The Dalai Lama has led a non-violent campaign of resistance to Chinese occupation of Tibet since 1959. Tibet is not free. Therefore this campaign has not worked. This is the sad truth.
I'd love to believe that tyranny can always be overcome by peaceful protest: Non-violent resistance did help India to gain independence from Britain, but the British were leaving anyway. Try staging peaceful protests against panzer divisions, or the Chinese government. The sad reality is that all the historical evidence suggests that violent insurrection has a much better track record of achieving freedom: American independence was achieved through violent insurrection, likewise in Ireland, Haiti and many others countries.
Tibet's capital, Lhasa, is now majority Han Chinese. Beijing has for years actively settled the area with ethnic Chinese. A new rail link direct from Beijing makes settlement easier and faster. At some point, the majority of Tibet's entire population may consist of ethnic Chinese, loyal to Beijing. If this happens, there will never be a free Tibet.
The Dalai Lama's opposition to violence has given the world a powerful moral example. Perhaps it points to something greater than even a successful a war of independence: the possibility that the world's most intractable conflicts can be resolved by peaceful means. Yet Tibet may soon no longer be Tibetan, and it is not free. The Dalai Lama cannot even visit his homeland and his people.
At the White House today, President Obama meets the Dalai Lama, a fellow leader, but one in exile. Will the president speak of how the Dalai Lama's struggle resonates with Dr. King's non-violent struggle for civil rights, of which the president himself is the ultimate vindication? Will he stand shoulder to shoulder with the Dalai Lama and say "we shall overcome"; or will he say, "thanks for the photo op, but you're on your own."
For the Dalai Lama's vision to succeed, the entire Western world would have to put immense pressure on China. We would have come together and promise economic sanctions unless Tibet is given independence. For now it seems that cheap consumer durables are more important to the US and the EU than Tibetan freedom.
A free Tibet, wrested from China's tyranny by non-violent means, would have profound and lasting implications for all humanity: If Tibet became free by peaceful means, the world would know for ever that non-violence can really work.
This example would undermine those who argue for violence, it would undercut terrorism and help us as a species to get beyond war. It is not possible to overstate the implications of showing the world that non-violent resistance can really work, even against an anti-democratic tyranny.
That Tibet is not free is the West's shame, not the Dalai Lama's. The West must choose: do we want cheap gadgets or do we want a free Tibet, and with it a new era of peace for mankind.
Follow Rory Fitzgerald on Twitter: www.twitter.com/roryfitzgerald
It is not for us to go to far corners of the world and find enemies. The US support of Tibet independence dates back to anti-communism of the 1950's and right wing organizations of that era and has nothing to do with what Tibetans want. The Dalai Lama doesn't even want Independence. In the recent past Dalai Lama has become a celebrity and popular among people who miss a guru in their life and because of it support "free Tibet", without knowing any history of it, or even knowing between 1913 to 1950, Tibet was a feudal and terrible place.
What my main point is, it is none of our business. We don't need to be moral police of the world and view everything from our own moral prism. Dalai Lama didn't lead a non-voilent movement he fled when his militia, trained by CIA (not a secret anymore) was routed by the chinese in 1959. Now he has no alternative but claim non-violence. He is no Ghandi.
Also, China in the 1500's was not ruled by Mongols, but by the native (i.e., ethnically Han) Ming dynasty, and it is therefore impossible for a "Chinese Mongol ruler" to have appointed anyone, anywhere, as no such person existed.
While the overall point has some validity to it, you should really get your facts straight.
So in Chinese definition, the Yuan dynasty was a part of China even though it was ruled by an ethnicities outside of the "Han" Chinese. After all the Mongols basically adopted the Chinese system, and so did the Manchu in the Qing dynasty. Thus the territories gained by these dynasty also belong to the Middle Kingdom.
Dalai is a mongolian word/name meaning Ocean.
In 1578, Altan Khan, of the Tumed Mongols (who submitted to Qing Dynasty), gave Sonam Gyatso, the title Dalai Lama #3 and his father Dalai Lama #2 and grandfather Dalai Lama #1.
Let me make it clearer. From 1271 there were no independent Tibet until 1913. Part of it was always part of china while other part were part of Mongolia while Mongolia was considered part of China.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rory-fitzgerald/the-chinese-are-in-my-lap_b_468757.html
Here is a summary of what I wrote:
The shooting video you posted looks suspicious for the following reasons:
1. heavyu editing
2. target out of range of AK assault rifle
3. simultaneous bullet hit and sound of gunshot
Mr. Fitzgerald, please reply to my comment, if you are so kind. Or you may ignore me. But please do not remove my comment without explanation, just because it does not fit your narrative.
I am sure that you, as a blogger, know much better than I do about being careful with your sources. And I am confident that you would agree with me that blood libel against "the Chinese" (i.e. a fifth of the humanity) would be a very serious offense!
Nobody has ever said that that video was faked. Tens, if not hundreds, of people witnessed the event and their testimony concurs with the video evidence.
I was also very distrubed by your reaction at seeeing an innocent 17 year old girl shot dead. You said: "good shot" or words to that effect.
That, and the fact that your contention has no basis in truth, is why I delted your post. I think that was reasonable on both counts.
What I find most disappointing about the western obsession with Tibet is the sheer hypocrisy it represents. We don't hear a whole lot of argument for the United States to get out of Hawaii or Samoa, both similarly occupied, nor do we hear much about other, equally or even moreso, oppressed minorities in China, like the Mongols in Inner Mongolia who have also been replaced with a Han majority through active resettlement.
Native american peoples have the freedom to talk about anything they want, i can personally testify to this, ha! Today many, if not most, Americans recognize the wrongs that happened. Movies are hollywood blockbusters that show how bad america has been.......There are movements and even political parties for Hawaiian independence, even Alaskan Independence.
In china, what can you historically talk about, or what are the historical movies always about? The Long March as a great victory for the chinese people......Japan, Japan, Japan, Japan, Japan (Nanjing movies come out every year).....although taiwan is independent and has a different history it's always presented as still a province of china that ironically must be reunited....
In China you are promptly taken without charge (and possibly without trial) to a prison or laogai for simply waving the Tibetan flag in public and saying "freedom for tibet!"
From reading your posts Jiaotong, you sound very emotional, and you're not going to convince anyone over to your side, especially the one group that actually matters; the Chinese. Do you seriously think any Chinese person will read your posts and say, "Yeah I guess we'll just invite the Dalai Lama in and let him control Tibet and a large chunk of Sichuan and Xinjiang?"
If you're not speaking to the Chinese, then what do you suppose the Westerners should do? Send in their armies and start a war with China for you? History is tainted by massacres. Some civilizations survive, some don't. It's not as if the Tibetans in China are seperated so that the males are beheaded, and their women used as sex slaves. Oh right, that's what the Japanese did to the Chinese in Nanking.
Most of the high paying jobs in the mining and oil field industries will be going to ethnic chinese while the minorities will be kept in abject poverty and get a few left over crumbs in the form of unskilled mining and oil field jobs.
This is what the Dalai Lama is opposed to. He wants ethnic Tibetans to have access to technological advances to make their lives better and to bring democracy to Tibet. For the Chinese government in Beijing, the Dalai Lama is simply a usefull straw man to attack while they plunder Tibet and the western provinces.
Signed, The spirit of a dead continent
1-Definitely the US has done dirty deeds here, but nobody in America is denying this. China denies this totally (this is the same China that is denying problems within its own mainland history, such as the cultural revolution, the TianAnMen massacre, and persecution of falun gong people)
2-China re-writes history and suppresses opposite opinions (especially with people like you who hope to drown out competing opinions by repeating things the CCP say). At least Americans can debate these things
3-Lots of Indian tribes don't even exist anymore, so their land can't even be "given back"; Also many tribal societies never considered land as "sovereign territory" with carefully written lines on maps that one tribe exclusively owned. If you compare Native americans to something, its closer to use the Hmong or other groups in Yunnan. Tibet was much more a "state" with an army, taxation system, currency, etc.
3-The issue of China's ownership of Tibet is primarily related to the PLA takeover. "Indian lands" that were stolen relate to Dutch, French, Spanish, American, Swedish colonies (and more), after the Dutch took Manhattan island and native peoples moved away or assimiliated, is it possible for the US (who acquired it later) to "give it back"? By contrast... 4-Tibet continues to have the overthrown government exist on its borders, governing a growing population of 100,000+ refugees. There is nothing like this comparable to any situation inUS.
However, many won’t be alive to see it.
What didn't the dinosaurs teach us Rory? That clinging to the old ways doesn’t necessarily suffice?
“The Dalai Lama's opposition to violence has given the world a powerful moral example.”
But what the strategy currently lacks is intellectual challenge. If what an oppressor is doing is valid, then it should be capable of withstanding examination. If that process is prohibited or in any way prevented, its logic must be deemed perverse. Since it cannot, or will not, justify itself.
If argument can only be dissuaded by force, the ideology challenged exposes itself as flawed.
“the entire Western world would have to put immense pressure on China”
Not necessarily. All that may be needed might be questioning.
i.e. Presumably, your actions appear completely rational to you. Would you kindly explain them to me, so that I may better appreciate your personal understanding of reality.
“the world would know for ever that non-violence can really work.”
The world doesn’t actually care, either way Rory. But if we can get this right, we might be around to know it.
1. China is almost a super power. No one can be reasonably expected to get into a conflict with it.
2. Tibet adopted Budhist philosophy in a Darwinian world - big mistake.
3. China is hungry for space and resources - Tibet was conveniently unarmed.
4. Chinese communist-militarism defeated Tibet's Feudalistic-Budhism and walked in to Tibet.
Given the above, how is it a shame on the West that Tibet is not free? Do we seriously believe that it is reasonable to ask the West to put its sons in harm's way in order to free Tibet?
If you want Tibet free-tell the Democrats to stop running up unsustainable deficits which prevents China from ever being confronted on human rights issues....I'll support human rights in China if you support deficit reduction and stop this porkfest.
So are you saying that a Christian philosophy of take no prisoners would have been better?
It seems to me that you need to go read your history books. You didn't even spell Buddhist correctly. Armed conflict has been taking place ever since people discovered that agriculture could increase a society's weath by an infinite amount. To see that go read the story of Cain and Abel in the Bible. Buddhists will defend themselves from armed attack. They just do it differently than Christian fundies.
Because, after all, this is what the Jews (your chosen analogy!) have done?
Mr. Fitzgerald,
If you switch TIBET with PALESTINE and CHINA with ISRAEL, you'd notice why the west has no "moral" ground, whatsoever, to pressure China into doing anything for TIBET! What would the USA and its western allies answer, if China asked them about the situation in WestJordanland and Gaza?
Oh, that's something else?
I disagree. China can easily deflect "tremendous pressure". That won't help. Tension is more effective than pressure for persuading people.
China is ready for a new chapter. China has share great cultural gifts with the world over centuries past. The current attitudes on China must change so that China's own cultural self-knowledge will come back alive and China will pull back this pressure in the interests of preserving the culture of a venerable cultural group. The political boundary is not as important as the respect for the culture and language of Tibet.
Tibet will be fine, because Chinese people will remember their own culture, and realizing the incredible value of their own ancient culture, they'll also begin to value Tibetan culture as well. Reconciliation with Taiwan comes first. That's how I see it, anyway.
I'd like to elaborate on this. It just reminds me so much of a typical West versus East cultural contact. The idea of "putting immense pressure" is just such a western idea. The very concept of applying pressure, rather than drawing out an opposing force - it's asinine.
China is emulating western thought already in its move into Tibet. That whole situation is based on Marxist ideology. China had become a nascent power due to stagnancy in their technology, and they paid a terrible price for it. Now they've caught up technologically, but they have yet to recover their essential culture after years of western powers projecting political influence and ideas into China.