Taken from the Balanced Reporting post where, in retrospect, it seems out of place.
From a discussion at the Globe and mail thread about unrest in Tibet.
B Pin: “You sound like a quite reasonable person.”
B Pin: “But, I think the rest of the world missed a fundamental point here: Sovereignty is non-negotiable.”
Colonizing powers usually say this.
Canada and Quebec seem to have established a reasonable process. The Navajo and the United States have come to a reasonable accommodation.
B Pin: “There is nothing China and Dalai Lama can talk about.
B Pin: “Dalai Lama and his followers in exile are not even Chinese citizen.
Follow the logic game I posted earlier
1) Persons born in China are Chinese
2) The Dalai Lama was born in Tibet.
3) Tibet is an inseparable part of China.
4) The Dalai Lama is Chinese.
B Pin: “They don’t even have a legal right to freely enter China.”
This is China’s problem. At this point the Tibetan people want to be represented by the Dalai Lama. That means China has to come to him, no?
The Tibetan people also feel represented by the government in exile. If The Dalai Lama steps down, then who does China talk to?
As for the remainder of the Tibetan’s in Tibet, who will China talk to? each of them individually? or some representative? A representative they choose? or one appointed by the Chinese government? Who represents the interests of Tibet in that situation?
B Pin:”The bitterness of the defeated noble Tibetans in exile is expected and understandable.”
We MUST move beyond the politics of winners and losers, right and wrong. We must move beyond the use of history as justification for power.
We must use that power responsibly and for the welfare of the governed.
Until China can move back to some of the Marxist principles it was founded on, not a lot is going to happen. The Chinese spokespersons on this thread love to continually point us to Parenti’s essay. Here is a section I think they refuse to read.
“From Parenti: “In 1996, the Dalai Lama issued a statement that must have had an unsettling effect on the exile community. It read in part: “Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitabili
ty.” Marxism fosters “the equitable utilization of the means of production” and cares about “the fate of the working classes” and “the victims of . . . exploitation. For those reasons the system appeals to me, and . . . I think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist.”
Update; Tuesday; March 25, 2008.
We are dealing with some strange formatting problems with the copy from the Globe thread
1. B Pin from Ottawa, Canada writes: doug rogers from Canada writes: “1) Persons born in China are Chinese”
3. Really? This is a law issue, you need to check the law.
5. “As for the remainder of the Tibetan’s in Tibet, who will China talk to? each of them individually? or some representative? A representative they choose? or one appointed by the Chinese government? Who represents the interests of Tibet in that situation?”
7. You should write to the Chinese government for authorities answers.
9. You are allowed to disagree. The reality is the Tibetans in exile are losers. Communist China is the winner. The winner rules, like it or not. The rest is BS in the end.
Posted 25/03/08 at 1:15 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
13. You (doug rogers, from Canada) wrote: B Pin, How nice, I am allowed to disagree, and you are allowed to defy logic. It’s a free country after all.
Posted 25/03/08 at 8:48 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment