Labour’s Huo on Dalai Llama
July 1st, 2010 at 12:17 pm by David FarrarI presume Phil Goff will be refusing to meet with the Dalai Llama in future. In fact according to one of his MPs, the Dalai Llama is an evil torturing dictator. Raymond Huo blogged:
China established what is now known as Tibetan Autonomous Region in the early 1950s, which put an end to the notoriously cruel system of serfdom on Tibet.
There are two versions of the Dalai Lama. For those of his followers his Holiness is a saint. For others, he is viewed as the leader who supported a system of slavery in Tibet which the Chinese authorities put an end to in the 1950s.
What Westerners do not know, or do not want to know, as argued by the other party, is what level of cruelty the Theocratic Serfdom under Dalai Lama had to offer. An exhibition in New Lynn in 2009 displayed:
• Tibetan Lamaism instruments for worship ceremony made by human parts including human skin drum and a necklace made of finger bones,
• A “gandong” (a flute made of human leg bone)
• Skin from serfs (including children) for religious purpose
• Serf’s eyes gouged out for punishment
What an evil man the Dalai Llama is. I am surprised Raymond is not calling for him to be prosecuted in the International Court of Justice.
As Danyl points out:
How fortunate the people of Tibet were to be liberated from their cruel rulers and taken under the wise and benevolent protection of Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai, who then went on to kill over a million Tibetans through various purges and famines, replacing the dead with ethnic Han Chinese migrants who now rule Tibet as an apartheid regime.
(The current Dalai Lama was fifteen at the time of the Chinese invasion. He’s subsequently been a harsh critic of the feudal society of pre-occupation Tibet.)
I would also point out that while I am not exactly a devoted fan of the Dalai Llama, he has won the Nobel Peace Prize. Yeah I know Obama has won it also, but back in 1989 it actually was meaningful. He also have been given 100 or so honours and awards from various governments.
Now to be fair to Labour, other MPs have disagreed with Raymond Huo in the comments on the post. But it is still extraordinary to see a New Zealand MP repeat such propaganda.
Tags: Dalai Lama, Labour, Raymond Huo, Tibet
July 1st, 2010 at 12:27 pm
Does ” back in 1989 ” kinda include 1994 – when Yasser Arafat won the Nobel Peace prize? That meant something too I guess.
Vote:July 1st, 2010 at 12:35 pm
From the Red Alert front page :- “These are the voices of Labour MPs on issues that we care about – and we’d like to hear what you think too. What you’ll read are the individual opinions of MPs. We won’t always agree with each other and sometimes our opinions may change.”
Sometimes, including this, this caveat applies more than others.
Vote:July 1st, 2010 at 12:38 pm
It shouldn’t matter how old he was – he’s just the latest incarnation of the same man.
/just sayin’ = you either believe or you don’t
Vote:July 1st, 2010 at 12:43 pm
… as did Gore and Pachauri. Totally. Worthless. Award.
Vote:July 1st, 2010 at 12:44 pm
The fact that Mao was a shit doesn’t invalidate Raymond Huo’s point.
Vote:July 1st, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Possibly more propaganda (or not). Whatever, Lama good, China bad is a bit simplistic.
Vote:July 1st, 2010 at 12:45 pm
I’m not as clear on this as you are DPF. I don’t have a lot of knowledge of Tibetan past, but it certainly is a new suggestion to me that things weren’t all rosy before the Chinese invaded. I haven’t gone to Red Alert to check, but the tone of the quotes suggests to me that this hasn’t been presented as a definite, just as an alternate view that people may not have heard.
There are two ways to look at things:
– what might the world be like if China hadn’t invaded. Chinese killed 1 million people, maybe more than that would have died without the invasion?
OR
– might-have-beens make no difference. The question is whether life for the Tibetans today could be better if some things were done differently. And the answer is probably a resounding yes.
I could draw a bit of a parallel with the Iraqi war. It is certainly true that many Iraqis died, and that initially at least the American execution of that war was poor. But it is also true that Saddam Hussein was a murdering dictator, and that without the invasion the prognosis for the Iraqi people wasn’t good. It isn’t necessary that one side is a saint and the other the devil incarnate. Sometimes life is a choice between two bad alternatives.
Vote:July 1st, 2010 at 12:45 pm
It’s such a pity that National MP’s don’t have this freedom of expression.
Vote:July 1st, 2010 at 12:47 pm
The poor Tibetans – they can’t even have a real government-in-exile. Instead they just get this old man with his incense sticks and jingle bells.
Vote:July 1st, 2010 at 1:13 pm
An old man who is quite happy to perpetuate the belief in his followers that he’s a deity, not just a man. He’s in the same box as Tamaki as far as I’m concerned. F-ing con artist.
Vote:July 1st, 2010 at 1:23 pm
Huo is right to an extent.
The old Tibetan nation was indeed a chillingly brutal, slave-owning theocracy, and there were many peasants who welcomed the arrival of the Chinese, who brought with them 20th century infrastructure and a secular society.
Unfortunately, Mao screwed them, and there can be no doubt that the Tibetans have since suffered repression, dispossession and a total lack of religious freedom. Ethnic Tibetans are now, I think, outnumbered by Han Chinese.
So what can be safely said is this: the popular idea that pre-annexation Tibet was a pastoral paradise is a complete fantasy.
Vote:July 1st, 2010 at 1:24 pm
DPF
What propaganda are you talking about;
* Redistribution creates a more equitable society.
Vote:* Socialism works.
* You are better off with labour.
* Helen Clark was popular and competent.
* Labour policies benefit ordinary kiwi’s.
July 1st, 2010 at 1:25 pm
The Dalai Lama said recently that he is a Marxist. Did he miss the 100 million people killed by Marxists in the 20th century? This IS evil. Sometimes our national leaders have to meet distasteful foreign leaders because of NZ’s trading or other interests. That is just a fact of life. But there are no interests advanced by meeting this eccentric Marxist “god” and I’d be disappointed if either Goff or Key met him.
Vote:July 1st, 2010 at 1:28 pm
Also worth noting: chanting “freedom for Tibet” is silly if you mean independent statehood. Even the Dalai Lama now says he seeks only greater autonomy within the People’s Republic of China
Vote:July 1st, 2010 at 1:29 pm
As a (somewhat lapsed) Buddhist with some knowledge of the teachings, I think it is fair to say that the Dalai Lama is a living testament to the power of delusion, desire and almost every opposite to what the Buddha stood for and taught. Study what this bloke says and does and you will find him empty of any spiritual enlightenment at all. Much like, say, Cardinal Ratzinger or Khomeini et al.
It is frankly ridiculous to pretend that this guy is the current representative of an unbroken line of spiritual teachers who are so enlightened as to be able to choose the manner of his rebirth (in fact this whole concept is contrary to the Buddha’s teachings…. but be that as it may).
Of course, communism has its faults, but Tibet is much better off now under the Chinese than they could ever hope to be under a deluded elitist theocracy which had not evolved for over a thousand years.
Vote:July 1st, 2010 at 1:33 pm
The Dalai Lama said recently that he is a Marxist. Did he miss the 100 million people killed by Marxists in the 20th century? This IS evil.
The DL probably sweats when he kills a fly but hey he probably has plans for gulags somewhere in that robe of his.
Vote:July 1st, 2010 at 1:36 pm
… OK, I’ll amend my statement…..
Please read my above as “regretfully, completely lapsed” hahahahaha
Vote:July 1st, 2010 at 1:44 pm
It’s such a pity that National MP’s don’t have this freedom of expression.
I guess you missed Nikki Kaye speaking out about mining then.
Vote:July 1st, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Colonialist bad, noble savage good. Raymond Huo would do well to realise this applies to directly to the Han occupation of Tibet.
Vote:July 1st, 2010 at 1:47 pm
Trevor Mallard dissimulates:
Well good for you blog proprietors and your careful judgement, Trevor.
Pity the same judgement didn’t extend to the people who ranked him high enough on your List to see him elevated to the House of Representatives. Just who is he representing with his views, exactly?
If not his Party, then his “constituency”? Of course being a List MP he doesn’t really have one and thus can make his obnoxious views known and not have to care about the opinions of anyone other than a few Labour power brokers, who’ll weigh his inept performance (name me something else he’s done worthy of attention) against his handy ethnic appearance in vote-winning caucus snapshots and decide he’s worth another spell at the trough.
Fascinating though that those who ranked Labour’s list thought everyone of lower rank would turn in a performance worse than Mr Huo’s. I’m sure those candidates are equally impressed.
Oh, and if he has time in his busy schedule, perhaps you could get Mr Huo to enlighten us on his view of pre-European Maori? Since it seems the sins of the fathers are the standard by which Mr Huo judges an entire race.
Vote:July 1st, 2010 at 1:48 pm
“These are the voices of Labour MPs on issues that we care about – and we’d like to hear what you think too.——-
“—–But if you think impure thoughts we will delete your comments and ban you.”
You are a hypocrite as well as a bozo Trev.
Vote:July 1st, 2010 at 1:54 pm
How about “Freedom for China”?
Vote:July 1st, 2010 at 2:00 pm
Bwaaahahahahaha
(Remembering the awesome freedom of expression allowed recently under the tenure of H1 and H2)
Vote:July 1st, 2010 at 2:11 pm
“Whatever, Lama good, China bad is a bit simplistic.”
Yet… accurate enough.
Haven’t seen the Dali Lamas goons manhandling MP’s on our parliment grounds recently but it seems to be a fucking FEATURE of Chinese visits.
Vote:July 1st, 2010 at 2:14 pm
Alot of opinion here says expertly “Tibet better off now under China”,who knows.
Let the Tibetans decide,not the illegal imports,I thought that was wot the UN and the universal declaration that member states sign up to was about,and any member of the UN like China would respect a plebiscite……..
and they could have another one in the other client state North Korea……..
in the mean time lets bag the harmless old holy man while the other side run gulags,harvest organs and promote democracy and human rights at home and abroad…..opium of the people….you’d wonder what Huo was smoking
Vote:July 1st, 2010 at 2:31 pm
It would be good if the National party MP’s had a similar channel for blogging.
Vote:July 1st, 2010 at 2:46 pm
This was written up by International Commision of Jurists and produced in Geneva 1960.
http://www.tibetjustice.org/materials/govngo/govngo2.html
From an article in Wide World, November 1963, John Garrick is the pen name of Lt. Col L G Young,of the British army in India. He returned to India as Administrator of the Save the Children Fund dealing with the problem of Tibetian refugee children.
Yes I may have doubts why this was written (British army)(politics) and great difficulty to verify the article that goes on in gruesome detail of the tortures done and link via google. I could quote much more if you wish.
However I also note that the invasion of East Timor was basically ignored from 1975 for many years and I was well aware of what was happening there as I was nearby at that time.
Why is this comment section so slow in response in typing, like flipping concrete
Vote:July 1st, 2010 at 2:48 pm
American Gardener suggests:
They do. Prepare to be massively underwhelmed.
Vote:July 1st, 2010 at 2:49 pm
It would be good if the National party MP’s had a similar channel for blogging.
Wow, thank you so much for that insightful comment.
Vote:July 1st, 2010 at 2:53 pm
Given the population of Tibet was on the order of 1 million at the time of the Chinese takeover and is something like 4 million today, it is rather impossible for Mao and Zhou to have killed a million tibetans.
As for the Han migrations, it helps to know what that different definitions of tibetan territory are being used. For the TAR proper (the territory that the Dalai Lama was ruling before the Chinese came), the Han just go in, make their money and then get the fuck out because it is a dump. There are no large masses of Han in the TAR residing there long term.
There are other parts of Tibet that do have large numbers of Han living there. However a) the Dalai Lama wasn’t in charge of those territories before the Chinese took over (a Tibetan empire did control the area before there was a Dalai Lama) and b) the Han populations have been there since the fourth century AD.
Vote:July 1st, 2010 at 3:08 pm
Huo’s “constituency” seems to be the recently-emigrated Chinese, who are extremely pro-China. I would be grudgingly impressed if Labour high-ups sought to tap into this group, using Huo and generic liberals like Twyford to whistle their respective dogs. But Red Alert is entirely the wrong forum for Huo, though.
Vote:July 1st, 2010 at 3:16 pm
“But Red Alert is entirely the wrong forum for Huo, though.”
He a commie loser cheering for totalitarian government and genocide. Historically speaking he’s in just the right place.
Vote:July 1st, 2010 at 4:01 pm
please don’t ever let National get a blog like Red Alert. They’re PR accident prone, a blog where they write their own stuff would be one big PR disaster. In fact no National MP should be allowed to talk directly to anyone, they should all have a PR minder with them 24/7.
Vote:July 1st, 2010 at 4:44 pm
***Ethnic Tibetans are now, I think, outnumbered by Han Chinese.***
A similar thing has happened to the ethnic Parisians and Londoners.
Vote:July 1st, 2010 at 5:00 pm
Ethnic NZers are outnumbered by later arrivals. As has happened throughout human history… chances are I have a bit of Viking, Saxon, and Roman in my background, and my descendants will be a mix of all of those and a bit of Polynesian and Chinese to boot.
My favourite migration is Navajo Indians. Their language isn’t even remotely similar to that of neighbouring Indian tribes, but is very similar to tribes in western Canada. It seems they headed south about 1000 years ago and were likely moved on wherever they tried to settle until they arrived in Arizona.
Vote:July 1st, 2010 at 6:00 pm
unaha-closp (676) Says:
July 1st, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Colonialist bad, noble savage good. Raymond Huo would do well to realise this applies to directly to the Han occupation of Tibet.
*****************************
Exactly. If one is to accept that China’s invasion and occupation of Tibet on the basis of the abolition of slavery etc is a valid justification for their continuing administration of Tibet, then one must also accept that the colonial empires in Africa and, indeed, China, are also acceptable and should have continued.
Vote:July 1st, 2010 at 6:07 pm
Is Richard Who? a Chinese sleeper agent?
Vote:July 1st, 2010 at 6:46 pm
Obviously some special Chinese meaning of “autonomous”…
Vote:July 1st, 2010 at 7:00 pm
Over the years I’ve read a great deal of comment and observation that supports what Mr Huo has claimed a damned sight more than the Wed Wussell version.
Vote:July 1st, 2010 at 7:23 pm
So what? There’s a flute made of human bone in the Rotorua museum too. It’s not from faraway Tibet. And it’s called a koauau rather than a gandong. Life anywhere other than in the 20th century western world is f*cking tough. Trying to paint the Chinese overlords as “Not quite as bad as primitive serfdom” seems rather pointless to me.
It’s also a fallacy. Does Guo assume that if a hypothetical revolution kicked the Chinese out and restored the old Tibetan order with Dalai Lama at it’s head, he would return to the old ways?
Vote:July 1st, 2010 at 7:27 pm
I would be very dubious about meeting the Dalai Llama myself. He would be liable to spit at me. The Dalai Lama would be another story, of course.
Vote:July 1st, 2010 at 7:32 pm
Trevor Mallard you shameless prick,
Using this post to hijack readers about how they feel abour ‘Red Blurt” Oh man you are one sad pathetic piece of shit.
Vote:You suck big time icehole
July 1st, 2010 at 9:11 pm
Interesting how National and National Lite (Labour) are climbing on the Mao bandwaggon on Tibet.
Bro. Key and his Maori Coalition Government are very strong on NZ indigenous rights (coastline) and even Maori Party whims, such as banning smoking in prison. That this championing of Maori indigenous rights is political-power expediency rather than principle is supported by Key and the Labour MP’s dismissal of the indigenous rights of Tibetans, and of course other Mainland China minorities such as the Turkic Uighurs and the Mongolians of Inner Mongolia.
If Raymond Luo resorts to argument based on ancient practices in Tibet, what does he say of similar ancient practices of Maori, such as slavery and cannibalism? That’s right, they are just as irrelevant.
Russell Brown supports the argument that Tibetan independence is unrealistic if not impossible. But what about the Mongolian precedent? Pre-communist China used the same arguments to colonise Mongolia. White Russians (politically speaking) and later the Soviet Union supported Mongolians in driving the Chinese out of OUter Mongolia. This has become the independent country of Mongolia. In Inner Mongolia, which remained absorbed by Chinese, the proportion of ethnic Mongolians in the region’s population has fallen to less than 10 per cent. The Manchu of Manchuria have virtually disappeared.
Western Tibetans, a warlike, horse-using people like the MOngolians, fought on the Mongolians’ side against China following the Russian Revolution and in the White-Red battles. The Mongolians share the Tibetan style of Buddhism, which is quite warlike.
China has reportedly been committed genocide in Tibet, with forced marriages and abortions. It aims to swallow up minorities like the Tibetans, Uighurs, and Inner Mongolians into the Han majority, not only in culture, but genetically.
Bro. Key and co. have joined mainstream lefties like Labour and Russell Brown in pro-Beijing policy.
I agree with the Greens on little else, but they are right about China’s rampage in Tibet.
Vote:July 1st, 2010 at 9:21 pm
I came to NZ for a few reasons. One of them is I don’t have enough patience waiting some things to change in China – not that there were unbearable – and some of my classmates in China make a better living than I do here as a professional.
There really isn’t any point arguing a 1959 “invasion”. Tibet was, is and will be part of China. Both Dalai and Panchen were chosen and announced by the Chinese central government for centuries. PRC claims Tibet as part of China, ROC in Taiwan also claims Tibet as part of China, in fact Tibet along with other provinces signed the announcement of Sun Yat-sen to form a new government when he started revolution against Qing dynasty.
Both Dalai and Panchen went to Beijing and accepted high positions in the new found government after CCC won the civil war. Dalai went back started a riot with support from CIA and the British, the later tried many times in history to invade Tibet and slaughtered thousands of Tibetan soliders.
Sometimes I just can’t help laughing about some of the double standards I see in the western worlds.
Anyway, Panchen continued supporting the PRC government. The PRC government also spent millions each year in infrastructure and subsidies on minority groups. The minority groups in China have so many priviledges over the Han ppl. Single child policy doesn’t apply even if one of the couple is from a minority group. Schools, government, organiations all have quota or reserved positions for the minorty groups (and the small non-ruling parites).
If you want to argue the lack of democracy in China, fine.
If you want to argue the Tibetans were conquered or ill treated, GO THERE and take a look yourself
Vote:July 1st, 2010 at 9:24 pm
I would but I don’t think I could handle the Yak’s butter in my green tea so I’ll take your word for it.
Vote:July 1st, 2010 at 9:39 pm
Re Longbow at 9.21:
I suppose you would argue the Uighurs and the Mongolians would really like to be part of China, too. The riots, put down by troops, just like riots in Tibet, are just a few malcontents. Yeah right.
As for double standards in the Western worlds, have a look at China, too. Was the Great Leap Forward and the ensuing death of millions justifiable, too?
China’s has been a great civilisation, and it is good to see living standards of Chinese rise as the country returns to its traditional role as the world’s biggest economy.
But China has behaved like a colonial power to those on its borders, such as the Tibetans, the Mongolians, and the Uighurs.
If bootlicking by NZ politicians is the price of a free trade agreement with Beijing, then that’s colonialism, too.
Vote:July 1st, 2010 at 10:00 pm
Re Johnboy at 9.24
Navajo is an Athabaskan language. A number of other south-western native American tribes speak Athabanskan languages, as do the Dene and other peoples of northern Canada and Alaska. Have a look at the following article (link below). You will see they can be as unrelated as various IndoEuropean languages, e.g. English and Italian.
The Tibetan languages are a separate group, and you can read about them in the second link below. It’s interesting that Sherpa is a Tibetan language. So perhaps Ed Hillary’s beloved, brave Sherpas are ethnically Tibetan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athabaskan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_languages
Vote:July 1st, 2010 at 10:05 pm
Whoops, in my 10pm post I mistakenly named Johnboy as the person whose post I was commenting on. My 10pm post was a comment on the post by davidp at 5pm. Sorry, Johnboy!
Vote:July 1st, 2010 at 10:07 pm
No sweat Jack. You had me confused but a good read anyway. The Athabaskans are fine with me. I assume they drink their tea in a civilized manner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_talker
I liked that.
Vote:July 1st, 2010 at 10:13 pm
“My favourite migration is Navajo Indians. Their language isn’t even remotely similar to that of neighbouring Indian tribes, but is very similar to tribes in western Canada. It seems they headed south about 1000 years ago and were likely moved on wherever they tried to settle until they arrived in Arizona.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_talker
Good movie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windtalkers
Vote:July 1st, 2010 at 11:47 pm
Jack5 (1827) Says: I suppose you would argue the Uighurs and the Mongolians would really like to be part of China, too. The riots, put down by troops, just like riots in Tibet, are just a few malcontents. Yeah right.
– my brother in law is a mongolian. race relationship is not a concern except in the certain area in recent years, many were caused by ethnic ppl with foreign contacts.
China as a country has been conquered many times in history, the Yuan dynasty by the mongolian, the Qing dynasty by the Manchu, everytime the conquerors accepted the Han’s culture, and different groups coexisted. China has controlled XinJiang and Inner/outer mongolia for for centruies, as a buffer to defend the invasions from the north. The outer mogonlia only rebelled because they had support from the Russia empire. Neither of those regions are even remotely like northern ireland or tuhoe. Most Chinese see those regions as part of China for centries, it looks it’s very difficult to pass the message to the westeners.
Great Leap Forward? Tell me something that I don’t know. I’m not defending the mistakes by CCP, a young government, in a hostile environment, with the only ally USSR withdrew help, trying to beat the US and British in terms of industry and agriculture with all costs, Mao made a huge mistake and cost tens of millions of lives. Even CCP openly admitted that Mao takes responsibility for that and the cultural revolution. But many Chinese ppl still see him as the leader who liberate them from the foriegn captitalist and enemies. The British brought the optium war to China, both Hong Kong and Macau were lost under the Qing dynasty, as well as many land, money, and custom rights. The Japanese killed about 300,000 soldiers n civilians in Nanjing alone, the 8-nations armies burned and robbed the summer palace, the very ppl who’s grandchildren poingting fingers to China’s human rights issue (and yes there are).
Vote:July 2nd, 2010 at 7:54 am
longbow (118) Says:
July 1st, 2010 at 11:47 pm
China as a country has been conquered many times in history, the Yuan dynasty by the mongolian, the Qing dynasty by the Manchu, everytime the conquerors accepted the Han’s culture, and different groups coexisted. China has controlled XinJiang and Inner/outer mongolia for for centruies, as a buffer to defend the invasions from the north. The outer mogonlia only rebelled because they had support from the Russia empire. Neither of those regions are even remotely like northern ireland or tuhoe. Most Chinese see those regions as part of China for centries, it looks it’s very difficult to pass the message to the westeners.
**********************************
Its interesting to note, is it not, that Mongolia was very quick to get rid of Chinese domination at the first whiff of outside support, one would almost think they wanted to be independent. Its also noteworthy that you say that “Most Chinese see those regions as part of China for centries,” without ever asking yourself if China ever had a right to them in the first place, certainly China never gave them a choice in the matter. I have no doubt that China would happily invade Taiwan if it had the ability to do so and did not face the risk of national obliteration at the hands of the US.
Vote:China is a colonial power, and the only reason they don’t spread further is, like all other colonial powers, is the limits of capacity, competence and the presence of other nations with the might to resist them.
July 2nd, 2010 at 9:30 am
Oh FFS Stuart…. the whole of human history and all its development over thousands of years is composed of ‘colonial powers’. One man’s ‘evil empire’ is another man’s ‘spread of civilisation’ and, contrary to what many might think, most civilisations grow principally through trade and cultural/political expansion with warfare and military domination being just a small part of the process.
longbow… thank you for you insight. Its good to read something here written by someone who actually has a firsthand understanding of the history and politics of the subject.
Vote:July 2nd, 2010 at 10:40 am
The people of Tibet have had a bad run – but Chinese propaganda saying that the people of Tibet must be repressed and that they can’t have autonomy because of their history is merely a justification for tyranny.
For New Zealanders, the most worrying thing is the chilling the level of control that subsequent governments here have handed to the brutal Chinese government. Not being able to have diplomatic relations with Taiwan, leaders not being able to meet the Dalai Lama (John Key promised he would, but it seems to have been yet another lie http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0911/S00281.htm), and allowing Chinese security to take our our Parliament and assault and silence Green Party co-leader Russel Norman are all examples. Apparently the Chinese government even gets a veto on what billboards go up in this country (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=2098262).
NACT and Labour always stand up and say, ‘all these things are worthy sacrifices for the great god of free trade, which in turn will appease the great god of economic growth’. The truth is that the New Zealand economy doesn’t need growth right now – it needs sustainability and stability. The Free Trade Agreement with China is actually slowly destroying the New Zealand economy. Free trade proponents point to the theory of Competitive Advantage, and say ‘free trade is good, because some things can be more efficiently produced in other countries, and free trade can make us more efficient overall’. The theory of Competitive Advantage us true. But that is not what drives the vast majority of our trade with China at all.
The real reason behind most of our trade with China is because they have very lax labour laws, and very lax environmental laws. Businesses in China can destroy the environment without paying for it. The Chinese environment and the rights of the Chinese people belong to the all the Chinese people, but the government there gives it to the manufacturers for free (in other words, they subsidise manufacturing, by not making them pay the true cost). This means that cheap-and-dirty goods can be manufactured in China, and shipped here (which is actually less efficient overall, because of the cost of shipping, but it is still cheaper because manufacturers there don’t have to pay to minimise environmental impact, or to give workers decent pay or rights). This in turn undermines much of our economy; hardly anyone makes clothes here anymore. Our main exports are raw materials – and much of our land and capital is foreign owned now, due to National and Labour’s fondness for ‘economic growth’ (read: policies which inflate land prices, so we collectively have to pay more and more in interest to foreign banks) and overseas ‘investment in our economy’ (read: foreigners buying up everything we own).
I for one am sick of governments that keep surrendering up our autonomy to China for a FTA which only harms our economy and pressures governments to harm our environment – and that is why I’m giving my party vote to the Green Party at the next election.
Vote:July 2nd, 2010 at 11:13 am
A1kmm, I think if you look at it dispassionately without the goggles of ideology you’ll find that the Chinks are just making stuff that the world wants to buy and selling it to them. Quite simple really. No big evil plan.
This is called having a functioning economy – unlike New Zealand which seems not to have an economy anymore due to a series of disasters such as ‘environmental considerations’, the RMA, unrealistic minimum wages and now the big daddy of them all, the ETS.
As the west slowly strangles itself with its pathological distaste for work, productive investment and progress, China and India will simply fill the gap. The crunch will come when the west no longer has the capacity to indebt itself on its own hyperinflated illusionary property values in order to pay for it all. Thats when things will really start to get interesting.
Vote:July 2nd, 2010 at 11:29 am
…. oh no. Sorry, it won’t get interesting for everybody will it?
If you are a Tibetan ‘Buddhist’ then nothing will matter because everything will be solved by twiddling our prayer wheels, and if you are a greenie, then humanity is an evil polluting sick stain which the planet will be well rid of.
So lets just say that it will be interesting for anybody with some concern for the mundane things in life like eating, having somewhere to live and a decent lifestyle free from unnecessary disease and poverty. For these people will live in very ‘interesting’ times, as the old Chinese proverb says.
Vote:July 2nd, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Dave Mann at 9.30am posted:
On this criterion, Dave Mann, Mao’s account of the Great Leap Forward famine that killed tens of millions would be the most valuable account. You couldn’t get more first person than that, could you. Perhaps you would also value most Stalin’s account of the gulags.
Dave Mann posted at 11.13am:
When the Western markets largely shut to Chinese goods, there will be turmoil in China. Unrest among Chinese workers has already begun.
Dave Mann posted at 11.29:
Bullshit. This isn’t Chinese. See the following links. If you disagree perhaps you can find first hand evidence from China that it is Chinese, DM.
http://everything2.com/title/May+you+live+in+interesting+times
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A807374
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_you_live_in_interesting_times
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/245000.html
Vote:July 2nd, 2010 at 4:41 pm
(yawn)
Vote:July 2nd, 2010 at 5:35 pm
To my last post, Dave Mann replied “Yawn”…
Yawn? Yawn? (4.41 post)Are you short of oxygen Mr Buddha Mann? Or are you just trying to provide a warm shelter to our fellow creatures, flies?
A self-confessed “somewhat lapsed Buddhist” (1.29 post) yawns at a defence of the Buddhist Tibetans against atheistic Red China?
Still, it’s nice to encounter a Buddhist on Kiwiblog. Dave,as our own Buddha Mann, hope you don’t mind a Buddhist joke on the web from one “Thomas Asche”… Don’t take offence, it’s only humour, unlike what the Chinese are doing in Tibet.
And another, from the Curious Diary of Mr Jam. Perhaps, Dave, your are a New Zealander referred to on the site (http://mrjam.typepad.com/diary/2010/02/10-best-buddhist-jokes.html)
And another from Mr Jam:
Vote:July 2nd, 2010 at 6:01 pm
Dave Mann (434) Says:
July 2nd, 2010 at 9:30 am
Oh FFS Stuart…. the whole of human history and all its development over thousands of years is composed of ‘colonial powers’. One man’s ‘evil empire’ is another man’s ‘spread of civilisation’ and, contrary to what many might think, most civilisations grow principally through trade and cultural/political expansion with warfare and military domination being just a small part of the process.
****************************
Oh FFS David, the whole of human history and all its development over thousands of years of composed of the betterment of humanity by resiting evil empires. I am quite well aware of the political reality that Tibet will probably never be an independent nation, but that political reality should not blind us to what China is, a dictatorial colonial power bent on the domination of others.
Vote:I wouldn’t read too much into Longbows stance, with all due respect, his is hardly likely to be objective view.
July 2nd, 2010 at 6:19 pm
Stuart Mackey: in case you haven’t already come across this enlightening piece on China through Arts & Letters Daily:
http://www.literaryreview.co.uk/mirsky_07_10.html
Vote:July 3rd, 2010 at 2:26 pm
Jack5 (1833) Says:
July 2nd, 2010 at 6:19 pm
Stuart Mackey: in case you haven’t already come across this enlightening piece on China through Arts & Letters Daily:
http://www.literaryreview.co.uk/mirsky_07_10.html
******************************
Thanks, most interesting.
Vote:July 4th, 2010 at 5:16 am
The Chinese have every right to regard the Dalai Lama as a terrorist. Because that is exactly what he is.
Raymond Huo did not say anything wrong. Only the truth.
Fact 1:
The Dalai Lama was funded by the CIA for over a decade, and the CIA encouraged Tibetan separatists in terrorism against the Chinese government.
Fact 2:
Tibet WAS a feudal, serf owning, slave owning theocracy prior to being reincorporated back into China. Eye gouging as a punishment has been well documented. The Tibetan Lungshar who opposed democratic reforms in the 1930s was executed by this method.
Fact 3:
One million Tibetans were not killed by Chinese rule. This ‘estimate’ is based entirely on refugee interviews, and has been described as extremely unreliable by even the prominent ‘Free Tibet’ supporter, Patrick French. The official Tibet census of 1953 recorded a population of about 1.3 million. In light of this the one million figure is fantastical. If the Chinese were such efficient at genocide they surely and easily have rid themselves of all Tibetans during 27 years of basically being isolated from the rest of the world. Afterall this is what European colonizers did with much ease wherever they went round the world.
Fact 4:
Under Chinese rule the population of Tibet has actually increased from 1.3 or 1.5 million when China reclaimed Tibet, to almost 6 million now. Life expectancy has doubled. If the Chinese were really as evil and fascistic and Hitler like as everyone is making out here, surely that would not be the case? If Hitler had succeeded in Russia and Poland, would the life expectancy and numbers of Slavs have increased? Of course not.
Fact 5:
There is no dispute about Tibet being a part of China. Every single nation in the world recognizes Tibet as part of China, New Zealand included. This is not some sort of fait accompli position, but something that was recognised, even by the United States government for instance, well before the so-called ‘invasion’ of 1950.
Read this US State Department source for yourself:
“The United States considers the Tibet Autonomous Region or TAR (hereinafter referred to as “Tibet”) as part of the People’s Republic of China. This longstanding policy is consistent with the view of the entire international community, including all China’s neighbors: no country recognizes Tibet as a sovereign state. Moreover, U.S. acceptance of China’s claim of sovereignty over Tibet predates the establishment of the People’s Republic of China. In 1942, we told the Nationalist Chinese government then headquartered in Chongqing (Chungking) that we had “at no time raised (a) question” over Chinese claims to Tibet. Because we do not recognize Tibet as an independent state, the United States does not conduct diplomatic relations with the representatives of Tibetans in exile.”
Simply put, not one country, including all Western countries consider Tibet as being ‘occupied’ by the Chinese. They all consider Tibet as part of China.
Fact 6:
Tibet was part of China, well before white people were ever in the Americas, or ever in Australasia. In fact China has far more moral right to Tibet than the US has to California, Texas, or Hawaii.
Fact 7:
Tibetans are about 80 to 90% of the population of Tibet, even now. Maori are about 13 to 15% of the population of NZ. Indigenous Australians and Americans are about 1 to 2% of the populations of their respective lands.
When all non-indigenous people (especially European – as they are the ones whining the most about Tibet) leave the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand and go ‘home’ to whichever part of Europe they came from, then maybe, just maybe, China will give up Tibet. But not before.
Vote:July 4th, 2010 at 5:23 am
Mr Farrar: I fail to understand your outrage over Raymond Huo’s comments. Surely if Russel Norman is allowed his right to present and support one side of the story, then what is wrong with Mr Huo presenting the other side?
Why the outrage. You can disagree with Mr Huo, you can question his facts (although this will be very difficult for you to do), and you can rebut his analysis – but what’s with the outrage.
In terms China’s sovereign right over Tibet, Mr Huo’s position is right in line with the position of the New Zealand, Australian, US, and UK governments. So no real reason for controversy here.
Vote:July 4th, 2010 at 5:37 am
Stuart Mackey demonstrates the typically transparent ignorance of most Westerners on Chinese affairs, although this does not stop him, of course, from prounouncing on China issues:
Here is one ‘gem’
I have no doubt that China would happily invade Taiwan if it had the ability to do so and did not face the risk of national obliteration at the hands of the US.
China can simply not invade Taiwan, anymore than New Zealand can invade Taupo or England can invade Newcastle. The point is absured. Taiwan is part of China.
Now of course you will say this is just some CCP propagandists point of view. Wrong.
Ask the Taiwanese. How do they view themselves? What is their own official name for Taiwan? Of course REPUBLIC OF CHINA.
And look at the Taiwanese flag. What is that flag? It is the flag of the REPUBLIC OF CHINA, the flag of the Sun Yatsen and Chiang Kaishek, the flag that Chinese troops fought valiantly under during WWII.
And in fact what government did most Western countries, NZ included recognize as having sovereignty over ALL of China up until the 1970s? Of course it was the government ruling Taiwan!
The relationship between the PRC and Taiwan is not a dispute over whether Taiwan is or is not a part of China. Of course it is!
The dispute is purely one of which political system should rule all of China, Taiwan included. The Taiwanese claim they are the only legitimate government of all of China (until recently called ‘free’ China), and of course the communists on the mainland say they are the only legitimate government (which in fact they are).
Admittedly the Taiwanese have recently more or less given up on ‘reclaiming’ the mainland, it is interesting to note that their maps include not only Tibet (of course) but also all of what is now independent Mongolia!
The KMT government in Taiwan actually claims more land for China, than the communist PRC government claims.
Now that’s something a lot of self-pronounced experts on China, such as the ridiculous Stuart Mackey would not have a clue about.
So again Taiwan is part of China, in the same way that East Germany was part of Germany, and North Korea is part of Korea. The issue is not one of Chinese imperialism or even revanchism. It is simply one of political division.
Vote:July 4th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
Zhumao posted at 5.16am:
China has filled Tibet up with Han Chinese. You can bet their life expectancy is longer than that of the colonised ethnic Tibetans.
AND
Using Zhumao’s argument you would have to concede that China is part of Mongolia, since the Mongolians ruled China. And that the Mongolians have greater moral right to China, than “US has to California, Texas, or Hawaii. This is preposterous, of course, just as is this defence by Zhumao of China’s colonisation of Tibet.
AND
But Zhumao, you have to agree, Taiwan was once independent, as Tibet was. It was colonised by the Japanese, the Dutch, and the Portguese as well as by the Chinese. Taiwan has been well and truly colonised by China. Yes, that’s what Britain did in New Zealand a century and a half ago. But the British never deny they were once a colonial power.
Vote:July 4th, 2010 at 4:18 pm
Zhumao (39) Says:
July 4th, 2010 at 5:37 am
Stuart Mackey demonstrates the typically transparent ignorance of most Westerners on Chinese affairs, although this does not stop him, of course, from prounouncing on China issues:
Here is one ‘gem’
I have no doubt that China would happily invade Taiwan if it had the ability to do so and did not face the risk of national obliteration at the hands of the US.
China can simply not invade Taiwan, anymore than New Zealand can invade Taupo or England can invade Newcastle. The point is absured. Taiwan is part of China.
Now of course you will say this is just some CCP propagandists point of view. Wrong.
**********************************
Oh, so thats why China threatens invasion (no that they can pull it off) if they declare independence? and why Taiwan maintains its own armed forces and is a (dodgy)democracy? Taiwan acts as it does because there are costs to alternative actions that would be hard to justify for the benefit that would accrue from them, namely any move to formal independence, which they all but have except in name. I note with relish that China does not practice that great principle of self determination, that is the litmus test, one that the dictatorial Chinese government will never grant to its own people, or the people they have subjected to their rule for fear of the end of their own rule.
Vote:July 4th, 2010 at 6:11 pm
“Taiwan acts as it does because there are costs to alternative actions that would be hard to justify for the benefit that would accrue from them, namely any move to formal independence”
That is absolute bunkum. Taiwan considers themselves part of China because most Taiwanese consider themselves Chinese. Again it was only until recently (1991) that the stated goal of the KMT government was to retake the mainland, and re-establish the Nationalist government, was more or less abandoned.
“Oh, so thats why China threatens invasion (no that they can pull it off) if they declare independence?”
As they have the righ to to do. After all Lincoln went to war to preserve the territorial integrity of the United States (not to free the slaves). Every country has the right to act to preserve their territorial integrity. China is not unique in this respect.
You have the Sinhalese-Tamil conflict, India has Kashmir, Russia Chechnya, and Britain Northern Ireland.
China is behaving vastly more humanely in Tibet than the way the British behaved in Kenya (read about the Kenyan Gulag), or the French in Algeria and Indochina.
But in any case PRC-Taiwan relations have greatly improved these past few years. The people in power now is pro-reunification (the former guy Chen Suibian is now in prison on massive corruption charges), and just the other day a very important trade deal was struck between the PRC and Taiwan.
http://tinyurl.com/2cs4lk5
Taiwanese people actually get on very well with mainland Chinese (notwithstanding political differences which are fast becoming moot) and there is much commercial activity across the straits as well as intermarriage.
And Taiwanese and mainland Chinese here socialise well, go to the same churches and also intermarry.
It is only Westerners who try to create a problem –they have for the past 150 years tried to split China (including at one time even parceling out parts of CHina belonging to Germany to the Japanese as a thank-you for Japanese support during WWI).
I anticipate that one day all that state of the art weaponry the US provides to Taiwan will be turned on the US.
Vote:July 4th, 2010 at 6:15 pm
Zhumao
You are talking shit and the chances are you know it too.
Are a political commissar at the Chinese embassy by any chance?
If it was Westerners who were creating the problem why do selected Chinese leadership threaten the Taiwanese every few months or so?
Vote:July 4th, 2010 at 6:17 pm
I note with relish that China does not practice that great principle of self determination, that is the litmus test
Stuart Mackey – your hypocrisy is staggering. China does not allow ‘self-determination’ as you call it.
You expect China to happily submit to its land been rent asunder, when at the same time most Pakeha New Zealanders are outraged that just the Seabed and foreshore should return to its rightful owners – i.e. Maori.
The area claimed by the Dalai clique is about 1/4 of China’s territory.
Maori once owned ALL of New Zealand. Would Pakeha New Zealanders be happy with giving up only 1/4 of NZ, say the upper half of the North Island for an hypothetical independent Maori republic?????
Of course not – again even the seabed and foreshore is too much for most Pakeha New Zealanders.
And imagine the outrage if there was significant Chinese support for such a proposition – say the National Peoples Congress passing resolutions in support of Maori sovereignty!
What is good for the goose is good for the gander. What white people expect of non-white people, they should also expect of themselves. Period.
Vote:July 4th, 2010 at 6:24 pm
why do selected Chinese leadership threaten the Taiwanese every few months or so
Well tell me when was the last time. Things have been going swimmingly between the current PRC and Taiwanese governments over past few years.
So when was the last time MikeNZ???? Put up or shut up.
Vote:July 4th, 2010 at 6:27 pm
So you are a political commissar at the Chinese Embassy!
Maori never owned all of NZ, they took it by conquest from the others who were here before, some were called Moriori.
Vote:That was 300+ odd years ago.
When did the Chinese start their cultural genocide of the Tibetans 1950 something?
July 4th, 2010 at 6:30 pm
If it was Westerners who were creating the problem why do selected Chinese leadership threaten the Taiwanese every few months or so?
Well it is primarily Westerners creating a problem.
It has been for the past 200 years, overtly so before 1949.
It was only in 1949 that the last British gunboat was sent packing from China.
It was only in 1943 that the principle of ‘extraterritoriality’ where Westerners were immune from Chinese laws, was abolished. And whites put up signs preventing access to Shanghai’s parks – “no chinese or dogs allowed”.
The West invaded, plundered, and raped China for over a century – and have never apologised for this.
And now they have the temerity to preach ‘human rights’
Disgusting.
Vote:July 4th, 2010 at 6:33 pm
That was 300+ odd years ago.
MikeNZ – you are historically illiterate. Or just simply innumerate.
The fact is China has historically speaking, more right to Tibet than white people have to be in the US, Canada, Australia, or New Zealand. Period.
Vote:July 4th, 2010 at 6:38 pm
Zhumao (41) Says:
July 4th, 2010 at 6:11 pm
“Taiwan acts as it does because there are costs to alternative actions that would be hard to justify for the benefit that would accrue from them, namely any move to formal independence”
That is absolute bunkum. Taiwan considers themselves part of China because most Taiwanese consider themselves Chinese. Again it was only until recently (1991) that the stated goal of the KMT government was to retake the mainland, and re-establish the Nationalist government, was more or less abandoned.
**********************************
Right, and the how many thousand SRBM opposite them have nothing to do with Taiwanese public statements? As I said, the costs of any other action would be hard to justify for what they would gain.
*****************************************
As they have the righ to to do. After all Lincoln went to war to preserve the territorial integrity of the United States (not to free the slaves). Every country has the right to act to preserve their territorial integrity. China is not unique in this respect.
You have the Sinhalese-Tamil conflict, India has Kashmir, Russia Chechnya, and Britain Northern Ireland.
*******************************************
They have every right to try, but given that they have had more than fifty years to do so I think we all know that China is utterly impotent when it comes to invading Taiwan, hell they can barely lift a full brigade group amphibiously, and thats quite apart from any consideration of the inevitable US reaction. It almost goes without saying that China is the classic bully, only tough when faced with easy meat like Tibet, but as Vietnam showed, not so great when the victim gives them a bloody nose.
**********************************
China is behaving vastly more humanely in Tibet than the way the British behaved in Kenya (read about the Kenyan Gulag), or the French in Algeria and Indochina.
*************************************
Nice, the guy from the dictatorship with no freedom of speech or media, asks people to effectively prove a negative.
*************
snip
I anticipate that one day all that state of the art weaponry the US provides to Taiwan will be turned on the US.
************
Yes, Is it not amazing how people treat you when one threatens saturation missile bombardment if a certain course of action is not undertaken.
Vote:Hate to disappoint you, but Taiwan’s stuff is not state of the art.
I can assure you, however, that if China ever goes to war with the US, China will cease to exist.
July 4th, 2010 at 6:43 pm
Zhumao (44) Says:
July 4th, 2010 at 6:17 pm
Stuart Mackey – your hypocrisy is staggering. China does not allow ‘self-determination’ as you call it.
*************************
I know they don’t, thats the problem, they will not allow a different people the right to choice their own destiny. As I have said China is a colonial power.
Vote:Oh, and nice misrepresentation about NZ, did you fail to notice article three of the treaty of Waitangi or the statute of Westminster 1931 (signed by NZ in 1947) or our subsequent constitutional acts? there is no comparison between NZ and China
July 4th, 2010 at 6:44 pm
Now fuck off back under the rock you crawled out from shithead.
You represent a genocidal, communist regime that deserves no vote at the UN nor any of the free worlds money from the WTO for your human rights abuses both in China and outside it.
That you are prepared to ignore and defend the indefensible makes you a sick person.
2010
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/China_threatens_to_take_action_over_US-Taiwan_deal
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60T07W20100130
2009
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/56272,news-comment,news-politics,chinese-missile-threatens-us-navys-pacific-fleet
2008
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-03-03-china-taiwan_N.htm
2007
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2007/130607threatenswar.htm
2000
Vote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-threatens-to-invade-taiwan-unless-talks-start-724691.html
July 4th, 2010 at 6:50 pm
Curtis was a good man:
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/c/curtis_lemay.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay
My kind of man!
Vote:July 4th, 2010 at 6:51 pm
Zhumao (44) Says:
July 4th, 2010 at 6:33 pm
That was 300+ odd years ago.
MikeNZ – you are historically illiterate. Or just simply innumerate.
The fact is China has historically speaking, more right to Tibet than white people have to be in the US, Canada, Australia, or New Zealand. Period.
********************************************
You know that concept was given away after WW2 for a reason, it just causes far to many wars, but then as you have admitted, China does not believe in one of the founding principles of the UN, that of self determination. The west, by the adoption of the principle of self determination, has moved on from our mistakes of the past, for the most part, its a shame that China cannot do the same.
Vote:July 4th, 2010 at 6:54 pm
Dear Mike —I see I have got you in a tizzy — scrambling all over the place for website links. All unapologetically anti-China – some in a barely concealed ‘yellow peril’ way. Pathetic. I might as well shower you with links from the Peoples Daily.
I pose this question. Why do Pakeha find it so hard to give up just the seabed and foreshore to the rightful owners ie Maori?
Most NZ farmers own land which was confiscated from Maori not too far back historically. When are these mainly white farmers going to give up their land to the descendants of the original owners?
Perhaps when this happens, and is supported by Mike, MikeNZ will not look such an obvious fool when he asks China to happily undergo balkanization.
Vote:July 4th, 2010 at 6:54 pm
Johnboy (2863) Says:
July 4th, 2010 at 6:50 pm
Curtis was a good man:
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/c/curtis_lemay.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay
My kind of man!
*****************************
Yes! All hail Saint Curtis of SAC (Does not turn Back)
Vote:July 4th, 2010 at 6:57 pm
Wow. I didn’t know the Chinese vile communist regime had an active agent, cum plant, in our midst.
Vote:July 4th, 2010 at 6:58 pm
ou know that concept was given away after WW2 for a reason
Did you read my link above. It was in 1942 precisely during WWII that the US recognized Chinese sovereignty over Tibet – eight years before the so-called ‘invasion’.
China did not ‘invade’ Tibet. Tibet, like many other parts of China were semi-independent for about 50 years due to civil war, foreign invasion etc. China did not ‘invade’ – China simply reasserted central authority over Tibet in the way it did in many other parts of China.
The Taiwanese (ROC) government also holds that Tibet is part of China. Not only that the Taiwanese still claim the now independent Mongolia to be part of China, and also Russia’s Tuva Republic. That in fact is why some nationalists on Taiwan claim they are more patriotic than the communists – the ROC version of China is larger than the PRC version of China.
Vote:July 4th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
The west, by the adoption of the principle of self determination, has moved on from our mistakes of the past, for the most part, its a shame that China cannot do the same.
Does ‘moving away from our mistakes of the past’ include moving out of the conquered territories of what became Canada, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand?????
Because that is what you expect of China in respect of Tibet.
Vote:July 4th, 2010 at 7:04 pm
Anyway Zhumao.
Can you explain to me why I have to wear shitty leaking trainers from the Warehouse just so your grotty country can make its way in the world and why are China’s quality control standards so abysmal?
What is your personal experience of driving a “Great Wall” vehicle and would you want to take your Granny for an off-road experience in one?
Do you feed your children on Chinese formula?
I humbly await your response.
Vote:July 4th, 2010 at 7:05 pm
Zhumao (45) Says:
July 4th, 2010 at 6:54 pm
I pose this question. Why do Pakeha find it so hard to give up just the seabed and foreshore to the rightful owners ie Maori?
Most NZ farmers own land which was confiscated from Maori not too far back historically. When are these mainly white farmers going to give up their land to the descendants of the original owners?
Perhaps when this happens, and is supported by Mike, MikeNZ will not look such an obvious fool when he asks China to happily undergo balkanization.
**********************************
Thats idiotic, self determination and property rights are not the same thing. Your argument is comparing a boundary dispute between neighbors to Northern Ireland, they are not remotely similar.
Vote:July 4th, 2010 at 7:05 pm
Wow. I didn’t know the Chinese vile communist regime had an active agent, cum plant, in our midst.
My position on Tibet and Taiwan is in fact the position of the New Zealand government, the Australian, US, governments and in fact all nations in the world.
All countries adhere (or say they adhere) to the ‘one China’ policy — that is why NZ does not have diplomatic links with Taiwan, and all countries support China’s full right to sovereignty over Tibet.
Foreign Secretary of UK David Miliband said: “Like every other EU member state, and the United States, we regard Tibet as part of the People’s Republic of China.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/tibet/3385803/UK-recognises-Chinas-direct-rule-over-Tibet.html
Therefore China obviously, as far as the West is concerned, never ‘invaded’ or ‘annexed’ Tibet. Tibet is part of China. Not me saying so —the West says so.
Vote:July 4th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
Heap of shit—–made in China.
Vote:
July 4th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
Zhumao (47) Says:
July 4th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
The west, by the adoption of the principle of self determination, has moved on from our mistakes of the past, for the most part, its a shame that China cannot do the same.
Does ‘moving away from our mistakes of the past’ include moving out of the conquered territories of what became Canada, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand?????
Because that is what you expect of China in respect of Tibet.
*****************************************
You missed the whole Treaty of Waitangi thing in the news didn’t you? As for the US, Canada, Australia, they may have once been conquered territory, but that demonstrably fails to apply now that those nations, by right of national self determination, are not governed by outside forces, unlike Tibet,
Moreover you also admit to Tibetan independence above and to its conquest by China, thanks, your concession is accepted.
Vote:July 4th, 2010 at 7:17 pm
Calm down and go with the flow Stu baby.
Vote:
July 4th, 2010 at 7:18 pm
Zhumao (48) Says:
July 4th, 2010 at 7:05 pm
Therefore China obviously, as far as the West is concerned, never ‘invaded’ or ‘annexed’ Tibet. Tibet is part of China. Not me saying so —the West says so.
***********************************
You are right, national self interest dictates a one China policy, no one disputes that, but thats does not mean people necessarily, morally or ethically, accept China’s actions over Tibet or Taiwan. The moment it becomes politically possible to recognize Taiwan and Tibet as independent, it will happen.
Vote:July 4th, 2010 at 7:20 pm
Johnboy (2866) Says:
July 4th, 2010 at 7:17 pm
Calm down and go with the flow Stu baby.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04QoA44c23A
*************************
I am having fun dammnit!
Vote:July 4th, 2010 at 7:21 pm
Vote:July 4th, 2010 at 7:56 pm
As for the US, Canada, Australia, they may have once been conquered territory, but that demonstrably fails to apply now that those nations, by right of national self determination, are not governed by outside forces, unlike Tibet,
Ask many Maori I have spoken to – they certainly feel as if Pakeha are some sort of ‘outside’ force. Same would I guess go for Native Australians, and Native Americans.
So Stuart – from your quote you would accept the situation where Han Chinese slaughter off or reduce the aboriginal population in Tibet to about 1 or 2% of the population of Tibet, completely eradicate signs of any ‘Tibetaness’ from Tibet, and thenceforth say in defense of China that is all OK – because there are no Tibetans anymore and the place is now thoroughly Han Chinese and therefore the place is not governed by ‘outside forces’? That is afterall your position in respect of whites in US, Canada, Australia etc.
By the way Stuart, you are so into self-determination Stuart – I take it that you completely support the right of Maori to the seabed and foreshore? And are sympathetic to Maori sovereignty?
Vote:July 4th, 2010 at 7:59 pm
You are right, national self interest dictates a one China policy, no one disputes that, but thats does not mean people necessarily, morally or ethically, accept China’s actions over Tibet or Taiwan. The moment it becomes politically possible to recognize Taiwan and Tibet as independent, it will happen.
You are completely wrong here. The US recognized China’s right to Tibet when China was as weak internationally as Somalia is today. The US continued that recognition through their recognition of the Taiwanese government as the legitimate government of all of China. The Taiwanese of course, are even more revanchist than the Beijing government.
The Taiwanese hold that all of Mongolia is also part of China. The PRC government has basically conceded the loss.
Vote:July 4th, 2010 at 8:01 pm
Zhumao. Guess what. You all look the same to us.
Vote:July 4th, 2010 at 8:02 pm
Can you explain to me why I have to wear shitty leaking trainers from the Warehouse just so your grotty country can make its way in the world …
Probably because you are a cheapskate – a stupid one at that.
You pay for quality – you don’t expect a $20 pair of trainers to last as long as a $200 pair do you? Both are likely made in China.
Vote:July 4th, 2010 at 8:05 pm
How is your wheels going?
http://www.greatwallauto.co.nz/
Or do you buy quality?
傻瓜
Vote:July 4th, 2010 at 9:35 pm
Zhumao:
You haven’t answered my point earlier in the day. By your definition of China owning Tibet, you must concede Mongolia owns China by similar right of conquest.
And your statement at 6.54 as follows is just wrong. Maori may have been dispossessed, though this was through a treaty (unlike China’s conquest of Tibet), but there was land confiscation only in the Waikato and a few other areas as the result of warfare after the Treaty. NZ is making reparations to Maori. What is China doing for the Tibetans?
And your statement:
I think you will find that some of them are none too happy with the recent influx to NZ of Chinese either.
You should be aware that DNA suggests Maori originated from the aboriginal people of Taiwan, who have been dispossessed by the Chinese. No Waitangi Treaty in Taiwan, either.
I have another question for you: was Mao a criminal or just insane when he imposed the disastrous Great Leap Forward?
Vote:July 4th, 2010 at 10:00 pm
Would it be a laugh for the next Chinese VIP visit to have a huge sign:
China is Mongolian dammit! Give it back you billion fuckers!
Vote:July 4th, 2010 at 11:51 pm
By your definition of China owning Tibet, you must concede Mongolia owns China by similar right of conquest.
Why pick on China? Would the US happily surrender California or Texas?
Would the Australians give up 1/4 of their territory to the aborigines (1% of the population of Australia)???
Why have Han chinese no right to be in Tibet, yet white people have a right to be in the US, Australia and NZ?
Who are more dispossessed? The Tibetans – still 80% of Tibet, or Maori (13% of the population) or Aborigines (1% of the population).
Why only pick on China?
It is laughable that the most imperialistic far flung race in history – Anglo Saxons can point the finger at China and call the Chinese imperialistic when the Chinese have done far less invading throughout their history than white people in general.
What is China doing for the Tibetans?
Well for one Tibetans have at least doubled in number under China. Tibetan life expectancy has also doubled (65.81 years now according to the Dalai Lama’s website. http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=11797&t=1
It was about 32 in 1950. And in terms of material aid China dumps more money into Tibet to develop the place in a year than the US gives in aid to the entire continent of Africa.
Of course whites here will say – that is colonisation. But if China does nothing then whites will say they are letting the Tibetans down by ignoring the region and deliberately leaving it undeveloped.
Tibetans have preserved far more of their cultural heritage under China than the indigenous peoples have ever preserved under Anglo Saxon colonisation. They still by and large speak Tibetan, are educated in Tibetan. There is state sponsored Tibetan print, tv, and radio media in the Tibetan language (as their is for all minority groups in China).
In fact affirmative action for minorities simply is huge compared to the little there is for minorities in Western countries, as this American article describes:
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19970826&slug=2556773
In fact the very reason why China has a problem with separatism among some groups is because the Chinese government has actively encouraged them to maintain their identities. Unlike the West where the native americans etc have been so dispossessed, killed off, to be basically ineffectual in their resistance to colonisation.
So I ask you Jack5: Why only point to China as an ‘imperialist’ power? Why not other multinational states such as Russia or India? Why not point to the fact the majority of white people around the world live in lands which they stole from other people? At least in China the minorities still exist in substantial numbers, together with their language, religion, and folkways. Unlike Western imperialism which basically killed off the people they came into contact with.
Vote:July 5th, 2010 at 12:02 am
I have another question for you: was Mao a criminal or just insane when he imposed the disastrous Great Leap Forward?
How on earth is that question relevant to the current debate?
Anyway.
The GLF was a serious error with disastrous consequences. It was partly man-made error and partly a result of natural disaster. Since the GLF China has not had a single famine —ie no famine for 60 years. Before 1949 famines happened about once ever five years or so.
Overall life expectancy, literacy has improved in China since the establishment of the Peoples Republic. Life expectancy was 34 in 1949. Under Mao it reached 64 in 1976 – in fact higher than India’s life expectancy today.
In fact massive improvements in the well-being of the Chinese people were recorded during the first 10 years of socialist China. The GLF was a setback which brought China back to pre-revolutionary levels, but this was overcome in the decade following the GLF.
Were there excess deaths – yes. But nowhere near those claimed by people like Jung Chang, or other Western sources.
Do these excess deaths make Mao a mass murderer? No.
If we say Mao is a mass murderer because of excess deaths (purely uninteneded), then we should say the same for Yeltsin because Russia during the first 10 years after the fall of socialism experienced massive dislocation causing millions of excess deaths and a slump in life expectancy.
We could also say Nelson Mandela is a mass murderer because since 1994 the life expectancy of the black people in South Africa has plummeted from 60 to 50 years.
In fact many of the societal problems one sees in China today, the profound inequalities, the nepotism, cronyism, and corruption are there entirely because of the abandonment of socialist values as espoused by Mao and the unthinking embrace of rampant, unrestrained capitalism of the type seen in the West a century ago.
There are actually Maoist dissidents in prison in China who oppose the current direction of China. Obviously these types of dissidents get scant attention and zero sympathy in the West.
Vote:July 5th, 2010 at 12:38 am
Out of curiosity why do the Chinese claim territorial rights over Formosa Zhumao?
Vote:July 5th, 2010 at 2:53 am
“the profound inequalities, the nepotism, cronyism, and corruption”
@zhumao
Come on, mate. Those have been embedded deep in Chinese culture for over a thousand years because of feudalism under the emperors. These are some of the bad part of Chinese culture. The Chinese admit that. They’re NOT borrowed from 19th and 20th century Western capitalism.
BTW, before you get your knickers in a twist by inferring that I’m attacking Chinese culture, I’m not. Not all Chinese culture is bad or only Chinese culture has those negative aspects. I have a great respect for many aspects of Chinese culture and Chinese people.
Vote:July 5th, 2010 at 4:04 am
Come on, mate. Those have been embedded deep in Chinese culture for over a thousand years because of feudalism under the emperors.
You saying Western capitalism never went through the same stage? What about industrial revolution Britain or late 19th century early 20th century US?
But you have a point – Mao came along and tried to get rid of much of the bad in Chinese culture. He was an iconoclast. The leaders now are really cut from the same Confucian cloth as Singapore’s leaders. They will enable China to perform up to a certain level, but clearly lack the vision to propel society forward in a way that class divisions are eliminated and exploitation ended.
If China had actually stayed the socialist path, learned from mistakes, without overcorrecting towards capitalism she would be in far better shape today, with a happier more well-balanced population.
Vote:July 5th, 2010 at 8:03 am
“Do these excess deaths make Mao a mass murderer? No.”
Enough said. The emperor is naked!
Vote:July 5th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
Zhumao posted at 11.51pm above:
What about Inner Mongolia, Zhumao? How many Mongolians are left there – less than 10 per cent I think. What about Sinkiang. How many Turkic people left there? Just a minority I think.
Zhumao also posted:
This is interesting. I have heard of a Chinese rebuffing a racist, ruddy-faced Westerner: “You are not white, you are pink. We are white.”
Indeed beautiful Shanghai women and other northerners often seem to have a whiter skin than Europeans, often near-porcelain white. Similarly many Japanese also have extremely pale skins. Northern peoples of India are often indistinguishable from Europeans, and so are many Middle Easterners and Afghans and other Central Asians.
We see the same in NZ. Skin colour is no longer an accurate way to describe the way people identify themselves. Consider the number of people who wear bone carving to indicate they have Maori ancestry, or the near-white Maori All Blacks.
We need a new term for Europeans or people of European descent.
Vote:July 5th, 2010 at 2:52 pm
@Zhumao
I wasn’t saying that capitalism never went through that phase. It definitely did have “the profound inequalities, the nepotism, cronyism, and corruption”. I was just saying that China is like that for different reasons, not because of Western capitalism.
Until now, the most successful socialist countries have been the Scandinavian countries. Their form of governance is called Social Democracy. I would like China to aim for that instead of the failed type of Socialism that needs to be held together by the threat of violence. The Scandinavians haven’t needed to have brutal governments like North Korea, etc to be socialist. The people have chosen the style of socialism themselves through democracy.
I’m sure you, deep down, would think that it would be good for the majority of Chinese people. However, getting there is a very difficult task with China’s heterogeneous population.
Vote:July 5th, 2010 at 5:29 pm
Until now, the most successful socialist countries have been the Scandinavian countries. Their form of governance is called Social Democracy. I would like China to aim for that instead of the failed type of Socialism that needs to be held together by the threat of violence.
Multinational countries of course have to be held together – sometimes by bribery other times by violence. But in the end that is not unique just to so called ‘communist’ countries – the same goes for countries like India (fighting muslim insurgents in Kashmir) and Russia (Chechen problem), and Spain (Basques), and Britain (Northern Ireland).
Of course the US considers the whole world to be within its sphere of influence and they use extreme violence (much more so than the Chinese) to get their own way even when the US people or territory are not threatened in anyway whatsoever.
And in New Zealand, even a couple of years ago there was a huge overreaction on the part of police to so called ‘terrorist’ camps in the Ureweras.
Britain tried to hold its colonies together by extreme violence ala Kenya, the French the same in Algeria and Vietnam. And there is no way in the world that anyone could ever argue that Kenya was a legitimate part of Britain, or Algeria and Vietnam of France. Yet the colonial violence to keep these places in line was far greater than anything the Chinese have done in Tibet – even though Tibet is obviously not a colony but a fully legitimate part of China and recognised by every single nation in the world (including all Western ones) as such.
Until now, the most successful socialist countries have been the Scandinavian countries. Their form of governance is called Social Democracy……..would be good for the majority of Chinese people.
Yeah but they are part of rich Europe. And Europe became rich and industrialized through decidedly non-democratic means (even though Scandinavians had little direct involvement in imperialism and colonialism – they benefitted from the industrialzation and wealth creation that happened in the continent).
If China tried to implement a so called ‘social democracy’ right now, given her national conditions, she would end up not like Sweden, but more likely India, the Phillipines, or even perhaps Somalia.
China has only been independent for 60 years. Sixty years ago well over 80% of her population was rural. She lagged far behind even 1917 Russia in terms of level of development and industrialisation. China was a victim of over one hundred years of foreign invasion and plunder. The Scandinavian countries (except for 5 years of German occupation – a relatively benign occupation at that) did not.
And yet some people here seem to think she could have become a Sweden or Denmark in just half a century if only she had ‘democracy.’ Bollocks.
China would have ended up like India where 400 million people still go hungry every night (not a concern to spoilt Westerners who think the only important rights are freedom of speech), has a life expectancy 10 years lower than China’s, literacy rate of only 50% compared to China’s 88%, and where a feudal caste system still keeps millions of those deemed of the lower castes in virtual slavery.
I’m sure you, deep down, would think that it would be good for the majority of Chinese people. However, getting there is a very difficult task with China’s heterogeneous population.
The ideal system for most Chinese would be something along the lines of Singapore (not 100% buty say 85%). But that can’t be achieved just by waving a magic wand. In fact the fastest way to such a state would be to follow the path of other capitalist Asian countries. Economic growth first, democracy later. Taiwan only had direct elections in 1994 – after Taiwan had become rich.
Implementing ‘democracy’ in places without a well-off, educated, and numerically strong middle class, is just a recipe for chaos and massive suffering. Look at the Phillipines, Kenya, India, Thailand, and South Africa – all ‘democracies’ but hardly the sort of social democratic paradise you envision.
Vote:July 5th, 2010 at 5:47 pm
@Zhumao
I agree with you 100% that overnight democracy, particularly in large population countries is usually disastrous. I still don’t think China is anywhere near ready for democracy yet. However, I think a one party state can still do a lot quickly in regards to human rights improvements if it wanted to without causing any notable damage to the economy or social stability. In fact, it would probably improve those things.
Vote:July 5th, 2010 at 11:45 pm
To lighten the mood.
http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/Xf4Ta-b1luc/
Vote:July 6th, 2010 at 12:38 am
Indeed, Han racism is alive; and horrendously active in occupied Tibet, and now in New Zealand by a proxy of the CCP, masquerading as an MP!
In fact it has been so for millennia, where this barbaric Han Chinese racism is, and has been, one without comparison, not with the old SA, or even the Nazi regime.
It is saddening to think that NZ has been reduced to electing racists of this ilk regurgitating such nauseating propaganda like the complete inversion of the facts of history.
But that is the tactics of the Han CCP, a well honed and insidious smear campaign against the other races under their occupation.
This here will give a sobering perspective of the reality which is the Han Tibetan relationship.
A truly ‘Must Read’ for anyone wishing to even contemplate voicing his opinion on Tibet!
http://one-just-world.blogspot.com/2010/04/tibetan-serfs-emancipation-day-28th.html
Read the entire article.
Vote:July 6th, 2010 at 11:02 am
Victoria said:
“in fact it has been so for millennia, where this barbaric Han Chinese racism is, and has been, one without comparison, not with the old SA, or even the Nazi regime.”
This ridiculous comment is easily belied by the bald facts.
The fact is Tibetan life expectancy and population have increased dramatically since Tibet returned to China.
Did the life expectancy and population of Poles, Russians, and other slaves, let alone the Jewish people, increase under the few years of Nazi rule? Of course not.
And if Hitler had won, we would hardly have seen any increase in the population of Poles or Russians – rather they would most likely have been exterminated (in a similar way to what happened to the Native Americans and Australian aborigines).
Ethnic minorities are not restricted by the one-child rule in China. Han are restricted. Thus ethnic minorities are allowed to increase their numbers in a way Han are not. I can hardly imagine that either Hitler would have encouraged Slavs or Jews to breed, but not ‘Aryan’ Germans.
The old apartheid rulers of South Africa banished blacks away from their ancestral lands and shunted them into bantustans.
Even the Russians carried out mass deportations of what they viewed to be problematic minorities.
China has never done this. The ethnic minorities of China still live where they always have.
In fact affirmative action for minorities simply is huge compared to the little there is for minorities in Western countries, as this American newspaper article describes:
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19970826&slug=2556773
Some salient points from the article:
Chinese-style affirmative action is comprehensive and so far-reaching that America’s similar policies appear trifling by comparison:
– There are free elementary, middle and high-school-level boarding schools and special college-preparatory classes for minority children.
– Minority children can get into a university with exam scores 20 to 30 points below the minimum score for Han children.
– A separate network of segregated universities exists only for minority students.
– Though most Han in urban areas are limited to one child per family, minority families can have two, and in rural areas many are legally allowed three. In practice, many minority families simply have as many children as they want.
– No-interest loans are offered for small minority businesses.
– Businesses are officially encouraged to hire minorities.
– A comprehensive, bilingual-education program aims at helping minorities learn Chinese. Meanwhile, scholars are creating alphabets for minority languages that had no writing systems to help ensure that these languages do not die.
Now I ask you Victoria:
Did Hitler or the apartheid rulers of South Africa ever implement the sweeping affirmative action policies for Slavs and blacks respectively, that China has done for Tibetans, Uighurs, Mongols, etc?
Yes or No?
Vote:July 6th, 2010 at 11:12 am
If almost a billion Chinese were worse than Nazi Germans, then surely during almost three decades of isolation from the Western world, when ‘oppression’ of Tibetans was claimed to be the worst in history, surely these genocidal Chinese should have easily during this time got rid of 2 or 3 million Tibetans?
After all Hitler only took three or four years to massacre 6 million Jews and the Turks only about 2 years to kill 1.5 million Armenians. And white Australians made short work of the Tasmanian aborigines.
If the Chinese are such a genocidal race as claimed by Victoria, even worse than the Nazis, then surely after three decades of horrors there would be no Tibetans left alive now?
But we see the very opposite. An increase in Tibetans (and Uighurs) under Chinese rule.
If that is ‘genocide’ then perhaps a new definition is required for the word.
In fact if we had the equivalent situation in the West where a small ethnic minority occupied as strategic and resource rich a place as Tibet is to the Chinese, there is no doubt that that ethnic minority would have been exterminated or removed.
Even as late as the 1960s the British had no compunction of expelling the entire population of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean so that the US could establish a spy base there.
Yet the Chinese, even though Tibet is so important to China, and is such a huge part of China’s territory, not only did not exterminate the Tibetans (as whites would have done), but instead has improved their living conditions, and increased their numbers.
No, Victoria –it is you who is the racist. You make outlandish smears against the Chinese people – knowing that many people will fall for it hook line and sinker, because many Westerners are willing and indeed have the desire to believe that the Chinese are the worse people in the entire world.
Vote:July 7th, 2010 at 1:42 am
http://sites.google.com/site/onejustworld/
Indeed as expected, if you expose the racism the Han Chinese perpetrate, they then immediately accuse you of being a racist!
Sadly, they know nothing else.
Now this is exactly the same tactic the Han CCP is employing against the Tibetan people.
While the barbarities and atrocities committed in Tibet were perpetrated by the Chinese during the last many centuries, they now turn this upside down and blame these atrocities on the “old feudal society” in Tibet.
This is a systematic and callous vilification and denigration of the Tibetan people by the Han oppressors, a form of racism which has no equal.
And no equal either has all the atrocities committed today, in the 21st century no less against the Tibetan people, all well documented but vehemently denied and smothered by a million paid Han propagandists!
This stooge can spout all the nauseating CCP Propaganda Lies he’s learnt off by rote, exactly the same as all the other sordid characters on the internet do, sadly it does them only harm.
In fact, it shows their detestable haughtiness and racism, and gets them ever further on the path of being the most loathed creed on the planet.
Oh but wait, they blame this on the Dalai Lama as well of course, as so many of these Propaganda Lies stooges do wherever they post their hate and racism.
The Dalai Lama has become a proxy for the Tibetan people and takes the brunt of the vilification, hate and racism dished out by the Han Chinese.
But what they really mean, is that the Tibetans are inferior and must be exterminated, exactly as it is stated policy of the Han CCP, and perpetrated into practice by the sordid, and indicted members of the Han CCP, namely:
• Liang Guanglie – Defence Minister
• Geng Huichang – Minister for State Security
• Zhang Qingli – Communist Party Secretary in Tibet
• Wang Lequan – Politburo member
• Li Dezhu – Ethnic Affairs Commission head
• Tong Guishan – People’s Liberation Army Commander in Lhasa
• General Zhang Guihua – Political commissar in the Chengdu military command
But of course this racist policy goes to the very top, the members of the ‘Politburo’, which includes Hu Jintao, Wen Jiabao, and one notable Xi Jinping!
So the Chinese community in New Zealand is demanding an apology from Russel Norman!
Indeed, this must be the height of Han arrogance!
What is their purpose in NZ?
They obviously treat NZ as a colony of the Han Empire, and think of themselves as the overlords of this colony, and “DEMAND” an apology from a New Zealand representative of Parliament!
One thing about this is clear, they are not here to contribute to NZ society, or to be (good) citizens of NZ, they are here on the behest of the CCP to ‘conquer and subjugate the world, just as they are ordered to do.
You see them all shopping in their own stores where everything is imported from china, to make sure they fulfil the policy of the CCP and all the money flows back to China, and loot their gracious host country dry.
Their every business is based on importing stuff from china, and all the money always flows back to their “Home Country”.
Are they here to live a life as New Zealanders or to run a Chinese colony and exploit their host country which allowed them so graciously to settle here?
http://sites.google.com/site/onejustworld/
Vote:July 7th, 2010 at 9:15 am
Please note that Victoria has not come up with one fact or reasoned rebuttal to the points I have raised.
Which of course is really an implicit admission of defeat.
“You see them all shopping in their own stores where everything is imported from china, to make sure they fulfil the policy of the CCP and all the money flows back to China, and loot their gracious host country dry.”
Errr…no.
Economists tell us that China is in fact the major reason why Australia and New Zealand have escaped the worst effects of the world-wide economic crisis these past couple of years.
“is that the Tibetans are inferior and must be exterminated”
Well – doubling their numbers and doubling their life expectancy is a pretty inefficient way to go about it.
Vote:July 9th, 2010 at 11:45 pm
@Zhumao – you say, “The fact is Tibetan life expectancy and population have increased dramatically since Tibet returned to China.” –
This is an assertion based on official Chinese figures, which no sane person in New Zealand would ever accept. Chinese Communist figures are doctored and don’t take into account the tens of thousands killed in black prisons, monks and nuns killed, etc. etc. Such numbers are not acceptable in the free world.
Take your totalitarian propaganda elsewhere.
The rest of your assertions are similarly lies such as you Communists have the habit of using in most contexts. On the status of Tibetan language equality, from the 2009 US State Department report:
“The 2002 revision of the 1987 Regulation on the Study, Use, and Development of the Tibetan Language in the TAR formally lowered the status of the Tibetan language from the primary working language to an optional language in many official contexts…. Chinese generally was used to teach certain subjects, such as arithmetic and science. In middle and high schools–even some officially designated as Tibetan schools–teachers often used Tibetan only to teach classes in Tibetan language, literature, and culture and taught all other classes in Chinese….proficiency in Mandarin was essential to qualify for higher education. China’s most prestigious universities provided no instruction in Tibetan or other ethnic minority languages. Lower-ranked universities established to serve ethnic minority students only offered Tibetan-language instruction in courses focused on the study of the Tibetan language or culture.”
The Chinese occupation of Tibet is genocidal and racist, this is clear to the whole world.
Take your lies and your dictator-ass-kissing Chinese drones elsewhere, we don’t want them in New Zealand.
Vote: