opinions on T**et

[Scott]

I don't want to say the 'T' word (region in the south west of China) for fear that my access to modified might be blocked.

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned anything about the riots and olympic torch protests etc as it seems to be big news, at least it is here in China.

The media in China have been very critical of the Western media's coverage of the situation, accusing them of using edited and misleading photos.

Here is a recent example
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2008 ... 624846.htm

Here are some of the highlights from the article for those not interested in reading the whole thing

In the wake of the March 14 Lhasa riots, CNN posted a picture on its website showing people running in front of a military truck. The original picture uploaded by Chinese netizens, however, also shows mobsters throwing stones at the truck. The latter had been cropped out of the photo by CNN.

during the broadcast of CNN's "The Situation Room" on April 9, when asked to comment on the US relationship with China as the Olympic torch relay was underway in San Francisco, CNN news commentator Jack Cafferty said: "I think they're basically the same bunch of goons and thugs they've been in the past 50 years."

He also said that the United States continues to import Chinese-made "junk with the lead paint on them and the poisoned pet food..."

The online outbursts of anger have been echoed by the Chinese government, which said it was shocked by Cafferty's "vile remarks."

"Cafferty used the microphone in his hand to slander China and the Chinese people, and seriously violated the professional ethics of journalism and human conscience," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu said at a regular press briefing Tuesday.

"We strongly demand CNN and Cafferty himself take back the vile remarks and apologize to all Chinese people," Jiang said.

Just wondering if anyone in the west thinks that the media there have been biased in their coverage of the issue. Also do you think the majority of people support or oppose China's handling of the riots.


Personally I think the riots have probably done more harm than good to the T***tan cause and the Western media has probably been biased given they have been blocked from having any access to what is happening.

I cannot be critical of China's handling of the riots because it is very difficult to know what has actually happened. The thing I am very critical of is the restricitions on my ability to access foreign news or even to hear both sides of the debate.

[max]

I don't see why posting the word "Tibet" on modified would have any consenqu

[sniikeri]

I don't see why posting the word "Tibet" on modified would have any consenqu

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned anything about the riots and olympic torch protests etc as it seems to be big news, at least it is here in China.

The Chinese authorities probably have filters, and I don't think they appreciate any kind of critical discussion about their actions. Although Scott's post was more about biased western media, not Chinese, they most likely are quite strict on this issue.

Personally I am worried if the China Daily's accusations are right.

[Jeremy]

The Chinese have very strict filters. There was an interesting article about it in the New Scientist technology blog (indirectly).

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/techno ... -webs.html


On the issue of the protests, the media I've been watching has come across as typically objective, but I only really watch SBS and ABC news (Scott will know what I'm talking about - basically non commercial news). While I'm a little unsure on the actual issue, I think it's fantastic that China is being forced to face so much criticism that it can't control and I also think it's fantastic for the cause because it's getting so much attention. Leaders are being forced to put forward opinions on the issue and China is under more pressure about it than it ever has been before.

There are some rumours going around that the Canberra leg of the relay is going to be phenomenal (in terms of numbers of protesters), so I'm excited about that.

[max]

China is under more pressure about it than it ever has been before.

True. Although I'm still under the impression that China is continuing to do nothing at all regarding this issue.

Regarding the protests, yes they surely are making the headlines. The passage of the Olympic flame in Paris was an absolute fiasco (more so than the London incidents). Today every politician in France has an opinion on the subject, most being pro-Tibet and talks of boycotting the opening ceremony abound. However, I still have not seen any noticeable change in the stance of the Chinese government. They seem absolutely unfazed by it all.

[sniikeri]

Although I'm still under the impression that China is continuing to do nothing at all regarding this issue.

I'm also under the same impression.
The reason why it's so hard for the western leaders to put any real pressure on China is that we are economically very dependent on them. We know it, and the Chinese "Communist" Party knows it too. They count on it and believe nothing will change no matter what they do.

The IOC's comments about "sports and politics should not be mixed with each other" (and therefore there should be no protesting against China) are hypocritical. It seems like they've completely forgotten what they demanded to be done when they gave Beijing the Olympics. Although I agree that the athletes shouldn't be punished because of the mistakes the IOC has done, I'd probably think twice whether to participate or not.
I'd still likely go, or, better said, if I decided not to go, it'd be for other reasons: for example Haile Gebrselassie isn't going to run the marathon in Beijing due to the heavy air pollution.

[BainbridgeShred]

I don't know what you guys expect. I mean, did anyone really think China was going to all of a sudden cede Tibetan independence just because a few silly Westerner's tried to put out the Olympic torch? These things take time, and it definitely will draw attention to China's policies. Whether it will change anything in the long run, who knows. If things do change, it wont solely be because of what's going on now, and will be the culmination of a lot of things, mostly China seeing that holding on to a mountain range isn't worth the negative press it recieves from it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, China is the biggest threat to world peace, and it's a good thing it's being highlighted.

[Jeremy]

While I completely disagree with the assessment that "China is the biggest threat to world peace," and that sounds like a baseless comment from somebody bitter about the pending end of US hegemony, I do agree that it's naive to expect things to happen immediately and that any serious changes will come about because of an accumulation of reasons. It's wrong to think that China will completely ignore such pressure and that they're in a position where they can do whatever they like. China, just like the rest of the world, relies very heavily on the rest of the world for many things. Countries need to be constantly applying oil (figuratively) to the joints of their relationships to keep their trade happening. The reality is that we're now in a global position (or very soon going to be) where if you removed one country from the world, the rest of the world would still get on just fine. If the world reduces trade with China and especially if it reduces investment in China, we're not going to see a global catastrophe. Actions like this do make a difference, even if you don't notice them straight away.


For the record; I'd say the biggest threat to world peace is climate change; which Britain's top economist predicted would cost the world more money than both world wars and the great depression combined, and this week has announced that he under-estimated the severity of the problem. Unless we address the problem, climate change is going to cause global food shortages, massive numbers of displaced people, a reduction in liveable land and greater spread of disease. There are already conflicts that we can see as exacerbated by the effects of climate change and this problem is only going to get worse without massive efforts and sacrifices from governments.

[BainbridgeShred]

jeremy just shut the fuck up i can tell how youre going to respond to a post from a mile away

[BainbridgeShred]

Qualifier: US hegemony is the dumbest term ever. If anything, their is a global coroporate hegemony, but throwing around broad, inspecific terms like that are for retards who don't understand the actual situation in the world and think they do because they professors at university told them their opinions in class. As a libertarian, why would I have a problem with the world wide coroporate hegemony coming to an end, which is what will happen if America, the strongest conspirator in the hegemony, crashes. Trying to act like their is an American hegemony is a way for foriegners like Jeremy to pass the buck on to America, as the west and rest of the world has been doing since the end of WW2.

Thanks for agreeing with my post and then throwing in some snippy little comments to piss me off and misrepresent my opinions and then go completely off topic about global warming.

[LEGOMAN]

before china released any information on the "bet" someone on a different forum (who was in china) wanted someone to copy and paste the text and post it for him. they did it and it blocked that forum.


china is pretty fucked right now.

suppression>human rights to the ch

[sniikeri]

It's wrong to think that China will completely ignore such pressure and that they're in a position where they can do whatever they like. China, just like the rest of the world, relies very heavily on the rest of the world for many things. Countries need to be constantly applying oil (figuratively) to the joints of their relationships to keep their trade happening. The reality is that we're now in a global position (or very soon going to be) where if you removed one country from the world, the rest of the world would still get on just fine. If the world reduces trade with China and especially if it reduces investment in China, we're not going to see a global catastrophe. Actions like this do make a difference, even if you don't notice them straight away.

If this was a response to my post, which I think it is since I was the one who brought up the issue about the dependece between countries, well, I agree and never thought the opposite. All I said was that the West is economically very dependent on China - at the moment, that is. The CPC counts on it at the moment, but of course the situation may change.

I'm not sure what you mean when you use the term "world". The whole world or just the western world? Because yes, China is as dependent on the rest of the world as any other country, but it isn't nearly as dependent on the west as the west is dependent on China.
China could easily continue its economical growth even if the west sank to a recession or otherwise reduced its trade with China (e.g. for political reasons). There are three main reasons to this. First, China is a huge country: they've got great resources within their borders and nowadays their own internal market is also very competitive. Secondly, their currency reserves are very strong, over 1,000 billion USD (including Hong Kong and Taiwan: 1,500 billion USD). Their reserves are actually the biggest in the world. And even if the dollar kept sinking - that's still a lot of money. The third thing making China rather immune to the disorders of the international economy is the regulation of the financial markets.

Anyways, even if the western companies stopped investing to China because of the T***t issue and human rights violations (which is very unlikely going to happen as China is such an attracting market for them), it still leaves those countries with similar problems within their borders: Russia, Venezuela, Iran, Libya, etc. China is also presenting modern imperialism in many African developing countries: both the west and China are helping them out, but China doesn't ask any questions - that suits the not-very-democratic leaders of the countries. What I'm trying to say is that China still has friends after the west quit their trade with them.

So when you say

If the world reduces trade with China and especially if it reduces investment in China, we're not going to see a global catastrophe.

and presuming you meant "the west" with "the world", yeah, there probably won't be a global catastrophe. But nor will there be a serious catastrophe in China either.
Naturally the end of the trade with the west would mean some decrease in China's growth, but how much?

[Jeremy]

I think a much better question would be; what would be the difference in economic costs to China if it allowed Tibet to be independent or if it felt continued strong international pressure about Tibet; especially resulting in a loss of foreign investment in China?

[sniikeri]

I don't think Tibet is economically that valuable to China, it's probably the opposite. Authoritarian leaders just don't always do the rational decisions. Or if they did, they follow their own logic: which province will be the next one to want independence?
The CPC doesn't want to show any weaknesses - even if the rest of the world didn't take it as one, they're afraid their own people might.

[Jeremy]

As well as being a large agricultural area, helping to provide food to China in a time of rising food prices, there is this;

"In January of 2007, the Chinese government issued a report outlining the discovery of a large mineral deposit under the Tibetan Plateau. The deposit has an estimated value of $128 billion and may double Chinese reserves of zinc, copper, and lead. China sees this as a way to alleviate the country's dependence on foreign mineral imports necessary for its growing economy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet#Economy

[Jeremy]

Also interesting to note that the GDP of Tibet has grown from 5 billion Yaun in 1994 to 29 billion in 2006 and from 2000 to 2006 the economy grew at an average of 12% per year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Tibet

I think Tibet clearly has a lot of economic worth, and a lot of potential as well.

[sniikeri]

Okay then, what do you think would be the answer to this then;

what would be the difference in economic costs to China if it allowed Tibet to be independent or if it felt continued strong international pressure about Tibet; especially resulting in a loss of foreign investment in China?

Should China give Tibet independence or not? Which would benefit China more in your opinion? Because, honestly, I don't know the answer.

Also interesting to note that the GDP of Tibet has grown from 5 billion Yaun in 1994 to 29 billion in 2006 and from 2000 to 2006 the economy grew at an average of 12% per year.

This is one of the arguments the Chinese government often uses. Would the Tibetan economy have grown this much if it wasn't thanks to China?

I take some of my words back concerning the economic value Tibet has to China. Although, the "discovery of a large mineral deposit under the Tibetan Plateu" was discovered as late as in January of 2007, and China has been in Tibet since the 1950s. I believe during this period of time Tibet has cost China more than given any real economic benefit.

As well as being a large agricultural area, helping to provide food to China in a time of rising food prices

The Tibetan economy is dominated by subsistence agriculture. Due to limited arable land, livestock raising is the primary occupation mainly on the Tibetan Plateau, among them are sheep, cattle, goats, camels, yaks and horses. However, the main crops grown are barley, wheat, buckwheat, rye, potatoes and assorted fruits and vegetables.

Tibet may be a large area, where agriculture is the main source of livelihood, but I dare question it's anything close to being the "Granary of China".

[Jeremy]

Who are you quoting when you say; "granary of China?"

Anyway to answer your first point, it really depends on your perspective and the frame of reference.

If the question is, from a Chinese perspective, what is the best thing for China to do, then I'd say that it's clearly to wait as long as possible before granting independence to Tibet, if at all. I think that somebody with a very high paying job has already drawn up a graph that shows predictions of earnings from Tibet vs predicted costs and so long as China uses misinformation and political influence to keep the first line above the second, Tibet will stay part of China. As soon as the two lines meet, Tibet will be independent.

However if the question is what should China do from a completely objective point of view, or from a moral point of view, I think that's much harder to answer. I totally support people's right to control their own destiny, and as such, I'd totally support a move towards a democratic independent Tibetan state, if that's what the people of Tibet wanted. However given how Tibet was ruled prior to the Chinese invasion, and given the comments from their exiled leader, I have absolutely no confidence that that would happen and I also think the people of Tibet overall are much better off under Chinese rule than they were under the previous religious theocracy, and I think that's pretty clearly backed up by the changes in standings of livings. I understand why the people would prefer to be back under a theocracy, and no doubt if I grew up in Tibet I'd feel the same way. However given the advantage of an objective perspective, I'd rather not be a slave, than be one.

[Scott]

I was just about to submit my post and the browser crashed and I immediately thought I had been blocked..... I guess I'm starting to get paranoid. Luckily I saved what I had written so here it is...

US hegemony is the dumbest term ever.

Dan, you may be right but Jeremy is in pretty good company, the first time I heard this term was in a book by George Soros who's fairly well respected on world political matters amoung other things. I remember him also saying something like the US was the greatest threat to world peace, unfortunately I don't have the book with me to check.

I really don't think all the international pressure will have much of an impact on China. It seems that the Chinese government has made a lot of progress in opening up the country and allowing greater freedoms for it's citizens. I think what is needed is more encouragement rather than trying to put pressure on them and pushing them into a corner.

The only reaction to the protests I have seen so far is a large increase in displays of nationalism such as calls for boycotts of Carrefour (a french shopping centre chain) and the use of Love China on MSN names.

[sniikeri]

Who are you quoting when you say; "granary of China?"

I wasn't quoting anyone really, I used the term as in "the Ukraine was the granary of the USSR". I'm not sure if that's an international term (it's being used here though), but I hope you understand what I meant with it.
I just wanted to question what you wrote about Tibet helping to provide food to China (in a very exaggerated way of course, but I hoped you'd see the sarcasm in it). I believe Tibet can barely feed itself.