Why I Didn’t Cover About Tibet

Three weeks from what happened in Lhasa, Tibet. I didn’t post anything about it. Why?

As one rule I setup from the day one of this blog five years ago, I only want to post something I personal experience and I never post something that I know it is not true. For what happened in Lhasa, it does not match either of the criteria.

Personal Experience Matters

I am often criticized for not mentioning something that all media is talking about, but this blog is not a media. I want to add value by telling people what I, this person, see, and experience, instead of repeating what I read. I want to give facts, instead of opinions – especially opinions based on no-so-solid facts.

I Don’t Post Something I Know is Not Truth

What is going on in Lhasa, to be honest with you, I really don’t know. I watch TV everyday, and read news on Internet everyday, but I am still not sure what is happening there.

The last thing I believe is official news for situation like this. I believed in exactly 19 years ago, when I was just 12, but it turned out that it was not truth at all. The terms, and the way the official media broadcast it is very familiar to me – if I replace the city name with Beijing, it should be almost the same news many, many years ago.

I don’t believe in CNN and other media. I believed 19 years ago – at that time, we only have Voice of America. But it turned out that many of the news are biased, and very far from the truth. If the official media in China is intentionally “creating” an imagine, western media sometimes use the western angle to see something much more complicated than their knowledge can cover, like this one.

What I Need

What I need is just time. I want some time to understand the issue better, including a planned trip to Lhasa myself (I haven’t done it yet, although I have been to some Tibetan area). I want to be humble to learn first before I talk with big mouth, pretending I know something. I will definitely talk about it, when I get more information.

My Question on US Constitution

I am not a big fan of the government, but I am not as extreme as many “angry youth”. What I need is just a balanced view. Before I do my homework to research, I think I can add a little bit value by offering some insights about how people in China think about a “united country”.

Last Saturday, in the lobby of a hotel on Hengshan Road, I chatted with the delegation of the U.S.-China Relationship Working Group of the United States Congress. I asked one question that I always wanted to ask:

If one day, for whatever reason, the dominating majority of people in a U.S. State, say, California, or Texas, decide that they would rather be an independent country, can they do that? If they can, what is the process? If they don’t have the right, why?

The reason I asked this question is, after hours of study of the U.S. Consitutation, I had the impression that it is allowed, since the Constitution seemed to specify how a State can join the Union, and how to depart from it. Correct me if I am wrong, since to pretend I know U.S. Constitution, or I am a researcher in this field is deadly wrong.

My question behind it is, in a country like U.S. who claim to respect everyone’s freedom, and their choice, shall the “country” honor the request for being independent? If the answer is no, my third question is, who grant the right to the “country”, to reject the will of the people of the land? I think no one in the country can answer my question better than people from the Congress.

The Price of being United in US – a War

Well. It seemed to be a tough question. Someone (respectfully removed his name) told me:

This is the question presented to the Federal during the civil war, and the question was solved using a war.

I assume it means “Before that war, the answer is Yes, and after that, the answer for my question is No.

We continued to discuss about the impact of the War to the States. This echoes to a piece I happen to watch in recent movie: National Treasure: Book of Secrets. In the film, there is a saying:

Before Lincoln, we use the sentence “United States are ….”, and after the war, we start to use “United States is

I was pretty impressed by the feeling of being a “united” country by Americans, and I respect it lot. As the gentleman said, American paid the price of a war to keep united in 1860s. That price is the lives of 600,000 people.

The Price of being United in China – Thousands Wars?

Regarding to Chinese history, what is the price of being a united country? A war? Hundreds of Wars? Even Thousands of Wars is a understatement. I can easily list 20 wars (I really did) that cost more people’s lives than US civil war, just to keep the country united.

China was a united country since the Qin dynasty in 221 BC, and in the next 2000 years, imagine how many attempts by different part of the country, or from outside the country, to try to seperate the country. Although there is no solid proove that a united country is more meaningful than thousands of millions of people’s life, the tradition of being united has been firmly ironed into the mind of every Chinese – we never thought of a country that is not united. The very unique history of China created a group of very unique people, and they think, from the western’s point of view, “differently” than many of them.

I didn’t expect people in U.S. also treasure united so much before I heard the “war as the price of being united” statement, then I suddenly understand why people in China want united so badly – it is because of history, including wars.

Again, don’t be hurry to give me evidence about Tibet, or even Taiwan – I read a lot about it, although may not as knowledgeable as my readers, my point is, it is important to take it as an important background knowledge that vast majority of people on this land believe China should be a united country.

So Tell Me about What You Know

If you have solid experience (please, not something you read, or hear), please feel free to share. I am humble and opened my ears. I want to learn more about it. I always take reading comments as an educational experience for me, so I see many perspectives, and start to form mine.

53 thoughts on “Why I Didn’t Cover About Tibet

  1. Jianshuo,

    Just one quick comment: You wrote: “I want to give facts, instead of oppinions – especially oppions based on no-so-solid facts.” This is a great commitment. Unfortunately, journalism nowadays is gradually shifting from reporting of facts to expression of opinions. By stating opinions rather than facts you’re less exposed to legal action, though you’re of course still not entirely safe.

    In a thread on another topic in this forum, there currently seems to be a small argument on whether ungrounded opinions and less-than-rock-solid facts should be allowed to be posted. This is worth debating. For sure, correct facts are more valuable than opinions, but we can’t expect all posters to be omnisicient. I personally believe that opinions are also a positive contribution to this blog, and sometimes opinions prompt you to look for facts in a certain area. And pls let’s not forget: This blog is kept alive through discussions, and once a discussion starts, you can’t shut out opinions anymore.

  2. @DB, sure, we cannot be over-precious on facts – even the language we are using are not precious, so we have to tolerate the limit of information. Just for this matter, I really have no idea of what is going on – pretty confused now, not because I don’t have information, just because I have too many versions of conflicting information.

    It is just like only people with one watch can tell you with confidence about the exact time. For those who have two or more watches, they can only tell you approximate time – no two watch in this world reports exactly the same time.

  3. Pretty unusual comments coming from you JS, not knowing the “truth” never stopped you from sharing your opinions before.

    I understand your unwillingness to rely on the “news” from either sides. I had mentioned this before in the debate on Myanmar. The truth is likely to be somewhere between. Each side has it’s own agenda. But the fact remains that Tibet has always been a part of China barring a short period of colonization by the British, a fact the west is unwilling to accept. It is also a fact that it was a rather backward place bounded by slavery up until the introduction of the communist ideal. Now I am not saying that the system was perfect, but it nevertheless made a huge qualitative difference in the lives of the Tibetians.

    The fact that the Dalai Lama was supported by the CIA is no longer in dispute, so the position of the pieces on the chessboard is very clear.

    Yes, there should be freedom. But at a pace dictated by China alone and definately not some foreign politicians influenced by the news networks threatening to boycott the Olympics.

    Randolph Hearst types are still all over the place. FYI check out Murdoch.

    I am not a big fan of the “party” but I am quite flabbergasted by their constant need to pacify everyone just to save face for the Olympics.

    We are always talking about China standing up. Why are we always apologising for standing up ?? First Myanmar, then Congo, now Tibet,…whats next ?? As far as I am concerned, the invitations have already been sent out and tables set. It’s ok is you choose not to turn up. But insulting the host is simply bad manners and comparing the Beijing Olympics with the Berlin Olympics is absolutely ridiculous.

  4. Nobody ever seems to talk about Mongolia when talking about a united China. I believe people in China don’t care about Mongolia because the CCP doesn’t call it an “inalienable part of China”. But since the CCP calls Taiwan and Tibet “inalienable”, everybody gets all patriotic and calls those places inalienable and forgets the fact that Mongolia was once part of China too, but was given independence. So my belief is that Chinese people’s desire for a united China has very little to do with history, but more to do with national pride guided by the CCP. (Ok I’ll just say the ugly word – propaganda. Nothing to be ashamed about. Every nation uses it.)

    BTW, I lumped Taiwan and Tibet together above but I understand that their situations are totally different. One of them has been self-governed with remarkable success for half a century. The other, well, hasn’t.

  5. There is precedent for conquered groups within the U.S. splitting from the country, in that Native American reservations are given political autonomy.

    States are also (in theory) given broad autonomy under the 9th Amendment.

  6. Wang Jianshuo,

    Even before the US Civil War, there were some secessionist movements here in the US: Massachusetts in 1803, Florida in 1810, the New England cluster of states in 1814, South Carolina in 1832. In response to the South Carolina attempt, President Andrew Jackson proposed a “doctrine” (not an actual law but a working principle usually set forth by the executive branch of government) that no state can secede from the union “because each secession destroys the unity of a nation.” This was reinforced by President Abraham Lincoln’s doctrine declaring that no state may leave the union without the approval of the other states. To my (limited) knowledge these generally accepted “working doctrines” are the basis for maintaining the US union; there is not an explicit law in the US Constitution prohibiting secession. The spirit of the agreement to remain united is related to the family as a model for the state (a very Chinese concept): that loyalty, fidelity, cooperation, mutual protection are fundamental to human civilization and that disolving relationships that promote these advantages should not be done hastily or for selfish reasons.

    I hope someone wiser and more knowledgable than I will respond to your important and interesting request for information.


  7. One of the Tibetan complaints that I have heard is that so many Han Chinese now live in Tibet that they have “taken over” . If there are large numbers of Han living in Tibet, any vote to secede is likely to fail. Anyone know the population statistics and how they might have changed from, say the 19th and 20th centuries?

    Almost all the Tibetans living in the U.S. come from India, have never been to Tibet, and many of them are the ones who want Tibet to secede. It is likely that many Tibetans in Tibet, like disadvantaged minority groups in many countries, just want better treatment not a whole new country.

  8. Good post.

    Re: Hypothetical independence for California.

    Being from Canada, it’s natural to compare it to Quebec separation:

    “The 1995 Quebec referendum was the second referendum (the first was in 1980) to ask voters in the Canadian province of Quebec whether Quebec should secede from Canada and become an independent state, through the question “Do you agree that Québec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Québec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?”.

    The referendum took place in Quebec on October 30, 1995, and the motion to decide whether Quebec should secede from Canada was defeated by an extremely small margin: 50.58% “No” to 49.42% “Yes”.” —wikipedia

    Personally, as I’m from another province in Canada, I’d be sad to see Quebec separate.

    But I’d be even more sad if they were forced to remain a part of Canada if the majority voted for independence.

    Similarly, in 1949 my province (Newfoundland) voted 51% to 49% in favor of joining Canada.

    How can I not give Quebecers that same right to choose their own destiny?

  9. Dear Jian Shuo Wang,

    I’m an American who used to be one of the “Free Tibet” supporters, but I left the movement due to my anger about the hypocrisy among so many people in the pro-Tibetan movement. They criticize China for the situation in Tibet, while they ignore the far worse crimes of e.g. the British and Americans in North America– where almost the entire indigenous native American population was wiped out by the British settlers, and where the US Southwestern states were stolen in a bloody war against Mexico in 1848 (and where Latinos are again becoming the majority), where places such as Hawaii and Puerto Rico were seized without the consent of the natives. Since California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and other neighboring states will soon have a Latino majority, and since the USA took them in the Mexican-American War, should we let them secede as a new country now as a result? Or the Hawaiians? Same with e.g. the British and Australians in Australia, where the indigenous aborigines were brutally slaughtered, or in New Zealand, which was taken from the indigenous Maoris. And yet, my pro-Tibetan friends hypocritically ignore this history in a bid to attack China.

    Don’t yield an inch on the Tibet issue. Try to be nonviolent, and address issues in the region by for example, encouraging entrepreneurs from other places in China to move in and start businesses in Tibet, which will employ Tibetans and better integrate the Tibetan economy with the rest of China. Also, increase educational opportunities and provide Mandarin language instruction for Tibetans to better join the rest of the economy. Much of the unrest in Tibet has been fomented by troublemakers from outside of Tibet (including a Canadian-American group that is more anti-Chinese than pro-Tibetan), but to the extent that there is frustration there, best to solve it by better joining the Tibet economy with the rest of China to share in the prosperity. Same with Xinjiang– integrate the Uighurs better into the overall Chinese economy to share in the prosperity, encourage Chinese from all over to go to Xinjiang, and provide more Mandarin-language instruction to increase job prospects there.

  10. One more thing to mention here, and this is very important, so please keep it in mind: For a large number (perhaps the majority) of the people in the “Free Tibet” movement, their pro-Tibetan stance has nothing to do with human rights, but instead has everything to do with Great Power Geopolitics and Realpolitik– where the aim is to weaken and ultimately break up China, so that China cannot be a strong power. I encountered this attitude in many of the pro-Tibet meetings I attended, and it made me so angry that it became one of the factors pushing me to leave the movement myself.

    Again: A major motivator for the pro-Tibet movement now is not “human rights,” but instead is a desire by many Americans, Canadians, Britons and Australians to break up China into a weak power by pushing Tibet and Xinjiang to leave, leading to a state of civil war, so that China can then be invaded and occupied by US, Canadian and British troops and (as a result) US multinational companies. They want to turn you into Iraq.

    The reality is, there are many powerful people in the USA, Canada and Britain especially, who intensely hate China and want to make you into a weak country. These people are the so-called “neoconservatives” or “neocons” as they’re called for short. They are essentially Anglo-American imperialists, just like the British and French in the 19th century who fought the Opium Wars against China, and burned down the Chinese Imperial Gardens in 1860. The neocons remain bitter about the fact that China defeated the British and Americans in 1950 at the Yalu River, with the Anglo-American powers never being able to avenge that loss, and so the neocons continue to hate China as a result. The neocons are major leaders in the “Free Tibet” movement, an example being Anne Applebaum of the Washington Post: http://www.slate.com/id/2186753/

    Her views have nothing to do with helping Tibetans, and everything to do with hurting China.

    It is the neocons who are responsible for the American-British-Australian disaster of the Iraq War, and I and most other Americans hate the neoconservatives because of it. As you can see from Anne Applebaum’s article above, the neocons support secession of Tibet and Xinjiang because they see it as a way to weaken China, and thus turn China into a defenseless nation that can be invaded and occupied by the USA and US allies. That’s what so much of this pro-Tibet propaganda in the US, Canada and Britain is about– not helping Tibetans, but weakening China instead. The neocons don’t care about human rights at all– after all, they supported the bloody invasions and occupations of both Iraq and Afghanistan, that have killed millions of people. Rather, the neocons care about power for the USA, Canada and Britain, and since they see China as a potential rival, they want to attack you because of it.

    My advice to you in China to fight against the neocons who hate you and want to weaken you:

    1. You must, ***absolutely must*** ensure a long-term, large and stable Han majority in Tibet and Xinjiang, as well as the rest of China. Inner Mongolia now has about 80% or so Han population, which has stopped unrest there. The same must be true for Tibet and Xinjiang. So long as these geographical regions are associated with a majority of one ethnic group (Tibetans, or Uighurs in Xinjiang), they will always be a security threat for your country. That’s because the neocons in the USA, will constantly instigate “freedom movements” for Tibet and Xinjiang like this, encourage protests and riots in those provinces, and write propaganda articles in the US, British and Canadian press, claiming “atrocities” by the Chinese and encouraging these regions’ secession. The neocons will constantly be encouraging trouble and unrest in these regions until there’s a strong Han majority there, mingling and working together with the Uighurs and Tibetans, and with these regions economically benefiting along with the rest of China.

    The danger is that, if there were a Tibetan majority in Tibet and/or a Uighur majority in Xinjiang, then these regions ***would*** attempt to secede, whenever China had a period of temporary weakness or economic crisis– such a recession, high inflation, poor harvests or anything else causing turmoil. This would lead to a civil war in China, because the neocons in the USA, Canada and the UK would be fomenting “revolution” in Tibet and Xinjiang, providing weapons, spreading propaganda and doing other things to push a civil war to weaken China. Make no mistake– you have enemies in the USA, Canada and Britain especially, i.e. the neoconservatives, who would just love to see China violently break up in a civil war, ***even though this would be horrible for Tibetans and Uighurs*** as well as Han Chinese! Once again, the neocons don’t care about human rights– they care only about power, and weakening China.

    On the other hand, if there is a Han majority throughout China including in Tibet and Xinjiang, then these regions would be more stable and calm during any period of economic crisis, recession, or turmoil throughout China. There wouldn’t be violence, and no danger of the neocons fomenting a civil war there. It’s even better if the Han Chinese intermarry and mingle with the Tibetans and Uighurs, and especially if Tibet and Xinjiang are better integrated with the rest of China, sharing in the country’s economic growth.

    2. Thus, you should strongly encourage Han immigration into both Xinjiang and Tibet through those rail lines among other means, while also encouraging Tibetans and Uighurs to leave Xinjiang and Tibet and prosper throughout China, not just in Tibet and Xinjiang. Encourage intermarriage among the different groups and some degree of assimilation, spread education in the Mandarin Chinese language (which is essential for economic success anyway) while allowing for Tibetan and Uighur cultural celebrations throughout China, not just in Tibet and Xinjiang. Maybe make an exception to the One Child Policy for Han Chinese who move there– thus, for Han in Tibet and Xinjiang, allow them to have their desired family size, since these regions need development anyway.

    Also, of course, encourage Han entrepreneurs to set up businesses and employ Tibetans and Uighurs in Tibet and Xinjiang. Simultaneously provide microcredit and loans to help Tibetans and Uighurs start their own businesses.

    The overall objective here, is to make Tibetans and Uighurs feel more like respected citizens of China, as more Chinese than Tibetan/Uighur (even as they maintain some degree of their prior cultural heritage), to provide them with educational and economic opportunities throughout China. In other words, the best way to address any tensions among the Tibetan and Uighur peoples is *absolutely not to encourage ethnic separateness*, but to instead encourage intermarriage and opportunities in education and business. This is why a country like Brazil, for example, is able to stay unified despite dozens of ethnic groups– they intermarry, and people are focused on improving themselves in education and business, rather than ethnic grievances.

    As an added benefit, when Tibet and Xinjiang are secure, then China won’t have to worry so much about meddling and hateful outsiders such as the neocons, stirring up trouble within China. You can therefore proceed more confidently toward various reforms– such as better intellectual property protections, a freer press, more open intellectual discussions (in areas like the sciences, which will help to increase the number of Nobel Laureates among the Chinese and the quality of Chinese universities!). You’ll then attract more business from the outside, while also attracting more intelligent people from other countries to work in China, especially if environmental reforms go with these other benefits. As for Tibetans and Uighurs, my sense is that once Tibet and Xinjiang are secure, then Uighur and Tibetan culture will actually flourish ***much better***, since there won’t be any political/geographical threat to China’s integrity, and cultural celebrations can happen throughout China. Plus, you won’t have to worry about further unrest and bad press for China as a result!

    3. In terms of China’s “geostrategic orientation,” I would encourage you to diversify, to be less US-centric in your education and business relations but to cultivate closer ties with other powers, such as Russia, India and especially the European Union.

    Just as one example, I would strongly encourage Chinese schools to promote mastery of a greater variety of foreign languages– such as Spanish, Russian, Hindi, Japanese and ***especially German***– rather than just English. I was talking to a Chinese colleague recently who told me that all Chinese students must take English courses, while other languages are optional. This makes no sense to me, even as an English-speaking American! It would be much better to diversify the languages that your students master, so that you can better do business with a broader section of the world– not just English-speaking countries, but *especially* the German regions, Japanese, Russian, French, Spanish, Portuguese and Hindi.

    For those of us who work in engineering and the sciences, we essentially have to learn German anyway, since the Germans are the leaders of the European Union and still are pretty much the best scientists and technical people in the world, as has been the case for about two centuries now. So German is now a big scientific and business language again. As an added bonus, I have been in Germany on several occasions for work, and I can tell you that the Germans are probably the most pro-Chinese people in the Western World. The Germans, after all, were among the few Europeans who did not try to attack China during the Opium Wars period, or force an “Unequal Treaty” onto China, and so the Germans have long had more respect for China, India, Korea, Vietnam and Japan than the British, French and Americans, who either attacked these Asian countries or in some cases set up colonies there (as the British did in much of India).

    Thus, the Germans are much more comfortable with the 21st century as one led by countries such as China and India, than are the USA, Britain, Canada and Australia. Since Germany, again, leads the European Union– a bigger economic bloc than the USA– German is already becoming very important all throughout Europe and even North America and South America. So, I’d strongly suggest that Chinese schools and universities drop the mandatory English requirement, and instead encourage Chinese students to master a variety of languages. In fact, it might be beneficial to focus more on German in particular– write some scientific papers and technical journals in German, give talks in German, do business in German, get professional training in the language and so forth. Obviously English will still be very important, but this way, your students will diversify and be strong in a broader array of languages. I’d also strongly suggest Arabic, Hindi, Spanish, Portuguese, French, Japanese, Korean and Russian as “encouraged electives” for Chinese students to study.

    I want nothing more than to see China succeed– and for Tibetans and Uighurs to succeed as China succeeds– since this, once and for all, will shut down the dangerous neocon movement. I hope that these suggestions will help you to do that.

  11. Ensuring a Han majority will not solve the unrest. It will only cause futher resentment by the local population. In fact, it may be the interference by “officials” seen as representing solely the interest of the party, that cause the unrest the first place. The party’s disdain for anything remotely religious is clear. Making atheists our of everyone will not help.

    The displacement felt by the Tibetians may not be that different from the alienation felt by the indigenous peoples of America and Australia. Any development must be through serious and honest consultation with the natives of the land. Simply bringing along commerce is not enough. Some kind of dialogue has to be established with the leaders of the community. If they are the monks, so be it. More respect should be accorded to them than the silly cadaver on the square.

    I am all for autonomy, not for seccession. Those advocating for an independant Tibet don’t know what they are asking for. This is not what caused the unrest the first place.

  12. @wonton – I’ve purposely not been stating my opinion on this subject – it’s not for me to say.

    However – congratulations on your post!! It is the most sensible one I’ve read on this topic yet.

  13. As a Hong Kong girl living in Australia, i would really like to see peace between China and Tibet. i just wish i could help.

    This issue is similar to the Australians and the Australian Aboriginals. At university i do a unit call Health and Society and i learn alot about how the Aust. Aboriginals are seriously disadvantaged physically, socially and emotionally compared to the non- aboriginals. This is why I ( and many other Australians) have applauded our Prime Minister Kevin Rodd for saying sorry to the Aboriginal people (stolen generation) after so many years of marginalization.

    I believe the bottom line is that the Tibetians feel oppressed and disrepected. I agree with Horace, if China could economically and socially improve Tibet, then one day, they wouldn’t mind being a part of China. The Tibetians, like everyone else just want to be accepted, be prosperous and to be cared for.

    I know this because Hong Kong used to be under the rule of the United Kingdom. The UK develped Hong Kong pretty well and nobody was complaining much.

    Hope this issue would end soon and hope the Olympic games could unite not just China and Tibet, but the world.

  14. I appreciate the viewpoint by the gentleman (? Horace, I mean) for disclosing the inside of this “free tibet” movement. Here in the Bay Area, there is lots of controversy over the Olympic Torch Relay arriving at San Francisco the coming Wednesday. Local media has publisized the so-called “free tibet torch” (some 3000 tibetans) scheduled to get here Tuesday. I hope both pros and cons will have a chance to read your comment. What the protests did in London and will probably do in SF is a shame on/crime by the anti-China Tibetan communities. Boycotting the Olympics has never been effective.

  15. @DKwan : Basically the Mongolians broke away during the tail end of the Qing dynasty, when China was in a mess, by first getting the help of the Russian Tsar. Unfortunately it’s did’nt work out too well and he got buried in a swamp along with his familyand some bullets.

    It was retaken by the chinese for a short while before they again got help from the north but this time Stalin. Well, they stayed a vassal of the soviets from 1925 up to it’s collapse in 1996. The russians got it’s buffer between China by screwing both the Mongolians and China.

    Yes, it was a part of China, a part we were unable to hold on to. Life is like that, you don’t ask for your child back after it is given away for adoption. You say good luck and have a great life.

    With regards to Tibet and Taiwan, we have NEVER given way. Grouping them together with Mongolia shows that you don’t even understand the situation.

    What is the big deal with the P word ?? why is it ONLY a problem when communist establishments use it ?? Do check out your own country’s history with the P-word before checking out ours.

  16. What is so terrible about loving your own country and preventing it from fracturing into little pieces ??

  17. Why western countries sided with Tibetan at this conflict in Lhasa? I don’t know!

    Does Dalai Lama has the magic touch? I don’t know either!

    When the conflict happened in Lhasa, I was in Hawaii reading the news.

    Looking at the history of Hawaii, it was the US who annexed the island kingdom and overthrow the monarchy about hundred years ago.

    No reports of the local Polynesian stood up to fight the US army to revive the monarchy.

    Did US government gave special treatments to the islanders such as one country, two systems or waive the federal tex? No such thing!

    Did US government outlaw the former ruler of the Kingdom? I saw fresh flowers placed at the statue of the former King every day!

    Are the islanders are proud American? I can’t see otherwise!

    I was told many islanders join the US military and there is a four stars Hawaiian Army General.

    President Clinton even apologized to the islanders for the overthrow of the Hawaii Kingdom.

    Why Tibet and Hawaii have two different outcomes, I shall let the ruling party to answer this question!

  18. @wonton: You’re very impolite.

    1. Taiwan was never given away? Before you accuse anyone of not understanding the situation, make sure you yourself understand it.

    2. Read my post again – I said every nation uses propaganda.

    Don’t be so sensitive. And don’t be so quick to insult people in a friendly discussion.

  19. I believe that the Summer Olympics are being ruined by all these protests and demonstrations.

  20. 火炬传递时,留学生在法国的真实见闻:







      火炬过后,留学生开始往下个点(radio france)进发,一路上不断的有同胞加入,只要是中国人,看到了就加入我们的队伍,我们一路发国旗,一路往前走。我们沿着塞纳河走,桥上的人看见我们,就发嘘声,喊着葬毒的口号,时不时的有举着反奥运和支持葬毒的牌子的人从我们对面走过,我们就对着他叫”北京,加油!北京,加油!”























  22. Just to clarify things here, I want to repeat my main point, since I admittedly buried it above:

    China must stay strong on the Tibet and Xinjiang issues and must absolutely ensure their economic, demographic, cultural and educational integration with the rest of China, because *it does not matter how just or fair you actually are in Tibet, the neocon propagandists in the West will attack you in Western media anyway and make China look bad*.

    Again, my chief objective in contributing to this forum is to give you, in China, the reality about the inside of the Free Tibet movement as someone who saw that ugly reality. (The same goes for the Free Xinjiang movement– obviously, we collaborated a lot.) There were some of us who were sincere about human rights for all Chinese– Tibetan, Uighur and Han alike– but the Tibet movement has been increasingly taken over by neocon neo-imperialists who hate China far more than they want to help Tibet.

    These neocons’ one and only aim is to provoke a massive civil war and the breaking-off of Tibet and Xinjiang from China, with hundreds of millions of deaths, a weak China and a consequent US-European occupation, with access to all of China’s resources, even worse than the Opium Wars. It’s about power and Western imperialism, not human rights.

    When I emphasized the need for a vast Han majority (90+%) in Tibet and Xinjiang, and intensive efforts to promote Mandarin-language education, intermarriage, assimilation and harmony among the groups, again I want to emphasize, my reasons are based on the practical realities of what I’ve seen in the Free Tibet movement:

    Until both Tibet and Xinjiang are fully secure and integrated within China, without riots and without a restless ethnic minority (predominant in the region) even considering secession, there will *never, ever* be peace in China, and China will continue to suffer from the worldwide propaganda aimed against it.

    I learned myself once, years ago when I ultimately left the Free Tibet movement, that the accusations of the neocons in charge of the movement were false. I learned that China has indeed been making efforts to accommodate the Tibetans, giving them an exception on the One Child Policy, encouraging Tibetan cultural celebrations and so forth. I am not at all trying to discourage fair policy to Tibet, obviously in the interests of human rights, I am glad to see the Tibetans overall treated quite well, and I hope it continues.

    I am just telling you the reality of the neocons’ plans against you– all your good efforts and fairness toward the Tibetans will do you little good among the Western public, because the neocons control the media here in the USA, Britain and much of Europe, and they will continue to launch anti-Chinese propaganda against you, portray you as oppressors, no matter how much good you do for the Tibetan people. The American, British, Australian and European publics have a short attention span– they won’t know of your fair policies in Tibet, they will know only the anti-Chinese propaganda. Obviously, you **should** work hard to defend your Tibet record (and discuss your efforts to treat the Tibetans well) to national leaders such as Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel and Donald Tusk in Europe, and use this as a way to defend yourselves and encourage them to show for the Olympics.

    But the reality is that in the West, ***appearances and perceptions in the media often count far more than realities*** among the general public. And no matter what level of good you do in Tibet, the neocon propagandists will always attack you with the “evil China” theme in the media.

    And as long as ***the geographical regions of Tibet and Xinjiang*** have a majority (or even a large minority) of Tibetans and Uighurs, the neocons in the USA, Britain, Australia and Europe will continue to foment riots and civil unrest, since this subsequently gives them the opportunity to humiliate China further with their propaganda, and encourage secession movements.

    To give you an analogy– the entire US Southwest, California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, was once a part of Mexico, until the USA invaded Mexico in 1846 and violently seized the region. In the decades after the war, there was much civil unrest, guerrilla fighting and attempts to resist US annexation, and either return to some kind of Mexican rule or be independent. This changed ***only with demographics*** when “Anglos” became the majority instead of Latinos– Spanish was banned as a public language, all education and business was in English, and finally the civil unrest subsided and the region became secure. Even the Latinos who stayed, were forbidden from using Spanish– they were forced to use English in schools, and thus as adults, they became “Americans” rather than “Chicanos.”

    I’m not saying I’m happy about this– I have many Latino friends, and I admire the Spanish language and Latino culture– I’m just saying, it was only the demographic shift that secured California and the rest of the Southwest within the USA. Now, of course, demographics are changing again, and Latinos (and native Americans) are once again becoming the majority in Southwestern states. So now, Latino culture is again dominating the region, and predictably, there’s ethnic tension. I personally don’t mind, since I’m furious at so much Western hypocrisy and glad to see the Latinos flourish as a people again.

    All I’m saying is– demographics and economic integration, above all else, determine if a region is peaceful, or if it is full of tension. China will not survive as a unified nation, if the demographics of Tibet and Xinjiang are such that they remain Han minority. Because as I said, you can continue to pursue fair and just policies in Tibet and Xinjiang for the Tibetan and Uighur peoples, and it won’t matter– the neocons will still launch massive anti-Chinese propaganda against you as “oppressors” in Tibet and Xinjiang, and will continue to incite riots and civil unrest by the Tibetan and Uighur peoples.

    And if the Tibetans are not assimilated within China, if they don’t “consider themselves Chinese” but instead a separate people, and above all– if they are *a demographic majority* in *the geographic regions* of Tibet and Xinjiang, then the neocons will take advantage of this and continue to foment riots and violence in Tibet and Xinjiang against you, and continue to give China a negative image in the West. And as soon as China experiences a moment of weakness– such as an economic recession, or food shortages of things like rice– then the neocons will push for an all-out rebellion in Tibet and Xinjiang and cause great damage to you. Make no mistake, the neocons hate you almost to a racist degree, and will stop at nothing to hurt China.

  23. 各大高校BBS热贴:


















































    当时的”世界霸主”美国组织并亲自指挥的15个国家的军队硬是在伤亡 40万人(其中美国
























































    克尔扬言再次会见达赖”、”佩洛西主导美国众议院通过关于西藏局势的议案” •

    •••••• •统统见鬼去吧!把希望寄托在别


























































































































    立了吐蕃王朝,定都拉萨。 松赞干布在位期间,吸取唐朝的先进生产技术和政治文化成果

















       英文”Tibet”一词,可能源于突厥人和蒙古人称藏族为”土伯特”,在元代经阿






  24. Historically Tibet has always been part of China.

    Interestingly, according to the same ‘neocons’, Israel has more of a right to Palestine (1948) than China who allegedly ‘occupied’ Tibet in 1949.

    I am waiting to see if Mia Farrow will throw her ‘considerable’ weight behind the Palestinians. Like she persuaded her Jewish friend Steven Spielberg to pull out of the Olympics preparation over China’s role in Darfur, I wonder if she would also persuade him to boycott Israel in some manner. I remain always hopeful.

  25. One other thing to clarify–

    When I was emphasizing that China should diversify its foreign language education (to provide a more equal emphasis on German, English, Spanish, Japanese, Hindi, Korean and so forth, rather than having mandatory English), the main reason for this is seeking *balance of power* in the West.

    Obviously, there are other reasons– such as Germany’s economic strength and high-tech talent in the EU, Japanese and Korean technical prowess, Hindi’s cultural cachet and the widespread use of Spanish and Portuguese. Ensuring that Chinese students have expertise in a broader variety of languages, and not just English, increases your ability to defend China directly in the media of these nations, while also increasing your ability to do business and innovate technologically with these nations, especially upon mastering other big scientific languages like German and Japanese.

    But the other reason: The neocons’ anti-Chinese power base is in English-speaking countries such as the UK, Canada, the USA and Australia, and so long as there is an “English-language consensus” (i.e., “English as the international language of the West”), then the neocon-dominated, anti-Chinese media will continue to be the chief information source throughout Western countries. The English language news is translated into e.g. French, German, Spanish and other languages, and since the original source of this news so frequently has an anti-Chinese bias, this same bias is passed onto other languages, and an “anti-Chinese bloc” thereby arises and solidifies in the West.

    Obviously English should still be **one of the important languages** that Chinese students study– I’m just advising that you diversify to other big languages like Spanish, Japanese, German, Russian, French and Arabic.

    Try to publish your scientific and technical papers increasingly in Chinese of course (with pinyin transliteration as needed) and encourage Mandarin as an international language throughout the world. But when it comes to communications to the outside world, diversify the languages that you choose.

    English should be “nothing special”, just one of many Western languages used for communication. I’ve noticed that India for example, and Arab countries, are already doing this– diversifying the languages of communication that they use. Many dispatches are of course in English, but increasingly, technical papers and sophisticated publications are produced in languages such as German, Spanish, Portuguese, Hindi and Arabic.

    As I’ll explain below, if anything it’s increasingly looking like Portuguese (and Spanish to a degree) might offer a lot of advantages as a “big Western language” as opposed to English or even German, and not just because of the strength of Brazil, where Portuguese is the main language: It really seems that Brazilians and Portuguese-speakers lately have been the fairest-minded toward China in the midst of this Olympics mess.

    If China does this as well, then English loses the “information privilege” that allows the neocon-dominated English-language media to dominate Western thought. In fact, because Chinese is so widely spoken, this will also help to accelerate the day when Mandarin becomes the global language. It’s the old idea of achieving victory, by throwing your opponents off balance and keeping their eyes on each other, rather than unifying against you. Rather than giving English the extraordinary privilege of being “the Western language,” just make it one of many which you use to communicate with the West. (Portuguese– with Brazil’s rise– Spanish and German especially are overtaking it already in many spheres as “the big Western language.”)

    As I said, the views in many of these countries also tend to be more fair-minded toward China: I’ll correct my statement earlier and say that Brazilians and Portuguese-speakers in general, in my experience, tend to be the most pro-Chinese in the Western world. German-speakers and Spanish-speakers too, although based on overall reactions to this torch mess, both based on polls and anecdotal observations (I can speak Spanish and Portuguese), it seems that the Brazilians and Latin Americans (Portuguese-speakers especially, and Spanish-speakers as well) have been the ones to most staunchly defend China against the propaganda.

    Obviously, the sooner that Mandarin Chinese becomes the main global language, the better for you, since you can more easily defend your side of the story. Trust me, this is already happening– schools in South America, Germany and Eastern Europe in particular are increasingly emphasizing Chinese, as are Australian and even USA schools– and people all around me want to learn Chinese.

    As a suggestion, you might accelerate the process of Mandarin Chinese “going global,” by facilitating software and other tools to publish in Chinese, using both the Romanized pinyin and the Chinese characters.

    I’ve found among a large number of my friends, that they more rapidly embrace Chinese and try to learn the language, when they can start learning grammar and vocabulary in pinyin.

    Even more so if they can convert Chinese characters in documents to pinyin– if anything, pinyin Chinese documents represent one of the easiest languages in the world to learn (due to easy grammar and vocabulary), and I already know of some engineers and scientists in Europe and the USA who want to publish high-level scientific papers in Chinese. Many want to start with pinyin if possible while learning the language.

    Obviously, everyone here does intend to eventually become fully proficient in the Chinese characters as well, it’s just that pinyin can help as a “bridge” for Chinese as an international language by making the introduction a little less intimidating for people not used to the characters. Once people are able to communicate in the pinyin well, then they feel more comfortable gradually mastering the Chinese characters as well. It’s a practical matter, that’s all.

  26. Stephen, FYI there is a *very strong* Hawaiian independence movement in the USA. It’s one of our strongest secession movements, right alongside some native American secession drives and the aim of a Latino state in the Southwest. One of their Websites:


    another one: http://www.hawaii-nation.org/

    The native Hawaiians have never, ever accepted US annexation and rule. The USA militarily occupied Hawaii in the 1870’s, and the Hawaiians were deprived of independence. They fought very hard to stay independent, as did the Filipinos.

    What happened in Hawaii, once again, is simple demographics– the Hawaiians became outnumbered by non-Hawaiians in the islands by early in the 20th century. Hawaiians were forbidden the right to do business or educate themselves in the Hawaiian language, and even where this right wasn’t expressly forbidden, English became “the only route to economic survival” in Hawaii, so native Hawaiians just stopped passing on the Hawaiian language to their kids.

    The result of this was simple– with the Hawaiian independence movement weakened due to demographics and cultural changes, native Hawaiians increasingly came to identify more as “Americans” and less as “Hawaiians.” That’s why you see this effect in Hawaii.

    Now, of course, the situation is changing again. The Anglo birth rate has plummeted in Hawaii, and many of the islands (especially outside of Oahu) are starting to get a Hawaiian/Samoan majority again. So the Hawaiian independence movement has been revived.

    It’s demographics, simple as that.

  27. @Jianshuo, do you think that all these protests are only pushing the mainstream Chinese people on to the side of the Chinese government, and promote even stronger nationalist feelings?

    I will be the first to admit my knowledge of the Tibetan issue is very limited. But I’m so absolutely fustrated with all these pro-Tibetan protests thats going on with the olympic torch relay. Certainly people should have right to speak up for their cause, but I just wonder how many of them in the movement actually have a clue about the history and the current situation in Tibet. How many of them are doing it because it is the “cool” cause of the moment?

    While I do not have faith in the Chinese media coverage, the western media coverage on this issue have also been pretty biased. They are focusing on the protesters without even mentioning the large amoung of people that came out to show support for the Beijing Olympics. Sometime it seems that if the western media had their way, we would all think the whole world is against the Beijing Olympics. I certainly hope the Chinese people know that is not the case.

  28. @Du,

    You wonder why the French are so ill informed about Tibet? Just read the drivel that comes out the French organization Reporters Without Borders!

    Look at its setup and where it gets its funding from. North America and European governments and get this…. Taiwan Foundation for Democracy, a quasi government body! Impartiality? No way!

    The current French President himself works the media like never before, having close friends who own most of the major media. Tibet is soup of the day, perfect for stirring controversy and increasing readership.

  29. “The current French President himself works the media like never before, having close friends who own most of the major media. Tibet is soup of the day, perfect for stirring controversy and increasing readership.”

    France should be careful what it wishes for. Paris seems to have a massive, bloody riot at least twice a year, and it seems rather hypocritical for Sarkozy or any other French official to criticize China for quelling riots, when French gendarme police are cracking skulls of young Muslim boys in the Paris suburbs every few months. Did the French show restraint in quelling their own riots? No, apparently not.

    In fact, an old friend of mine in Paris thinks that another French riot may be about to arise– the young Muslim and African youths are again growing very furious about conditions in the poor French suburbs, and there’s been a lot of racism in France recently.

    In fact, about 200 Muslim graves, of French Muslim World War I veterans, were recently desecrated! And the French have the nerve to criticize China?

    Especially with this recent grave desecration incident, there’s about to be another big riot in France. Let’s see how Sarkozy and the other French officials respond to it– will they use “restraint”? Will be interesting to see.

    If anything, Chancellor Angela Merkel in Germany is even worse. While the German people tend to be more fair-minded about China, Merkel herself tries to claim moral superiority. Yet German troops have been implicated in a number of atrocities against the Afghan people in Afghanistan, while Merkel’s German troops continue to brutalize both Serbs and Albanians in Kosovo. When faced with criticism over these incidents, Merkel dismisses the critics as “uninformed.” Merkel, like Sarkozy, is a hypocrite, since she herself is quite uninformed about the Chinese whom she so freely criticizes. She deserves our contempt, and it will be wonderful when both leaders are forced out of power in the humiliation that they abundantly deserve.

  30. @ Horace,

    Yep, Merkel is a sneaky one, trying to court China on trade matters and then the Dalai Lama on the Tibetan issue.

    For all their faults, I applaud the Chinese government for having a backbone to stand up for themselves. One case in point, by rejecting the recommendations by the IMF and the World Bank in the 90s. Soviet Union did not and poof…. it collapsed.

    I think the West (I mean it in a loose way), feels intimidated/ challenged by the gumption of the Chinese government to stand their ground.

  31. @Horace : thank you for your lengthy inputs on this topic. I may not agree with everything you wrote but your suggestions and arguements are something to think about. Your efforts indicates the topic’s importance to you.

    @DKwan :Don’t be so sensitive. And don’t be so quick to assume insult in a friendly discussion. You have not put forth enough support for anyone to see your point in a meaningful way.

  32. I do not care about whatever Tibet should be independant or not, I am foreigner, it has nothing to do with me, it concern Tibetan and Chinese.

    But, I think in this whole Tibet story people just forgot to ask the real questions:

    — Why many Tibetans have revolt?

    — Why they attacks Han and Hui people?

    — What do they want? what do they ask? what do they complaints about?

    Usually people do not revolt, burn their own city without reasons.

    I wish I can ask these question to Tibetan, but as a foreigner I am forbidden to go in Tibet…

    I wish independant journalist can ask these questions…. but they are also forbidden to go in Tibet.

    Why try to hide what happen?

  33. @ horace.

    France during riots in suburbs:

    —Did not kick out journalist.

    —Did not prevent journalist to discuss with people rioting and write their point of view

    —Arrested people who have had a fair trial (more than 80% have been free without any punishment as their was not enough proove against them)

    —Did not kill anyone

    —Discuss the problems with people living in suburbs, and launch new policies to improve the lifeb in the suburbs.

    —Did not attack foreign journalist even when some were writting paris burning, and when many foreign journalist over exagerated what happen.

    France reacted like a democratie,with value, and not like a totalitarian government.

  34. @Du,

    You wonder why the French are so ill informed about Tibet? Just read the drivel that comes out the French organization Reporters Without Borders!

    Look at its setup and where it gets its funding from. North America and European governments and get this…. Taiwan Foundation for Democracy, a quasi government body! Impartiality? No way!


    Dear Mei,

    Taiwan is according to you, a “quasi government ” because your country – PRC made it to be… and please be aware that at any time, this supposedly quasi government has more economical power and democratic rights than your assumed “full government”

    Impartiality? Show me an example where china has ever been impartial…. look at your own country’s media before calling the kettle black.

  35. @BO


    BO, I really very very respect you ,but what you said are totally absurd and I feel very sad about your words!

    About Taiwan, you said “……because your country – PRC made it to be…… “, facetiosity!

    Have you ever heard some countries that alway make gestures on other country’s indoor affairs! No such countrys exist on the world,we all chinese people have been together for a long time!

    Whether the media is Impartiality or not ,well,I really know the lying medias, maybe three or more, such as CNN (do you know chinese pinying,if so,see above articles I post), and BBC,they are all liars ,shame on them!

    Do you know,now,the names of above two medias have equalled to FALSE! Hmm,what I said are all facts! at least,for me ,it is!

    BTY: I wonder whether you can read chinese or not?!

    if so , please go to see and listen the words and voice out from our chinese people!

    if not, go on be bamboozled! I will forgive every aggressive word you ever said ,and God will,too!

  36. Dear Du,

    Thanks for your reply but unfortunately I have the same words for you.

    First of all, I applaud your courage and effort to write in English and I reciprocated by putting in real hard work in deciphering them. However, you have put a very weak argument across….

    Like the Chinese websites that you have quoted, you were also unable to convince me and others of WHY and BY HOW the truth lies with the China. The only thing that the pictures demonstrated was poor picture editing skills, not news distortion. Like how the media in the west was unable to give a full coverage of the issue in China at the present, at least they have got the historical component right.

    Now what have the chinese media proved? Other than repeatedly accusing the western media of falsely portraying the lack of human rights and repression of Tibetans in “China” (I admit I do not believe Tibet was or should be a province of China), they have not been able to cough up other substantial evidences of legal rights to rule Tibet, nor its equal treatment towards Tibetans and Han Chinese.

    In response to your rebut regarding Taiwan and PRC, please also understand that having the same “ancestry” or bloodline doesn’t equate to sharing the same national identity. Many Americans, Canadian, Australian and New Zealanders share the same cultural background to UK, so are you saying they should be be annexed by UK?

    I believe in the rights to self determination that clearly China does not believe in and I thank my ancestors for not having made China their home where I would then be a part of.

    It would be hard for me to understand the true embolism of human rights and self determination since you never had the opportunity to be part of it. Until then, I pray that God would be with you.

    Good to know that you rest your faith in God rather than the CCP anyway.

  37. Dear BO,

    Do you have to shoot from the hips? You have incorrectly assumed that I’m from the PRC. Next, as far as I know, quasi means ‘supported by the government but managed privately’ (Meriam-Webster Online). Never did I suggest in my post that Taiwan is not self governing. You’re one of those Taiwanese quick to trumpet their superiority over the mainlanders, eh?

    I find your tone in your reply to Du offensive. So what if her command of English is weaker? Your relative fluency in English does not add weight to your arguments either. China may not be telling the whole truth but it does not exonerate the Western media from sloppy journalism.

    While I’m at it… may I add that Taiwan has been under an autocratic single party rule for forty years (!!!!) since 1949, so do not give that crock that you are the bastion of democracy.

    Add butt out on the issue of Free Tibet because you have unilaterally occupied the island of Taiwan and are in no position to talk about a free Tibet, which incidentally has always been indicated on earlier maps as part of the Chinese empire, like this:


    If you disagree that you have illegally occupied the island, than you must agree that the KMT retreated/ withdrew to the island which was Chinese territory.

  38. @wonton: You like pretending that your comment wasn’t insulting? Or do you just have the same habit as the CCP of denying the obvious? Look up the history of Taiwan yourself. I have no more to say to you. Cheers.

  39. @ Mei,

    “Illegally occupied”… by who’s law? And are you also saying that KMT were not Chinese… or the Qing (清)Empire were more of Chinese?

    By the way I am from Mainland. I don’t think it took Taiwan 50 some years to build a democrat system is so bad compare to what happened in mainland in the same time frame. They should be proud… I hope someday you’ll be proud of them too.

    Do you want to also show the map that is one link above the link you posted here on the UT list? I’ll help you. http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/asia_1808.jpg

    Show this map to Du, maybe he’ll correct “his” 西藏简史… 十三世纪中叶,西藏地区正式归入中国版图后… etc。

    Since you have the map, take a close look, really close… it doesn’t matter how the map was colored… you may be able to figure out why it is so IMPORTANT for China to have Taiwan… if you think it’s about a piece of land, or national unite, think again!

  40. Re: The “Brazil Method” of integrating Tibet and Xinjiang into China, through intermarriage and assimilation

    Greetings Jian Shuo Wang,

    It has been fascinating for me to read these comments on your site, which has now become perhaps the premier online medium for Americans such as myself to communicate with you there in China. I myself am a highly-placed diplomatic professional, with decades of experience in the international relations field and contacts throughout Western governments and ‘think tanks’. These are the intellectual organizations in the USA and Canada, Europe, New Zealand and Australia that formulate policy toward China, such as the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where indeed, many of the aforementioned “neoconservatives” work. 2 decades ago, I would have been considered such a neoconservative myself, but I am appalled at what the neocons have become and the global discord that they are trying to sow, in the pursuit of their perceived interests. I have conclusively broken with them, and since I know them, their plans, and their intentions well, I want to help you and the Chinese nation here by sharing that information.

    I began my international career in the US diplomatic corps all the way back in the 1960’s, when China was indeed “the Communist enemy” of the United States, but in subsequent decades, as I have visited China and learned the Mandarin Chinese language, I have come to admire the work ethic, discipline, technological innovation, cultural vigor, and remarkable creativity of the Chinese people, as well as your country’s remarkable strides in, yes, human rights, a process that I realize is still in progress. You may therefore find my comments of value.

    The consensus among commenters on your site here, seems to be that China must integrate both Tibet and Xinjiang into the broader Chinese nation, not only economically but also culturally, socially and demographically, to finally bring peace to the regions and defeat the anti-Chinese propaganda that, regrettably, pervades much of Western media. I agree with this as I will explain, and I would also like to emphasize the need for extensive intermarriage among ethnic groups and pro-assimilation policies to accomplish this.

    There is indeed, a large and powerful segment of the US foreign policy establishment, that fears China as a so-called “peer competitor”– a power exceeding that of the USA– and as a result, seeks to destroy China as a nation. This is not a unanimous view within the US State Department, and this is clearly not ‘official’ US policy– our government does not view you as an enemy like the Soviet Union, though our official policy toward you might be described as ‘cautious,’ neither friend nor foe. However, there is in fact a solid and influential “anti-Chinese faction” within US foreign policy circles and in those think tanks and, yes, many of the most vigorously anti-Chinese officials are in fact, neoconservatives, as others have mentioned.

    The current media campaign in the USA and Europe, regarding the Beijing Olympics, has been stridently anti-Chinese, almost to the point of anti-Asian racism. If you watch the television news here or open up the newspapers, China is regularly being compared to Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, or the British during their worst imperial period in Ireland, South Africa, or India during the mid-1800’s, when the British had killed 50 million people. Your country is being portrayed in very negative terms in our media. In many of my previous meetings and discussions with anti-Chinese neoconservatives, as part my diplomatic work, one of the emphases of these neocons was, indeed, to damage China through strongly negative media attention and what we should fairly call propaganda, so I would not be surprised if part of the anti-Chinese rhetoric now, has indeed been introduced by the neocons.

    I will agree entirely with what someone else wrote above: In Western countries, appearances and perceptions often matter more than reality. Unfortunately, we are often a rather emotional people for whom images and impressions matter more than facts, as you have seen yourself in Britain, France, the USA and Australia. So as others have written here, it does not matter what you are really doing in Tibet, or how just and fair your policies are– you will be berated, anyway, within the media of the West. That is how propaganda works, unfortunately.

    The anti-Chinese neoconservatives know this, and it is why I will confirm what others have written here: As long as Tibet and Xinjiang remain ‘ethnically separate’ regions of China– in the sense that a distinct ethnicity is associated with the geographical locations of Tibet and Xinjiang, as the Tibetans and Uyghurs currently are– then China will be in tremendous danger of a civil war driven in part by external enemies who are hostile to China, and indeed, your enemies in North America and Europe will continue to stir up anti-Chinese propaganda against you in Western media. I don’t know if these types of people are directly involved in the “Free Tibet” movement, as someone else has posted here, but I have worked for many years with these neocons before, and I will confirm for you– their #1 goal is to destroy China through a civil war initiated within Chinese territory, starting in Tibet and Xinjiang, but then extending into regions such as Sichuan and even Guangdong. Again, I know this well, because I have worked with these neocons before and have even been involved in drawing up these sorts of plans. To remind you, again, 2 decades ago, I might have been called a neocon myself, if the term had existed then.

    In solving your problems in Tibet and Xinjiang, and thus conclusively defeating the neocons who want to destroy you by initiating a civil war there, you must change things so that Tibet and Xinjiang are not an issue at all.

    As a reminder, this is a media war, a war of perceptions, as much as anything else, and to solve Tibet and Xinjiang, you must change them so that they are no longer ethnically distinct regions of China at all. That way, 10-20 years in the future, Tibet and Xinjiang will no longer be in the headlines of Western media, and the source of the anti-Chinese propaganda in the US media, will then fade. Neocons may still be troublemakers, but if Xinjiang and Tibet are stably integrated into China, with a mixed population of Han and others, then news organizations here will have no reason to put Tibet and Xinjiang into the headlines. As a result, the fuel for the neocons’ anti-China campaign will dry up. Also, this will eliminate the potential for a civil war started in Tibet or Xinjiang.

    To do this in a way that is just, dignified and respectful of human rights, I would suggest “the Brazil method” of massive intermarriage and assimilation, as follows:

    In my decades with the diplomatic corps here, I spent many years in Brazil. It is interesting that some here consider Brazil to be “pro-Chinese”– I don’t know if the Brazilians are “pro-Chinese” per se, but they are not anti-Chinese, and if anything they do seem to admire China for being a large developing country that is becoming wealthy and technologically advanced. The Brazilians, in other words, see you as a model, and want to imitate your accomplishments.

    In any case, the Brazilians also hold the solution for you in Tibet and Xinjiang. Brazil is quite similar to China, an enormous country with a large population, and ethnically diverse. Brazil has dozens of ethnic groups in a variety of distinct geographical regions, but very little ethnic tension. (It does have other problems such as crime and narcotics, but little danger of secession or ethnic conflict.) The reason, essentially, is that Brazil as an official government policy has long encouraged massive intermarriage among its peoples, and assimilation of all groups within the predominant culture. Thus, Brazil is stable and united.

    Intermarriage is so successful as a stabilizer of nations because, when you mix the peoples up like this, and as their families and relationships intertwine, intense ethnic feelings and animosities are reduced, and the impetus for civil war and secession disappears. When different ethnic groups blend together, to become not only neighbors and coworkers but husbands and wives, brothers, sisters and cousins, then the kinds of Tibetan protests that we witnessed last month become much less likely. The ethnic groups become assimilated into a broader culture. The unique and distinctive cultural aspects of ethnic groups do survive in this mixture, but in a constructive way, and thus do not pose a political threat to a country. Tibetan and Uyghur culture will survive after intermarriage with Han Chinese and other groups, if anything they will thrive, but as an element of harmony among China’s people that is wedded to the Han Chinese language and culture themselves, rather than a source of ethnic tension that neocons can exploit.

    As others have written here, having an overwhelming Han majority in these regions can also be a stabilizer– perhaps Inner Mongolia being the best example. It had been restless in previous decades, but Inner Mongolia was stabilized when the Han majority became 90%. Dispersion of different ethnic groups and peoples, also, is generally good for stability. As all of China’s peoples– not only Han but Yi, Tujia, Manchu, Miao, Gelao, Qiang, Tibetan, Uyghur, Mongol and others– become dispersed throughout the Chinese land, then there is far less danger still of secessionist tendencies that the neocons can exploit, since ethnicity is no longer so closely linked to a particular geographical place. But intermarriage is the most important element.

    It is probably even more important in Xinjiang than in Tibet. Muslim Uyghurs have a very high birth rate, and there is a danger in future generations, that Xinjiang could again gain a large Uyghur majority– and you should be sure, that the neocons in the USA will exploit that to split China apart! This would be similar to Kosovo, which had once been majority Serbian Orthodox Christian in population. However, as Muslim Kosovars moved in, they had a much higher birth rate than the Serbs and became the majority, then used this to declare independence from Serbia. The neocons knew this, and they used the Kosovar Muslim majority to support a US war against Serbia. This is the reality, and if you allow Xinjiang or any other region to gain a majority of Uyghurs or other ethnic groups, the neocons will try to do the same to China, to split you up like the Soviet Union or Serbia.

    If the Uyghur population does become a majority again in Xinjiang, and if there is a separatist movement as a result, then neocons will not only propagandize against you, but they will also lobby Saudi Arabia and other oil-producing nations to deny you oil and hurt you economically, as a gesture of “Muslim solidarity” that would, in fact, be nothing more than a cynical neocon power play. This is precisely what neocons in the 1980’s did to damage the Soviet Union– this fact is little appreciated even in the USA, but the Reagan Administration damaged the USSR, perhaps more than any other factor, by pressing the Saudis and other oil-producers to manipulate oil prices, which hurt the Soviets. They intend to do the same thing to you if there is Uyghur unrest in Xinjiang which captures media attention. I know, because I have heard these plans detailed before, in neocon think tanks, myself. Thus in Xinjiang, as much as in Tibet, you must tightly integrate the region with the rest of China, in terms of culture, language, and demographics as much as in government and economics.

    Protect yourself from this and defeat the neocons’ plans against you, not just by ensuring a demographic Han majority in Xinjiang and Tibet– which is just one stabilizing factor– but by encouraging assimilation to Chinese language and culture and above all, intermarriage of the different ethnic groups as Brazil does. Spread economic prosperity of course, and encourage cooperation among the different groups. But above all, encourage Yi, Hui, Miao, Gelao, Mongols, Tibetans, Tujia, Lahu, Qiang, Uyghurs, and Han to intermarry with each other and move throughout the country– especially in Tibet and Xinjiang.

    Don’t make the same mistake that the Soviet Union did, which was to allow particular ethnic groups to gain a majority in different regions of the country, which caused the USSR to break apart in 1991. Ensure not just a Han majority but even more importantly, broad assimilation, close relations among the ethnic groups, dispersion and even a high level of intermarriage, as is done in Brazil.

    If you still have any doubts about my advice, then please consider where I first got the idea of the “Brazil method.” About 10 years ago, I attended a small seminar in Washington, D.C., which was hosted by a prominent anti-Chinese neocon– one of those, who fears China and really does want to destroy China. During this seminar, he outlined, in detail, exactly how “we” (meaning fellow anti-Chinese officials and media figures) would destroy China– by doing the same thing that destroyed the Soviet Union, i.e., encouraging ethnic separatist movements, this time in Tibet and Xinjiang, and spreading media stories about Chinese “oppression” in Tibet and Xinjiang, no matter what the reality.

    At some point during the seminar, this neocon mentioned the possibility that he, a China hater, feared most. What he feared was that the Chinese railroad projects would enable a stable Han majority to build in Xinjiang and Tibet and, above all, that the Uyghurs and Tibetans would eventually intermarry with Han and other ethnic groups, *as in Brazil*, and assimilate into the broader Chinese culture and nation. This would make it impossible to promote ethnic separatist movements in Xinjiang and Tibet and, moreover, it would cause tensions to settle down in Xinjiang and Tibet and reduce the number of riots and protests, due to intermarriage and stability. This, then, would reduce the opportunities the neocons have to attack China in the media of the West– and defeat neocon plans to destroy China through the promotion of internal conflicts.

    I realize that there are still some hard feelings between China and Taiwan as well, which I can see on this forum, but I hope that both groups will realize you have far more to gain from working with each other than fighting. Please note, that another neocon technique for causing damage to China, is to whip up hostility between China and Taiwan, thus creating bad press for China and damaging both of you. This is a classic neoconservative technique for injuring your common interests– in fact, the neocons hate both of you, both Taiwan and China, because they see you as members of a common “Sinosphere” that is an enemy of the USA and the West. Don’t fall into the neocons’ trap– if you fight each other, you are doing the bidding of the neocons. Unite together, using your common culture and interests, and frustrate the neocons’ goals to damage you both.

    For what it is worth, I have visited both Taiwan and China many times, and I have great respect for both lands. As China continues to modernize, to become more open and confident, I suspect that any cross-strait animosity between Taiwan and China will also disappear. Just time, and patience, will help to ensure a harmonious relationship between Taiwan and China. Nobody can predict the specifics, I suppose, but I suspect, as many have suggested, that Taiwan and China will soon have a relation much like EU countries such as Austria and Italy have with each other– maintaining aspects of a distinctive identity and decision-making, yet in a kind of political union together, which works toward mutual benefit. Don’t fight each other– just be patient, and you will reach that stage of mutual benefit.

    In conclusion, since going to China many times and learning the Chinese language myself, I have come to realize the lies of my former neoconservative colleagues about China, and on a professional level, I have come to despise the kind of violent global power politics that the neocons advocate. Therefore, I want to do everything in my power now, to defeat and thwart the neocons and their goals. I know them better than almost anyone else because I have worked with them so much and, 20-30 years ago, even shared many of their goals. Now, I want to stop them.

    I know how the neocons think and I know what they fear, and this is why I am sharing this with you now. The neocons know very well that extensive intermarriage, as in Brazil, and assimilation would reduce ethnic tensions and peacefully solve the Xinjiang and Tibet conflicts, while bringing China favorable media attention for being “progressive.” The neocons fear this most, which is why I hope that you adopt this “Brazilian method” policy for China, and bring harmony to your nation.

  41. And since other posters here have supplied a list of their suggestions for you to prevail through these latest challenges, I guess I will offer three more ideas here for you:

    1. Please consider dropping the One Child Rule for Han Chinese, or at least modifying it so that far more people are legally allowed to have two, three or more children, if they can support them. I actually understand the thinking of the government upon introducing the policy– you were rightfully concerned about your nation’s population outstripping its resources and the danger of environmental damage, and political instability, as a result. The sensible goal has therefore been to stabilize China’s population, but I fear that the policy may have been applied to strictly, such that China, within one generation, will have far too many non-working elderly citizens and too few young workers to support the economy. I would advise encouraging small families of perhaps two children, which can promote a stable population at a Total Fertility Rate of about 2.1, as we are doing in the West (to make our planet sustainable). But at least, make the decision voluntary, and do not punish people for having more than one child. Since China is growing richer, parents will prefer smaller families and your population will stabilize anyway, peacefully, as it has done in Western countries. This will have three major advantages for China:

    a. You will ensure that China has enough young, strong people of working and childbearing age to provide a sufficient labor force for China’s remarkable economy. China cannot survive as a strong nation if you have poor demographics, if you have far too many senior citizens who cannot work, but too few young people– this causes economic collapse. This is the problem that many European countries are having, such as the Netherlands, France, Poland and Sweden. Their native birth rates are also about one child per couple, and as a result, they now have a very old population and not enough young people. Which means that they have to import millions of mostly Muslim immigrants to supply their labor force– which, in turn, has led to disastrous ethnic tension which, as all of us have unfortunately concluded, will likely ruin Europe and North America as advanced societies within a generation.

    b. You will further help to secure regions such as Xinjiang, Tibet, and Inner Mongolia to ensure that they retain a solid Han Chinese majority, and further promote the process of intermarriage and assimilation with Uyghurs, Tibetans, Mongolians, Hui and other groups there.

    c. You will receive positive media coverage in the Western press, for being “progressive” and “enlightened” by dropping or modifying the One Child Rule.

    In other words, it’s a win-win policy for you– you’ll ensure good demographics and enough young workers, while securing your country and reducing ethnic tension, and looking good in the Western media.

    2. Don’t fear reforms to open up China– these will help to make China a stronger nation. You can present the reforms not as “capitulating to Western pressure,” but as steps to make China a more powerful and respected nation. Especially things to help ensure trust in business and protect intellectual property. If you want to make China into a world business, scientific, and technological power, then you have to provide protection for patents and copyrights– this ensures that innovative people have the motivation to produce smart, innovative products. You know as well as we do how an independent judiciary and the rule of law are critical, but don’t fear opening up press freedoms somewhat, and allowing the media to report on problems that need to be addressed. Things like compensation for property owners when land is taken for development, and pollution and environmental protection– it’s important to discuss these openly and obtain ideas for solutions, if China is to flourish. Obviously, the discussion should be productive and intelligent, unlike the wasteful and emotional shouting matches that we often have in the West. But it’s important to allow them.

    In terms of elections, I actually believe that China’s policy is correct. In fact, I sympathize with China’s reluctance to introduce “multiparty democracy” and national elections as we have in the USA or Europe. To be honest, even as an American, as I watch our current elections in 2008, with all the waste of time and money and all the bitter campaigning, I think our system is a mess. Too often, it’s not intelligent thinking or smart decisions that decide our elected leaders– it’s demagoguery, fear, even racism. We have hardened ideological differences, and factions and ethnic tensions split our country apart. This is why the USA made the mistake of going into Iraq like this, and it’s also why we’re making the even bigger mistake of bankrupting our Treasury, driving ourselves deeply into debt. Most European countries, especially Britain and France, are making the same mistakes that we in the USA are. Our electoral process and political system has crippled us, and we fail to address crises until it is too late. We are, furthermore, too divided to do anything constructive.

    So our electoral system in the West does not work. China’s system, of providing local elections and a meritocratic selection of national leaders, actually seems better to me. To be sure, it’s still important to hear public opinion, and to solicit the views of the people on issues. Also, there should be methods to get rid of incompetent leaders and overcome corruption– frankly, term limits on any leader may be the most important aspect of a government with proper checks and balances, which indeed are necessary for a functioning government in any land. But I give your country credit, you seem to be running it more smoothly than we are.

    3. On languages to study– it’s interesting to read here, that someone is encouraging Chinese students to “diversify” their languages skills. I would certainly advise Chinese to broaden your language base outside of just English, but for different reasons– already in the present, if you want to be effective in international business, you cannot just rely on English anymore. That is, English is no longer the “international business language,” which I myself have learned in the past 3 years, since moving my own career in more of a commercial direction.

    The Portuguese that I learned while working in Brazil has been extremely valuable. Brazil is a growing and increasingly wealthy country, and since it is so large and increasingly self-confident, you must speak Portuguese to do business with them. You *can* use Spanish to some extent in Brazil– since Spanish is the main lingua franca of Latin America– but it would be best to speak both Portuguese and Spanish. They are very similar and easy to learn, in fact, I have recently been learning Spanish myself (which I did not speak before), for work in the United States! If you want to do business in US states such as California or Arizona, you really must know Spanish to have a competitive advantage. Historically this has been a Spanish region, and it’s now a major business language yet again.

    I would heartily endorse learning Hindi, Arabic, and Japanese. Hindi, as India’s main language, has obvious importance. Arabic is one of the world’s most widely-spoken languages and the heart of the world’s oil-producing economies, which are also becoming technological and business centers in their own right (Qatar, UAE for example). Japanese remains a crucial world business and technological language.

    German also deserves a special mention, as it is indeed the world’s premier technical language as people have been writing here. I work with many people in computers, chemistry, electronics, materials science and other fields, and even native-born, English-speaking Americans and Canadians, have to learn German to flourish in their businesses. That’s because the best technical reviews and other publications are in German. I’ll hand it to them– the Germans really are the best at science and other technical fields.

    As for the French, Russian and Korean languages, I would actually consider these to be “second-tier”– still important to learn, though not quite as important as “first-tier” languages like Portuguese, Spanish, Hindi, Arabic, Japanese, English, and German. Still, they can be useful to you– French as a major language of southern Europe, Canada, and Africa, and still a language of diplomatic protocol which I had to speak fluently when I first started in the diplomatic corps in the 1960’s. Russian of course, is another language of a major provider of oil and gas, and an important technological and military nation. Even smaller but regionally important languages such as Italian, Dutch, Swahili, Swedish, Gaelic (Irish and Scottish), and Finnish can be valuable, just to establish business and trade ties, if nothing else.

    The point is, I agree with the advice of other people– don’t make English a mandatory foreign language like this in your schools, so that it excludes other foreign languages. Although it’s still important, English is not the fundamental world language anymore, as I can attest from my own business experience and almost anyone else in the international business and diplomatic corps, can also testify. With the weakening of the USA and UK and the strengthening of other countries, English is now sharing the world language honor with Portuguese, Spanish, Hindi, Arabic, Hindi, Japanese, and German. So, I would suggest making English an “encouraged foreign language elective” along with these other 7 world languages in “the first tier.” Students can choose which language or languages they want to become fluent in.

    Then of course, offer instruction in major “second tier” languages such as French, Russian, and Korean. Then, perhaps at university level or through special course electives, give students the option of “third-tier” languages such as Italian, Dutch, Swahili, Swedish, Gaelic (Irish and Scottish), and Finnish, especially if people want to do business or diplomatic work in the relevant countries. Even an “indigenous language” such as Sioux, Navajo, or Cherokee could build goodwill in the USA and amaze your hosts here. I have found, in my business and diplomatic experience, that speaking a language like this, even to a small community, greatly improves one’s favorability, and helps enormously to do business.

    Obviously, continue to spread those Confucian Institutes and encourage the learning of Mandarin Chinese across the globe. Remember, I used to be something of a “neocon” myself and thoroughly disliked China 20-30 years ago. But my opinion changed, and I became an admirer of the Chinese nation, when I went to China myself, and learned the Mandarin Chinese language. I have seen this happen with others as well– the more that we learn of China and the Chinese language, the more we respect you. As you promote the Chinese language, you will also be greatly helping the Chinese nation.

  42. @GN

    My point is that the ethnic chinese in Taiwan can’t say with a straight face that ‘Taiwan is their motherland’ in the same breathe as ‘Free Tibet’.

    Great that they have democratic elections this past decade, after 50 years of KMT rule, but for heavens sake, Taiwan has a population of what? 2% of that of the PRC?

    And they have not suffered the stupidity of the Cultural Revolution in the mainland.

    As a nation the PRC has been in a different planet for so long, that it is only in the 80’s that they really opened up. Why are we asking for immediate democratic reforms in the PRC? Shouldn’t they be allowed 50 years (in jest) too?

    The PRC has humongous mountains to overcome both internally AND externally and sometimes I just despair. But then I remember the tenacity and the ingenuity of the Chinese over the ages and then I hope again.

  43. I am so glad WJS that you eventually started a discussion on this issue. It has certainly opened up a very vigorous discussion which I heartily enjoy and find stimulating. I find myself using the internet to verify and sift through opinions to search for the truth. For this reason among others, I am convinced that China needs to do away with the GFW if it wants its citizens to mature in their outlook.

    On another note, I heartily agree with Ambassador Perkins on his views; he has put down with such clarity the issues the PRC has to deal with and the manner they have to be dealt with.

    Is there anyway that this can be disseminated to the PRC government?

  44. I am so glad WJS that you eventually started a discussion on this issue. It has certainly opened up a very vigorous discussion which I heartily enjoy and find stimulating. I find myself using the internet to verify and sift through opinions to search for the truth. For this reason among others, I am convinced that China needs to do away with the GFW if it wants its citizens to mature in their outlook.

    On another note, I heartily agree with Ambassador Perkins on his views; he has put down with such clarity the issues the PRC has to deal with and the manner they have to be dealt with.

    Is there anyway that this can be disseminated to the PRC government?

  45. Hi JianShuo,

    Note that the “official version” in the western media have far less facts, and far more propaganda, than the official versions in your country. The level of one-sidedness and knee jerk jingoism in the press here is sickening. I am disgusted that George Bush is busy bombing muslims in the name of democracy and liberty, yet is pushing to have a religious dictator installed in a province of China. The hypocrisy stinks.

    I have been in unrelated riots in Paris and San Francisco both; they will riot for practically anything. Riots are just another party. 99% of these people don’t know the first thing about Tibet and don’t really care. Contrary to most of the people mouthing off, it’s not hard to get educated about the situation in Tibet and about the specifics of this twisted version of buddhism. All of the specifics are a matter of public record, and in addition to reading extensively I have sat through lectures by a number of rinpoches about the nuances. I’ve linked to some more information on my blog with actual factual records. Not that anyone in the west cares, when they are in an orgy of solidarity in favor of a religious dictator as a way to poke a stick in China’s eye.

    The hypocrisy here is stunning. Several thousands of people here applied for permit for a pro-China rally but were rejected at last day; while permits for the pro-religious-dictator were approved immediately. The officials here are censoring pro-China speech but encouraging and broadcasting anti-China speech. Believe me, all of the stuff you hear about American “freedom of the press” is ancient history; there is nobody in America standing up to the propaganda anymore.

  46. “Several thousands of people here applied for permit for a pro-China rally but were rejected at last day; while permits for the pro-religious-dictator were approved immediately. The officials here are censoring pro-China speech but encouraging and broadcasting anti-China speech. Believe me, all of the stuff you hear about American “freedom of the press” is ancient history; there is nobody in America standing up to the propaganda anymore.”

    I am a lawyer in San Francisco and I saw thousands of Chinese supporting the torch. There is some thing called the first amendment which protest the right of protest — pro-Chinese or pro-Tibetan — No one was denied permit on that day to support or protest the olympics. I dont know where Joshua Allen got his facts but they are wrong.

  47. @ Mei

    Taiwan was given away to the Japs after a war. You can say China lose it to Japan but either way, they lose their sovereignty which means if Japan give way (which they did) then Taiwan is on its own. A treaty was signed then that China cease control over Formosa (current day’s Taiwan).

    I also want to point to your attention that the map if named accurately was drawn under Manchurian rule. If that stands true then by the same token of your argument, I can say that the whole of China, Beijing, Shanghai, Tianjing should be hearing commands from Manchuria which existed as a separate kingdom for a short span of time (yeah yeah…you are going to throw me the “puppet government theory” but isn’t China doing the same with the Panchen Lama in Tibet, knowing its significance to the Tibetans?). Tibet is not Taiwan so you can throw that out of the window.

    By the way, I have assumed that you are Chinese (PRC) because you had decided (in identifying) that you are Chinese and stopped there. If I am American of Chinese descent then I would identify myself as American before anything else, ie. American Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, French, English, German…etc. but you have decided that your identity as a Chinese precedes anything else and you stopped at that.

    To correct your similarly wrong assumptions about me, I am neither Chinese or Taiwanese so you are wrong. I am not pro-Taiwan or Pro-China, I’m merely sticking to facts and it obviously upsets you.


  48. Dear Bo,

    It started off like this,

    “Dear Mei,

    Taiwan is according to you, a “quasi government ” because your country – PRC made it to be… ” and then,

    “By the way, I have assumed that you are Chinese (PRC) because you had decided (in identifying) that you are Chinese and stopped there.”

    In which of my posts did I identify that I’m a Chinese ? Does it matter to you whether I am or not?

    In my retort to your earliest statement, I presumed that you were Taiwanese as you mentioned that you were glad your ancestors did not make China their home. Yes, in this regard I was being presumptuous, so I apologise for my error.

    Taiwan / China issues are really far complex than what can be discussed in this blog. On what grounds do we stand on? Legal? The Treaty of San Fransisco was signed by countries, apart from ROC and PRC. And under pressure from the US, Japan signed the Treaty of Taipei with the ROC (which repudiated the Treaty of Shimonoseki) which was in turn is unilaterally nullified by Japan in 1972.

    I’ve heard arguments citing the ‘different hearts and minds’ of the Taiwanese and the mainlanders as grounds as well. So where do we agree to begin the debate? What are the parameters?

    At the end of the day, I hope for Taiwan and China to reconcile or at least put aside their differences and work out some kind of framework for bilateral cooperation.

  49. @Mei, How about starting from what the people who are living in Taiwan want?

    And on your earlier comments… “And they have not suffered the stupidity of the Cultural Revolution in the mainland. As a nation the PRC has been in a different planet for so long, that it is only in the 80’s that they really opened up. Why are we asking for immediate democratic reforms in the PRC? Shouldn’t they be allowed 50 years (in jest) too? “.

    PRC started in 1949, and has been in power for the same length of time as KMT has in Taiwan.

    In terms of the suffering of Cultural Revolution… who do you think should be responsible for the that suffering? There should be no excuses for what happened during those 20 years.

    I am not asking for immediate democratic reform in the PRC… whatever the time Chinese people give will be the time there will be… frankly nobody can force such process. And it may not be the same “democracy” anyway.

    Just don’t diminish other people who took a different path, and disagree with you. Plus, shouldn’t you be happy for 2% less of “US” didn’t have to suffer the same suffering.

  50. “China was a united country since the Qin dynasty in 221 BC”

    Tibet was not part of Qin dynasty, so clearly Tibet was not part of your definition of China as a united “country”? Current China is an almost based on the Qing dynasty empire borders, except Mongolians managed to regain their independence with support from Russia. Tibetans didn’t get any outside support and was occupied by China.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *