| Username |
Post |
| savedisk |
Posted
on 10-Jun-03 01:14 PM
just wanted to know ,
what do you guys think about....
|
| bik |
Posted
on 10-Jun-03 02:19 PM
Looks good.
Perhaps, would have been nice to see some Tibetan peasants as well, instead of the usual landmark and Dalai Lama. What is it for anyway?
Bik.
|
| ruck |
Posted
on 10-Jun-03 02:59 PM
Thanks for sharing this wonderul picture !!
Om Mane Peme Om !!
|
| suva chintak |
Posted
on 10-Jun-03 05:57 PM
Unfortunately, Buddha is not going to help much in this case.
The guy who can help is Bush: if he can be convinced to send his forces to do another regime change in Peking after similar successes in Kabul and Baghdad. Then Tibet will finally be free. Otherwise, it seems like a long wait.
Tashidalek!
|
| rmb |
Posted
on 10-Jun-03 06:02 PM
Bush? That is a very ludicrous statement to make. America isn't willing to go on an all-out-brawl against China because China is also another military powerhouse. China is a huge country.
|
| SITARA |
Posted
on 10-Jun-03 06:21 PM
rmb ji:
Suva Chintakji made a tongue in cheek statement...on Bush's selective foreign policy of choosing only those countries with less clout! He will save the world (Tibet, in this case)IFF there is profit to be made out of it!
|
| rmb |
Posted
on 10-Jun-03 06:58 PM
I doubt his statement was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. What profit was there to be made out of attacking Afghanistan? Only Iraq was serendipity in a sense, as Wolfowitz said it himself. But then again it's not very easy to figure out whether a person is in a sardonic mode without taking a glance at his facial expressions. How about using emoticons?
|
| suva chintak |
Posted
on 10-Jun-03 07:07 PM
Hey, don't underestimate HM George...with the able prime minister Tony in tow, he might pull it off in Beijing as well!! At one time people used to say the same thing about the USSR...but look how Regan bled it to death and such places as Estonia and Luthinia and whatever got their sweet liberty. So, if anyone can do it for our northern neighbors, it be the Texan ranger!!
Sitaraji, welcome back!!
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 10-Jun-03 07:11 PM
This is funny, i mean really funny. Sorry for sounding mean, rude, crude and what not, but Tibet was never a Free Country, nor it wil be in the future.
namaste
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 10-Jun-03 07:13 PM
Now, to answer Suvachintak,
China is a strategic equalizing country, so, the US is not in a position to invade or even be in bad terms with China in teh post 9-11 world order.
|
| KaleKrishna |
Posted
on 10-Jun-03 07:15 PM
What do fellow forum mates have to say about recent Nepal Gov. to deport illegal Tibetian migrants back.
Shall we support China (even though we know we are wrong) just for seeking favor from China.
Shall national interests and selfish objectives come in way of our moral responsibility to our immediate neighbors (Lasha), who have many thing in common to us then the comunist China.
If we think of independent Tibet, then why not support Taiwan's independence which is indeed a totaly different nation from PRC.
I just wanted to know what fellow readers have in their opinion about the total independence (bullying) of Tibet and Taiwan from PRC.
What shall be the Nepali stance, and shall we sacrifice our interest for the benefit of others. Shall morality of human cause come before our national interest.
Let us hope Love, respect and wisdom dictate the terms in making unified and harmonious global village comunity a reality
|
| suva chintak |
Posted
on 10-Jun-03 07:20 PM
Ifji,
By the same logic, US never had to 'attack' to destroy the USSR, much more subtle tactics than the slam dunk in Baghdad. But it was just as effective. So with a bigger adversary like China, I believe US will follow similar approach that succeeded in USSR. When that happens, freedom may be forced upon the Tibetans - even if 'they were never free' as you say.
But let us wait and see, we Nepalis should have a ringside view of all that happens across the Himalayas!
|
| rmb |
Posted
on 10-Jun-03 07:26 PM
Sorry, it's not going to happen Suva Chintak ji, because you know and I know that
1. China is slowly moving into a capitalistic economy. In a few decades China will have much more liberal policies. America doesn't have to force anything.
2. After Russia's experience, China has obviously realized that changing politics of the nation drastically(from communism to capitalism) isn't the way to go. Rather change the policies slowly.
3. By the time this happens, Tibet will already have been dominated by Han Chinese.
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 10-Jun-03 07:46 PM
Suva Chintak,
China played an important part in disintergation of the USSR. When Nixon visited China in 1973, there was a Sino-US military pact. The USSR became wary of its own terretorial integrity and always lived under the fear of a joint Sino-US military action. As a result of which, the USSR was forced to deploy a large number of troops in Siberia, and which was a burden on the Soviet economy. By 1990, the USSR was suffering badly economically, and that led to the Soviet disintegration.
Why this won't happen in China:
America has to be in good terms with India to disintegrate China, but, given teh Indo loyalty to the former Soviet Union, and China and America's grwoing dependency on each other, America and India forging an aliance to disintegrate China seems unlikely.
And based on the historical evidence, one can easily dismiss the claim that Tibet was a free country or should be a Free Country. Even teh Dalai Lama isn't asking for a FRee Tibet.
Kalekrishna,
Nepal did right by deporting the 18 refugees back to China because thery weren't refugees. They were illlegal immigrants who violated the Nepali and Chinese immigration laws.
RMB, excellent points. Zui hao!
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 10-Jun-03 08:04 PM
Here are the Dalai Lama's demands/Peace proposal. This won him the Nobel peace Prize.
1. Transformation of the whole of Tibet into a zone of peace ;
2. Abandonment of China's population transfer policy which threatens the very existence of the Tibetan's as a people;
3. Respect for the Tibetan peoples fundamental human rights and democratic freedoms;
4. Restoration and protection of Tibet's natural environment and the abandonment of China's use of Tibet for the production of nuclear weapons and dumping of nuclear waste ;
5. Commencement of earnest negotiations on the future status of Tibet and of relations between the Tibetan and Chinese people.
Excerpts from a paper I did in school"
Answering the queries of the journalists he [the Dalai Lama] made it clear that he was ready to negotiate with China based on his five points peace plan provided that the Chinese government do not impose pre-conditions. He once again made it clear that he was not asking for independent Tibet . I am ready to talk. Anywhere, any time, without pre-conditions. That's my middle way approach, strictly non-violent. I am not seeking independence.
So, people who are bringing up this issue are the types of people whom Pearl Buck describes as "In the summer, I am a nudist. In the Winter, I am a Buddhist" type.
|
| suva chintak |
Posted
on 10-Jun-03 08:07 PM
Dear IFji, nice discussion.
I would like to bring to your notice recent developments here in the US that suggest that there is strategic military alliance building up between India and the US. In recent months the two countries have held huge joint military exercises, on scales comparable to those US holds with old allies like Japan and Korea.
Then there have been accords on significant arms deals between the two. And to cap this trend further, the US now wants Indian forces to participate in the occupation of Iraq and its reconstruction. US has not made the same offer to China or any of the countries it considers threats in the future.
So Uncle Sam and Appu bhaiya are hitting off quite well, to the discomfort of China. The following news item from Hindustan times also points to this direction...I think the Tibetans may have something to celebrate afte all..
Pentagon experts to visit India on Iraq troops deployment
Vasantha Arora, Indo-Asian News Service
Washington,
US President George W Bush is dispatching a team of top Pentagon experts to New Delhi next Monday to allay India's concerns on the proposed troop deployment in Iraq.
Deputy Prime Minister LK Advani said this to reporters after a meeting with President Bush at the White House on Monday. Bush dropped by while Advani was in the midst of discussions with US National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice.
The US request for deployment of Indian troops in Iraq came up during their half-hour interaction. Advani said he informed President Bush that India's Cabinet Committee on Security had discussed the issue twice and its members felt they required some clarifications before making a decision on the issue.
He said Bush promptly agreed to dispatch an expert team to New Delhi next Monday to provide the clarifications.
The request to send a division-strength Indian contingent to Iraq was conveyed to New Delhi in early May by the US, which is facing hostilities in the war-ravaged country.
Describing his meeting with Bush, Advani said, "Last year I had come here. I had a meeting with the national security adviser. Shortly after the meeting began, President Bush dropped in. It happened this time too."
"India is happy at the kind of relationship that has been developing between our two countries which is fully reflected in the security strategy document, published in the name of the president last year," he said.
Advani said President Bush "greatly appreciated" Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee's peace overtures towards Pakistan. The president naturally had in mind the fact that India could resort to such a move only "if it is confident about its own security," Advani remarked.
Advani said he had expressed the hope that Pakistan would respond positively to India's initiative "which has given a political space to our neighbour and the initiative will yield results."
Asked whether India-Pakistan relations came up for discussions, Advani said: "He (Bush) reflected our concerns and our problems but not specifically."
To a specific question on whether Bush would take up India-Pakistan relations during his meeting later this month with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf who is slated to visit the US for a Camp David summit, Advani said: "I'm sure that it will be discussed".
He said he invited President Bush to visit India. "I told him to undertake the visit before he gets involved in the next presidential elections.
"After the end of the Cold War a conscious effort is being made by the two countries to take their relations to a different level altogether. It is not an alliance of convenience. It is a principled relationship between our two countries, one the largest and the other strongest, and it is proceeding very satisfactorily as is evidenced in cooperation in the field of defence, and even in the intelligence sphere."
In his talks with Rice, Advani said, he discussed in detail terrorism in the regional and global context.
Earlier in the day Advani had a luncheon meeting with US Attorney General John Ashcroft at which terrorism was discussed at length. They exchanged views on tightening the enforcement machinery, on cutting off terrorists funding through banks, hawalas, front businesses and other ways.
Other issues that came up for discussion included the agreement on counter-terrorism, the implementation of the mutual legal assistance treaty, extradition and cross-border terrorism.
Advani said Ashcroft also accepted his invitation to visit India.
The deputy prime minister's visit to Washington ends Tuesday after a luncheon meeting with US Vice President Dick Cheney.
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 10-Jun-03 08:15 PM
I heard that news a few days ago. Also, the rumour that the US is looking for a military base in India, but I think there's something not-right in the whole thing.
Right now, I have to go get some things done, but I'll be on this tonight. Thanks for the news.
|
| Boke |
Posted
on 10-Jun-03 08:28 PM
Freak (isolated),
Qualify your statement, " Tibet was never a Free Country, nor it wil be in the future."
Loose talk is cheap, so is pseudo-intellectualism.
Boke
ps - btw, before you go wushu on me, let me declare that I have no proclivity towards Tibet as such or similar to yours towards China.
|
| TibetPride |
Posted
on 10-Jun-03 09:10 PM
Hey save disk nice pic:) thanks for sharing......
Isolatedfreak, as a Tibetan who would know better than me? Tibet was free at one time and i am not sure about why you think it will never be free?? Isolated, how much do you know about Tibet and its history that you are judging? I don't even think you don't even know about H.H Dalai Lamas history, who are you to judge if it will be free or not? I am asking you with due respect aite???????? It is not only those 18 Tibetans getting send back. There are hundreds of people being send back each year. It is easy to say they were send back but do they even knwo how harshly they are punished??
Let me tell you something if you have $3000 you can enter nepal no matter what ,even if you are illegal and that's the fact! Who carries that much of ransom when they are so in love with being alive and living a free life (almost).
Isolate, i got a question, why do you think those people were called "immigrants"? I totally understand that Nepelese gov send back those 18 immigrant because they were illegal. In any part of the world when someone is escaping from cruel gov, how will they be legal?? In this case Tibet, if they had that much of fredom of getting a visa from chinese gov, why will lthey hide during day and escape in night? Why will they travel thousand of miles on their foot? It is easy to read and talk about it. It is hard when it happens right infront of you.
Suva, Bush helps to only where his gov gets something out of it. It is not that usa gov have been helping us Tibetans; it is just that it was never strong. Remember that we like non-violence we don't want another human being to be pain.
Talk about Afganistan and Iraq. Usa claims that it is trying to "free them" whatever that is suppose to mean. What good have they done that the world have to be so thankful of anyways?? All they have done is destroyed, rather than"re-built" it. Usa was never in favor of 3rd world!
As a tibetan, i am very grateful to Nepalese gov and Indian gov for leting our grandparents stay in their country and for giving us some kind of identity.
FREE TIBET,JAI NEPAL, AND JAI HIND!
|
| Trikal |
Posted
on 10-Jun-03 09:46 PM
Free Tibet ?? It is just a dream of tibetans !!
If we wanna talk about free Tibet, Than why don't we talk about "Free Kasmir" "Free ..." "Free ......"????
China's sovereignty on Tibet for over 700 years. No government of any country in the world has ever recognized Tibet as an independent state.
British Foreign Secretary Lord Lansdowne, in a formal instruction he sent out in 1904, called Tibet "a province of the Chinese Empire."
In his speech at the Lok Sabba in 1954, Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru said, "Over the past several hundred years, as far as I know, at no time has any foreign country denied China's sovereignty over Tibet."
In Lhasa, the capital of the Tibet Autonomous Region, a statue of the Tang Princess Wen Cheng, who married the Tubo tsampo, king of Tibet, in 641, is still enshrined and worshiped in the Potala Palace. The Tang-Tubo Alliance Monument erected in 823 still stands in the square in front of the Jokhang Monastery. The monument inscription reads in part, "The two sovereigns, uncle and nephew, having come to agreement that their territories be united as one, have signed this alliance of great peace to last for eternity! May God and humanity bear witness thereto so that it may be praised from generation to generation."
The map below (From "Historical Atlas" by William R. Shepherd,1923.) had shown Tibet part of Yuan Dynasty. No one can deny that Tibet is always a part of China. Tibet is never an independent country. None of the Chinese government has ever surrendered the sovereignty of Tibet to others.
Tenzing Gyatso, aka the Dalai Lama, rather than rejecting his identity as a Tibetan-Chinese and demanding Tibetan racial purity along the lines of his Nazi mentor, SS Captain Heinrich Harrer, should instruct his band of reactionary theocrats huddled in Dharamsala to forsake their quixotic dream of "restoring" a "Shangri-La" that never existed, return to Lhasa, and shoulder to shoulder with fellow Chinese, help illiterate serfs they once exploited become the Andy Groves and Bill Gates of the 21st century.
TIBET IS PART OF CHINA, GET OVER IT !!!!
Trikal......
|
| Tibetpride |
Posted
on 10-Jun-03 10:26 PM
Trikal jii,
Can you show me the site where it says that?? I really want to see them and will answer your questions.
In our history it was ruled by mongolian too so should Tibet belong to Mongolinas?? Sure we don;thave legal documents to prove it. As the rest of the world knows that it was an isolated country, who loved in peace with nature and harmony. Foir you kind info thousand of years ago china was once ruled by Tibet too so who talks about that huh?? Do you even know about that? Hey Trikal watch your mouth when u call someone"nazi mentor" He is not any kind of mentor! What make you think he is?? Show some respect ; if you can't, just don't give nick names to Dalai Lama. And for your kind info, we don't claim that there is Shangirila; it is chinese who are claiming it. You are mistaken right there. Read the history before you even jump to the conclusion. Trikal jii, you ned to read more about Tibet i think, there is much more to be learned from tibetan scholars rather than some non tibetan speaking about Tibetor writing about it. BTW, at that time the map was drawn how can u prove that it was accurate?? It was not even know to the world! (From "Historical Atlas" by William R. Shepherd,1923.) Did you see in that map there is a place listetd as Tibet and not china aite? Loook closely and u wil see tibet there on the map .If it was part of china why is it there ??
What do you know about Tibet, and makes you think that Tibet belongs to China?
FREE TIBET (1 zillion times)
|
| suva chintak |
Posted
on 11-Jun-03 09:17 AM
IFji
More on the rapidly growing strategic alliance between India and US from today's paper.
India-United States seal informal alliance
CHIDANAND RAJGHATTA
TIMES NEWS NETWORK[ WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 2003 07:33:50 PM ]
WASHINGTON: Profound changes are taking place in India-US ties. Almost everything that Deputy Prime Minister L K Advani said on Tuesday at the end of his two-day visit to Washington points to an unprecedented level of confidence, warmth, and fealty between two sides that have had a hard time being on the same wavelength for half a century.
Short of declaring a formal alliance, the two countries have now signalled their intent to work together in a global and regional architecture that accepts American pre-eminence but recognises Indias own sphere of influence and independent line of action without jeopardising the interests of either country.
"President Bush expressed his strong desire to continue the process of transforming Indo-US relations, Advani said in a statement at the end of two days of meetings with the US leadership.
He also reaffirmed the US stake in building relations with India in a strategic context. The White House did not issue any statement but US officials endorsed the sentiments.
"On my part, I assured President Bush that we did not view our relations with the United States as a matter of convenience, but as a partnership of trust and confidence, which can stand up to whatever challenges the future brings," Advani said.
The two sides ironed out several wrinkles in course of Advanis visit, even agreeing to disagree on US policies towards Pakistan.
On Indias peace initiative with Pakistan though, Advani said President Bush had expressed warm admiration for the Prime Ministers move of gambling for peace and improving political space for resolving differences.
He said, Bush had reiterated that he would be speaking to President Musharraf about creating a climate in which this initiative could succeed.
When asked, at a press conference, whether the US agrees with India that no progress in Indo-Pak talks is possible unless cross-border terrorism into Jammu and Kashmir ends, Advani appeared to acknowledge differences on this point. He said, The American government is conscious of all these facts (terrorism) but every government has its foreign policy interests to safeguard, and those foreign policy interests may be based upon certain assessments with which India may not agree."
But the Pakistan issue, for once, was marginal to deputy prime ministers talks. Advani, credited with a tough position on Indias neighbour, went so far as to say that unlike his last visit here, this one was not Pakistan-centric.
In fact, the issue of Indian troops for Iraq appeared to dominate talks with the principals, a fact Advani conceded. He insisted, however, that there was no pressure to commit and the government of India is free to take a decision after hearing clarifications about the nature and mandate of the mission and the command structure from the Pentagon team that is visiting India.
Advani also said he did not take up the issue of outsourcing in any of his meetings because it was a matter for American companies who stood to benefit from the process to lobby against legislation aimed at stymieing it.
In his statement however, Advani said President Bush had told him that he saw India as one of the leading drivers of the high-technology world who had contributed significantly to the increase in US productivity by providing Indian manpower, know-how and entrepreneurship.
Shortly before leaving for Los Angeles on Tuesday for meeting the Indian community, Advani had a luncheon meeting with vice president Dick Cheney, his official host and a man, who along with defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, is credited with providing the intellectual inputs to the new American world view - projecting force and seeking new alliances.
Advani said Cheney in his invitation letter had expected their meeting to cover the strategic nature of Indo-US relationship and the agenda for bilateral cooperation".
"In line with this suggestion and in consonance with my own expectations, my interactions with the US leadership has helped in promoting both these objectives , the deputy prime minister confirmed at the end of a landmark visit that appeared to seal an informal alliance between the two countries.
|
| Satya |
Posted
on 11-Jun-03 09:26 AM
Tibet is a sovereign country now occupied by Peoples Republic of China. This is my opinion and my understanding from the history classes in Nepal. Nepal had fought with Tibet several times during the Rana rule. If Tibet was not a free country then how could we say the warring parties were Nepal and Tibet, not Nepal and China?
If we go back to few hundreds years we find that Tibet was very strong during Shrenchen Gampo rule (sorry, I dont know the spelling) and king of (part of present-day) Nepal and emperor of China gave their daughters hands to the Tibetan ruler to save their skin. When Nepal was stronger than Tibet China had HELPED Tibet to defend her territory. At certain period, both Nepal and Tibet had to send present (was it tax?) to the Chinese emperor. The status of Tibet was not different form that of Nepal.
It was only in 1959 (I dont remember the exact date) communist China invaded Tibet and since then is effectively occupying Tibet. Part of Tibetan territory is now in Sichuan and Qinghai province. Tibets unique cultural status is in danger due to large number of Han Chinese immigrants.
It is Nepals cowardice policy to send Tibetans refugees to occupied Tibet forcefully. Yes, 18 refugees recently handed over to Chinese entered Nepal illegally. But we have to see the background of the illegal emigrants. They were forced to leave their homeland because of brutal occupation of their land by the Chinese. They were running away from political disaster.
Freakji, you are not only King Gynendras loyal dog but also Communist Chinas propaganda machine.
Trikalji, after pretending to know the future of people, are you trying to claim to be the master of the past also? What do you want to prove form the map?
I hope our neighbour Tibet will be free again.
|
| Poonte |
Posted
on 11-Jun-03 09:29 AM
Let me be brutally honest here...
Instead of waging a moral war to gain sympathy for Tibet/ans and hoping to win independence, I think the advocates of free Tibet should scatter all over the region and try to find few oil wells, or any KHAANI rich of other natural resources that the western countries would greed for...they'd stand a better chance of real western intervention then!
Sadly, such is the cruel world that we seem to be living in :((((((((
|
| rmb |
Posted
on 11-Jun-03 04:59 PM
While people tend to overemphasize Tibet's inherent right to exist as a free nation , to me it is not a question of whether Tibet was always a sovereign nation, thus historically free of China, but a question of whether Tibet will benefit more under the Chinese occupation. Even if the former is the question posed, China argues that since historical times--during the Qing dynasty, Tibet was under China, and as such was also seen as part of China-- Tibet has been like an extension of China; in fact China aided the Tibetans to ward off Nepalese aggression. China viewed,and probably still views, Western imperialism as a direct threat against its interests. When places( Hong Kong, for example) were annexed by the British, or by some other European nation, China felt humiliated, as a result of which any plans that Western nations came up with were seen as divisive, and ultimately rebuffed. If I am correct, even Tibet was under the British for a while.
That being said, and even if Tibet were not a part of China, China has done more than a lot for Tibet. Before the invasion, Tibet's literacy rate was below the 10% mark(now it is 52% or so), and owning slaves was a widespread practice. As Tibet is a sparsely populated land, it had no real prospect of developing. China brought in manpower and it has constantly poured in cash to develop this region. The human imports that come to Tibet, mostly speaking come through their own free will looking for better job prospects and not through government coercion. They are almost completely oblivious of the tumultous nature of politics. China has built infrastructures, constructed roads, schooled Tibetan children, hence improving the standards of living of Tibetans.
And regarding China erasing Tibet's cultural past, that is an effect of modernization. China shouldn't completely wipe out Tibet's rich heritage; it should allow Tibetan religion and cultural practices to flourish, but keep it in check in order to not let renegades be trained. In France, for instance, the government is still subsidizing its farm products in order to preserve its ancient cultural ways that the farmers still practice.
The West portrays Tibet as a utopian land where monks sit atop lofty mountains in bliss, peacefully. That's what they want Tibet to remain as. This depiction is wrong when analyzed from any angles. Austerity and economic development can't go hand in hand.
Also, it is high time that Nepal think of its own improvement. Tibet, if allowed to exist freely will only hamper Nepal's development, because Nepal won't be in direct contact with China, as we are now. Here is a food for thought: islands close to the US automatically developed when America became an economic powerhouse. So could also be the case to Nepal. Nepal is between two great nations, and as the two countries progress, so will Nepal.
|
