beg to differ over the present time.
>is New Zealand ever gonna recognize the Tuhoe region as an independent
you probably don’t know this but NZ has been busy trying to get Tokelau to be independent – problem is the people of Tokelau keep refusing to play ball.
as to Tuhoe – maybe they should arrange a referendum, just as long as we don’t do the sad NZ thing of continuing to donate money and services to people who wanted independance. You have to take the good with the bad eh?
Vote:March 29th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Speaking of off topic – I’m hoping China will surrender to Taiwan and recognize themselves officially as a semi autonomous territory of Taiwan, under the KMT of course.
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 4:47 am
Murray – the research assistant mentioned in Herald is a migrant. you said “(if) Chinese in NZ doesn’t like media coverage … plane LEAVES daily”. there seems no other way to interpret it. they are not telling you want YOU should say. they just want the MEDIA to be fair and true.
GNZ – i’m not saying China being better than Russia (at the time Mongolia went independent), China was in years of civil war at the time. but the Mongolian royals didn’t went independent for their dignity or the better for their people. and they certainly didn’t realize the consequences despite the lessons from the long history of Russian influence and military occupation since early 20 centure.
yes i read about Tokelau. they voted last year but again didn’t get enough vote. part of reason i heard, was the ppl don’t want to lose the fundings from New Zealand. it’s probably irrelevant anyway.
as Tuhoe – even if they arranged a referendum – wait i thoght they already call themself the “Tuhoe nation” – anyway i won’t be surprised if they voted for independence – will New Zealand recognize them?
as your off topic. that won’t happen. personally i believe the Taiwan situation will remain as it is for some considerable time. as long as they don’t claim indepence there will unlikely to be a war (a war that they are unlikely to win and trust me not many Chinese would like the war to happen in the first place).
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 8:05 am
Tibet.
The People’s Republic of China and the “Government of Tibet in Exile” disagree over when Tibet became a part of China, and whether this incorporation into China is legitimate according to international law.
As an exclusive mandate, Tibet is also officially claimed by the Republic of China (Taiwan). However the claim of Taiwan is now somewhat historic and relating to the time when they claimed to be a rival government of China to the communist “usurper”. Those days have ended and at most Taiwan’s government claims authority in Taiwan and as such is faced with two options – a formal declaration of independence (based on prior popular support expressed in a referendum) or to remain an autonomous self governing region of China until any consent to normalisation/unification occurs.
China points to Tibet being “governed” by the Chinese central government since the Tang Dynasty. A first king of Tibet (united tribes in the 600’s/7thC), Songzain Gambo, married a Chinese princess of the Tang dynasty and received titles from the government of China. Tibet was autonomous in later centuries, but then under the Yuan dynasty, Ming dynasty and Qing dynasty. During the 1911 revolution by Sun Yat-sen, the Tibet government agree to join the “new” China. So throughout its history, the government of Tibet has been in relationship with China, from the first King’s marriage to the mutual recognition of the two respective governments (but the contention is over whether this implies, an autonomous zone under over-rule suzerainty or an independent nation sometimes under “protection”. A similar dispute to that of England and Scotland prior to 1603. The British sought a direct relationship with Tibet in the 19th C early 20th C (1888-1911) and this further confused the situation.
However, from the early 1600s the Dalai Lamas, commonly known as spiritual leaders of the region, have been heads of a centralised Tibetan administration (at least nominally), thus building another claim to leadership of the people of Tibet than that of being the “local” government recognised by China. Between the 17th century and 1959, the Dalai Lama and his regents were the predominant political power administering religious and administrative authority over large parts of Tibet from the traditional capital Lhasa. The 1950 to 1959 period is indicative of an acceptance of China’s latest assertion of suzerainty. Thus the period since seems a dispute to two leaderships over their historic arrangement. No doubt the latest Chinese regime, the “communist party”, has difficulty with another leadership authority, especially someone in a position of religious leadership, being involved in an administrative role.
The sovereignty problem in Tibet results from not taking up an opportunity to apply to join the UN before the country was occupied in 1950 by China. Then it could have been claimed that any subsequent attempt to occupy their land was an annexation (the UN banned annexation of land in 1949) in breach of their declared self-determination.
It seems Han Chinese migration into Tibet (to change the situation on the ground) is to ensure the locals become a minority. I guess that’s because the Beijing regime is not confident of any recognition by the people of Tibet, of China’s right to primacy over the region. The latest events seem to be provocation (in the sense of a policy of intolerance of protest and in the resort to violence) to show the world that over-rule of Tibet occurs by the use of Chinese greater force. The use of force and then the subsequent disowning of it by religious/political leadership, follows a similar pattern to that of political and military wings of other struggles (especially where religions are involved). In this case fortunately, it seems to be only of a temporary promotion of the Tibet self determination cause to the wider world.
Canada is a good example of how the world has reacted to events since 1950.
The United Nations General Assembly Resolutions 1353 (1960), 1723 (1961), and 2079 (1965) call for the end of practices that deprive the Tibetan people of their fundamental human rights and freedoms, including their right to self-determination. The resolutions also called upon all UN Member States to use their best efforts to achieve the purposes of the resolutions.
In 1970, the Canadian government officially recognized the People’s Republic of China. Despite its earlier support for the UN resolutions, Canada’s position on Tibet’s political status now endorsed Chinese policy: “In 1970 when Canada established diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China, it recognized that China had effective control over the Tibetan territory. Thus, the Canadian Government’s view is that Tibet’s legal status is that of an autonomous region of the People’s Republic of China, as set out in the Chinese constitution.” (Letter from Hon. Joe Clark to the CTC, July 21, 1988).
Following the November 1990 visit of the Dalai Lama to Ottawa, Canada’s official position on Tibet’s political status was amended as follows: “In 1970, when Canada established diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China, it recognized the PRC as the sole legitimate government of China. Canada takes no position with regard to specific Chinese territorial claims; it neither challenges nor endorses them.” (D.E. Waterfall, Director, North Asia Relations, Department of External Relations to the CTC, May 27, 1991).
On November 26, 1999, Canada completed its bilateral trade agreement with China, which included technical assistance provision to facilitate China’s entry to the WTO. The agreement prioritized specific sectors of interest for Canadian investment, including telecommunications, financial services and agriculture.
On the issue of China – the facts are, does the UN recognise today in 2008 that an independent Tibet exists or that such a Tibet should exist – have the right to self determination as a people? (it does not in the matter of Taiwan, even though it is the only truly self governing democratic part of China). Such is always problematic if there is no democratic vehicle for the expression of this self determination (as in Scotland and Wales).
It is simply unwise for New Zealand to take a position independent of the UN/other nations on this. As unwise as having a policy on Northern Ireland (republican nationalism) or Basque independence and then relating this to a revision of trade relations with the EU until they agreed. As for our policy on human rights in nations we trade with; the rights of women in Saudi Arabia; freedom of religion in Moslem (no right to convert to another religion) countries; freedom of speech and right to protest in Singapore, the USA neo-imperialism and Cold War era activity in Latin America, its behaviour in the war against terrorism, its illegal occuptaion of Iraq …
In our country people who had no plan of any action, but merely had broken gun laws were treated in what way …, in Tibet clearly some of the uprising involved use of violence, if that had actually happened here, what would the armed offenders guys have done on the ground when the violence was happening … . I guess its just lucky for us, we were not negotiating this trade treaty in the 1860’s.
Given the Greens stated awareness of continuing injustice to Maori, one wonders whether they would see some point to the Chinese lecturing us about our behaviour, in reply to whatever Clark says to them? Or even applaud their integrity, if they refused to sign a trade Treaty with a country still oppressing their indigenous people?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7305558.stm
Oh and given the word length, a summary, it’s that the Greens of all parties (but the MP) should know the hypocrisy they are asking of the government to make criticism of China for how a local ethnic minority is being treated and in the idea of holding only one country to some test for free trade.
PS What should happen,
1. once Hong Kong reaches full democracy, China should offer the same option to Tibet and Taiwan with the process to begin when democratic government is introduced to Beijing. This goal forming the basis of dialogue in the meantime and providing direction to policy decision-making.
2. as to our policy, it is true we expect more of established (western) democracies. It’s where a democracy is subverted that we are precious, we tolerated in Tonga, what we would not in Fiji for example. And until there is any sign of disagreement from National, one wonders why anyone on the right thinks they can ascribe the China-Fiji policy difference to Labour. Labour’s Fiji and China policies are consistent with most other nations.
Vote:March 30th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
> a war that they are unlikely to win
I am not sure the war would be so nice for Mainland China.
Here is a hypothetical
1) Let us say the Taiwanese declare independance
2) The chinese attack via sea with transports full of soldiers – after all they want to take the island quickly, not annihilate it.
3) the taiwanese take out the three gourges dam (desperate defense) and various other structures – China suffers “a bit of flooding”.
4) the initial Chinese assault fails to take the island (it just isn’t that easy) and costs a hell of a lot of Chinese soldiers lives, many transports get sunk etc, many more Chinese than Taiwanese die (although the Chinese would win if it continued).
5) then the US get involved and China either goes to WWIII or it calls a ceasefire. (BTW if it goes WWIII it looses)
6) world looks at the millions dead and decides they would rather not trade with China so much
China – millions dead – government in danger of collapse (via the loss of face). definitely not a winner.
Taiwan – somewhat less dead. Still exists.
of course Taiwan surrendering or the US watching a bloody invasion and doing nothing or China having secretly developed very good anti missile defenses and so forth is possible but seems rather optimistic..
What do you think the scenario would be realistically?
Vote: