The 2008 Olympics in China just ended on Friday

[John Sayers]

yes Geoff - you are right - thankyou for your concern.

 

Yes - it does have personal aspects as my best friend's daughter is married to a Chinese national who's father is a doctor in china and has travelled to Tibet on many occasions. He mentions aspects that haven't even been talked about yet such as the dreadful treatment of women and rampant inbreeding amongst Tibetans. But that's another story.

 

Ok - I'm outta here. I apologize if I have upset anyone - it was not my intention.

 

Thankyou Craig for your balanced attitude to my posts, I really appreciate it.

 

cheers

john

[UstadKhanAli]

 

Having sovereignty over a country does not justify murder, persecution, destruction of historical places, etc. These are closer to war crimes than an exercise in sovereignty. These are abuses against humanity, an entire culture, and their entire way of life and history. I would not go so far as to call it genocide, but it is skirting the edges of it.

 

 

When you are consistently and systematically marginalizing and killing a specific group of people, I'd call it genocide.

 

Genocide: Definitions and Controversies

 

According to the 1948 Geneva Convention:

 

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

 

(a) Killing members of the group;

 

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

 

© Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

 

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

 

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

 

It also goes on to say: "Many experts, legal and academic, consider these criteria deficient in various respects. Some consider that the criteria are insufficiently broad. For instance, it excludes the physical destruction of certain sub-groups that have regularly been the victims of extensive killing programs. Usually mentioned in this context are members of political or social classes, such as the bourgeoisie, the middle classes, the Kulaks and the intelligentsia. Also, the definition focuses on the physical destruction of the group. There have been many instances in which the group has physically survived but its cultural distinctiveness has been eradicated. A contemporary example is the destruction of Tibetan culture by the Chinese, or that of indigenous tribes in certain countries in South America, Paraguay and Brazil, for instance."

 

Spanish Courts Determining Genocide in Tibet

 

 

Their claim to sovereignty is dubious at best, and regardless, they were out of Tibet for quite some time before rolling back in with their military.

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

It's amazing what excuses people without democratic culture come up with to justify an occupation and subjugation of an entire culture, tribe or nation, violating their right for self-determination.

 

How about a simple popular vote?

[UstadKhanAli]

Thank you! That actually might make sense!!! But then, that wouldn't be subjugation, would it?

 

At any rate, Burma did just that, and the military junta thought, "Well, crap, that didn't work. I guess we'll arrest Aung San Suu Kyi and take over!!!!"

[Anderton]

There are indeed two sides to every story. I always have a problem with monolithic classifications, i.e., "the Chinese are this way" or "the Tibetans are this way." There have been very courageous Chinese who stood up to the government and lost everything in the process. I am sure there have been Tibetans who abused the power they had, as in any other society, and Tibetans who are downright saintly. I'm sure that the Chinese must have brought some improvements to Tibet, but I also am sure that Ken's data about dumping nuclear waste is correct--the Chinese have never been accused of being in league with Greenpeace.

 

If you focus in on individual details--these many people were killed, this hospital was built, this infant mortality rate went down, this environment is being pillaged--it's all to easy to go tit-for-tat and counter one fact with another.

 

But, that misses the bigger picture: That Tibet is a country with its own identity and religious beliefs, and that needs to be respected. I don't question that it has had internal problems--show me a country that hasn't. However, I have not seen evidence of the Tibetans trying to force their will on neighboring countries. If they choose a lifestyle that seems questionable to outsiders but doesn't affect or harm outsiders, then it's not our right or even duty to change it. I would argue that if the Tibetans were systematically killing, say, all people who moved there from another country, then that's different. But I believe that a nation's sovereignty should be respected unless there are egregious violations of universal human, not just nationally-based, rights.

 

There seems to be no doubt that regardless of whether or not the Chinese have brought benefits to Tibet, they have also brought intense suffering--whether it was to 10,000 or 1,000,000 is only a difference in degree. Maybe the Tibetans have a lousy attitude toward women; so by our standards do fundamentalist Islamic nations, but I don't think it is up to us to invade them to liberate women. (It is, from what I've been told, a choice that many women make voluntarily anyway, and is consistent with their world view, as difficult as it may be for us to understand that.) And speaking to John's specific point, a doctor will see a different side of a country compared to, say, someone going to a country on business. An analogy would be a cop, who sees only people who have committed crimes: That can warp your view of humanity pretty quickly. So anecdotal evidence from one person, or even multiple people, is ultimately colored by how they accumulated that evidence.

 

The solution is clear. Perhaps Tibet was in need of modernization, but the way to do that is never at the point of a gun, and never without the consent of the people. But I don't think that's the issue, anyway. It seems to me that the real sticking point here is religion. I've known anti-religion people who are as much zealots as are fundamentalists. Religion is not compatible with communism, that is true. It has always been considered "the opiate of the people" and what's more, represents danger because it is a force larger than the societal force of communism. If someone is willing to give their life for their religion, but not for their political system, it's clear they will always represent a potential threat to the status quo.

 

We hold freedom of religion, and freedom from religion, to be essential truths in this country. Not all countries are this way. Some believe that the church and the state are equivalent. Some ban religion altogether.

 

What I see is that the Tibetan view of religion and the Chinese view of religion are mutually exclusive and cannot co-exist in their present state.

 

So, it seems to me that both need to modify their positions to ones that will allow co-existence, and both need to make concessions. To me, the obvious solution is that the Chinese pledge not to interfere in the religious practices of the Tibetans, and the Tibetans pledge that religion will confine itself to spiritual, not political, concerns. Both would be, I believe, substantial concessions by both sides but ones that would indicate sincerity and allow a truce, however uneasy.

 

Taking the long-term view, China is in fact modernizing. The same president who ranked fourth in the world's worst dictators club is intent on improving the environmental situation. Increasing contact with the outside world is causing Chinese to ask questions and forcing the government to grant more freedom. The press, while not free by our standards (or at least, what used to be our standards), now reports on things like coal mining disasters, and the state paper while I was there called these disasters "the shame of China." Granted, I'm sure every word was vetted and there was a hidden agenda; possibly to boost the idea of a greener society. But the point is 30 years ago, a mining disaster would not have been mentioned, let alone called--publicly!!--"the shame of China." Nor would punk rock have been allowed, or some of the cooler dance clubs in Shanghai.

 

China's modernization is a patchwork modernization: Some areas have it, some don't. Some people still work in miserable sweatshops, some work in industrial campuses with enviable living conditions. China is all about contradictions, and they're not entirely successful in coping with change as sudden and far-reaching as what is happening now. Just as the new generation keeps trying to push for more reform, the old guard wants to hold on to the status quo for as long as possible. But "as long as possible" now looks like it will no longer be measured in centuries, but in decades or maybe even years.

 

Things like sweeping nuclear waste issues under the rug are not unique to China--we need look no further than this country, or how we dump old TV tubes with a toxic chemical stew in African countries. It is not fair to point fingers at the Chinese for doing things that virtually all other industrialized countries do. That is a separate, and equally important, issue that needs to be addressed separately from the religious questions that lie at the core of this conflict. Bringing those issues into the Tibetan question is tangential. I believe that even if there were no conflicts with Tibet, nuclear waste would still get dumped there--just like we want to dump waste in Nevada, not because we hate Native Americans but because it's convenient, and the people there have little real power.

 

The issue is all about religion, and the issue will continue as long as the Chinese insist on suppressing it. It must bug the hell out of them that there is a force in a country that is stronger than the force they can impose. Their only answer is to let it exist from a moral standpoint, but contain its political effects from an "occupier's" standpoint. The truce would be uneasy for several decades, but I believe that over time, the Chinese would grudgingly accept that religion isn't going to go away, the Tibetans would grudgingly accept that the Chinese aren't going to go away, and there is more to be gained for both sides by working together than working at cross-purposes.

 

Looking even further down the line, you can bet that the whole issue of Tibet is being debated within China and causing people to ask questions. Some citizens don't question the party line, but many do. Tibet leaves the government only two choices: Clamp down, hard, or loosen the screws somewhat. The past 20 years have shown that loosening the screws gives better results overall than clamping down. Hopefully the Chinese government will remember that.

[Anderton]

And for the record: I am against a boycott of the Olympics. If you want to foster change in a country, then encourage as much contact as possible. Isolation would just perpetuate, and worse yet, help justify (to the Chinese) their existing mindset.

 

You can certainly make it very clear you disapprove of the government's actions in Tibet yet encourage athletes of all countries to join together. I don't see what one has to do with the other, unless you feel that holding the Olympics in China means rewarding their behavior in Tibet. I would see holding the Olympics in China as something that happens in spite of their behavior in Tibet, that talks to what will be the next generation of Chinese leaders--the generation that will hopefully do the right thing with Tibet.

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subjugation

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

I think there is no freedom without fighting for it. I think the Tibetan are save in Switzerland and Lichtenstein. Tibetan have their own constitution here in Switzerland and their monasteries and religious centers.

 

http://www.tibetswiss.com/de/index.html

 

When China's president Jiang Zemin visited Switzerland in 1999, he was so offended by placard-waving protesters that he rebuked the Swiss for permitting such unseemly behaviour on their streets. Whole Switzerland just watched the dictator clown when he publicly freaked out after he saw the Tibetan waiting for him in front of the Federal Palace when he arrived in Bern. Swiss president Micheline Calmy-Rey simply said to him that the Tibetans have the same right as any Swiss here, and that was it. Jiang Zemin arrived two hours before in Geneva and directly went to Bern, without staying a minute in Geneva. Here some photos from the anti-torture rally in Geneva

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

Here some rather intelligent article from England

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,246762,00.html

 

 

 

Chinese murmurs

 

Wednesday October 20, 1999

The Guardian

 

It's touching to see the government upholding British traditions of hospitality. When China's president, Jiang Zemin, visited Switzerland earlier this year, he was so offended by placard-waving protesters that he rebuked the Swiss for permitting such unseemly behaviour on their streets.

Britain seems determined not to make the same mistake and, thanks to the heroic efforts of the British police to keep demonstrators out of sight, with a bit of luck Jiang will leave Britain confirmed in his view that western governments are as little concerned with human rights as he is.

 

The case for shielding Jiang Zemin from the rude spectacle of those who disagree with him is made by Sir Percy Cradock, arch mandarin, author of elegant prose and former ambassador in Beijing. All of us, Sir Percy maintains, wish to see political reform in China - it's just a matter of volume. The correct volume, it appears, is a discreet murmur, quiet enough not to disturb the atmosphere of goodwill or drive China into isolation.

But it has never been the case of human rights advocates such as Amnesty International that China be isolated (nor is it likely, since isolation would spell the end, for China, of the bean feast). The case is rather that, if China is to play a full part in the world's various multi-lateral bodies, it should be clear that the standards those bodies aspire to apply to China as much as anywhere else.

 

Sir Percy argues that China represents a market so huge that her special sensitivities must be appeased. But just to keep the fantasy in proportion, right now Britain, according to statistics quoted by Chris Patten, exports nine times as much to Luxembourg and Belgium than to China and three times as much to Australia. Lamentably few of the thousands of foreign firms that have entered China have made any money at all.

 

The Chinese economy has enjoyed spectacular growth since Deng Xiaoping jettisoned the thoughts of Mao. But in the past 20 years, China has attracted at least $400bn in international investment, despite which the average annual rural income is still only $261. The banking sector is insolvent and the budget crippled by unprofitable state industries.

 

One fifth of the state budget disappears through corruption, diverted into projects that swell the bank accounts of party bosses. No wonder they want to hold on to power. The rule of law is a fiction. This is the economic miracle for which western states have stuffed their principles into a bag marked "not wanted on voyage".

 

Of course, Sir Percy and I would both like this to change and in many respects things have improved. It is now possible for a Chinese citizen to choose where to live, what to buy, what music to listen to, whom to marry and even, should a doubt arise, what sex to be, provided those choices can be funded. This is not negligible. It is not possible, though, to exercise political or religious choice, or even to be sure of staying out of jail.

 

As Jiang Zemin was packing his clean socks for the trip, Sun Weibang, lately released after 10 years in prison (his crime was serving food to democracy activists in his small restaurant in Qingdao in 1989) was detained by police, seven members of the suppressed religious group Falun Gong went on trial and Dai Xuezhong, a Shanghai member of the banned China Democratic party, was arrested. That's not counting the people shot in Xinjiang this month or the hundreds of thousands of inmates of China's labour camps.

 

The Chinese Communist party today exists to maintain itself in power and reap the profits. Only the existence of a political alternative offers the hope of controlling corruption. But there will be none until the regime permits the growth of a civil society and of political activity, two things that China's sclerotic government suppresses.

 

The illusion, though, persists. At the end of last month, Time Warner spent millions of dollars hosting the invitation-only 1999 Fortune Global Forum in Shanghai. The guests were the chairmen and CEOs of major multinational companies, leavened, if that's the word, with a lunchtime address from Henry Kissinger, the man who endorsed the Tiananmen massacre and who makes a steady living consulting for companies doing business in China. As Jiang Zemin ate at Time Warner's lavish table, he casually banned that week's flagship issue of Time magazine. Its contents, apparently, displeased him.

 

Those are the realities of doing business in China and so they will remain until western governments - and businessmen - convince Beijing's bankrupt leadership that China is not their private fiefdom and her future depends on their finding a political way forward.

[coyote-1]

Frankly, China does not care.

 

As long as idiots here continue to shop at WalMart, the Chinese government knows all the talk is just that.

 

Ya wanna impact them? Don't stop at the advertisers. BOYCOTT THE PRODUCTS. Spend an extra nickel and buy something made in Indonesia. Better yet, spend an extra dime and buy American-made (IF that still exists).

 

My car: American. My next car: American. Look for the union label, and BUY AMERICAN.

My next music gear purchase: CARVIN.

[coyote-1]

Hmmm.

 

I don't see what one has to do with the other, unless you feel that holding the Olympics in China means rewarding their behavior in Tibet.

 

Cities/nations across the globe vie for the Games. The games are awarded based on many criteria, but they are clearly a REWARD of some sort. They are a cash shower, y'know?

 

Craig, you could not be more wrong on this. We've been doing constructive engagement[i/] for 35 years. They still don't bat an eye conceptually at the concept of slaughtering thousands of unarmed people in order to maintain power - they ONLY stayed their hand in Tiananmen initially because of the possible reaction of the world. When it became clear we'd continue such 'constructive' engagement, they mowed 'em down.

[deanmass]

Supporting the Olympics means that we are not paying any attention. Beijing has been tripping over itself to make themselves look like a wonderful, benevolent entity to the world. Current events in Tibet are unravelling all the marketing work they put into it.

 

And, I NEVER ( N-E-V_E-R- High Cost of Low Prices) shop at WalMart. But it is damn hard to not buy any Chinese stuff. That is due to our trade policies more than anything.

 

The Olympics are boycotted in my vision. China (government) sucks. Leave Tibet alone. Let them be...Of course the Chinese think everything is double plus good. They have no choice.

 

Maybe the support being indicated on here for the Chinese position represents a softening to the human rights violations that the Chinese are famous for. Maybe because the US is now on the fringe of being considered a human rights violator by many prominent nations, our social values here are become more 'open' to what is human abuse and what is not.

 

And, for the record John, I respect your opinion. I whole heartedly disagree with it, but please, stay it the discussion. We are all learning here, and big picture, that is good.

[Anderton]

for 35 years. They still don't bat an eye conceptually at the concept of slaughtering thousands of unarmed people in order to maintain power - they ONLY stayed their hand in Tiananmen initially because of the possible reaction of the world. When it became clear we'd continue such 'constructive' engagement, they mowed 'em down.

 

I could be wrong, for sure. But I am careful to differentiate between the people of a country and its government. I don't think change happens top down -- government to people -- from from bottom up, people to government.

 

Generally, I think it is in a government's best interests to maintain the status quo, because by definition, they want to preserve what got them into power. Conversely, it is in the people's interest to question the status quo, for all the reasons mentioned in this thread of what's wrong with China -- there are a lot of things wrong with that country, and which affects the common person. Any corruption hurts the average Chinese person just trying to make a living more than it hurts us, for sure.

 

Let me make it clear...what's right with China isn't the aging ruling class. It's the people who keep applying pressure, sometimes subtle, sometimes dramatic, for change. It's the people who, if you're an American standing on a street in Shanghai for more than a minute and look puzzled, will come up to you and do everything they can to help you out -- whether you need directions, or help interpreting a sign. They'll do it even if they don't speak English, they'll use sign language if they have to.

 

I feel it's important to do everything we can to support the next generation of Chinese, who I believe do not generally support the doctrinaire thinking of the 60s and prior. From everything I've seen, and the people I know who spend a lot of time in China dealing with the music scene, they are intensely interested in the outside world and building bridges that transcend their current environment. They need us to help build those bridges, otherwise they will be isolated further.

 

I do not think (correct me if I'm wrong) that China's athletes are part of the government, I think they are part of the people. If some Chinese becomes a huge Olympic star and speaks out, the government cannot suppress that person without serious consequences. I see the Olympics as a people-to-people opportunity, not a government-to-government opportunity. To pass up such an opportunity would, I believe, be a mistake.

 

True, the "collateral damage" in that situation is the government would be offered a platform to showcase its "progress." But I think the people-to-people connections would be more important and long-lived.

 

Then again, I may be a hopeless optimist I don't think so, though. Do not think that the people of a country are always in lock-step with what their government espouses. In putting pressure on a government, we need to be careful not to also put pressure on agents of change by accident.

 

I don't have any personal involvement in all of this, unlike Ken or John. I just feel that the world is at a tipping point. A China working for the good of the world would be a huge asset. A China that solely seeks hegemony over others would be a disaster. Anything we can do to encourage the former and discourage the latter would be great. I don't think we'll get where we want to go with the current leadership, but there's something bubbling underground in China, and there's a lot of promise there. It's sort of what the 60s were like here, but hopefully they won't end up selling out as yuppies and buying BMWs...and perhaps, because they've gone through the wringer, they'll appreciate freedom more than those who have taken it for granted. And maybe they'll teach us something about how precious freedom really is.

[Anderton]

Regarding that last statement: It reminds me of Blade Runner, where the replicant, having been a replicant, appreciates the sanctity of life far more than the human and passes up the opportunity to kill the Harrison Ford character. Western societies have perhaps been free enough for long enough to take it for granted. A society where freedom is new and untested might help remind us what it's all about.

 

I guess I am a hopeless optimist.

[Anderton]

One last thing about this thread: It has gotten heated, for sure, but it has not sunk to the levels of much political forum fodder. And I think we've all learned a lot, and if not, we've thought about the subject a lot. Hence, I'm leaving it up unless it turns from heated to ugly.

 

Face it, we're all friends here. We must respect each other's opinions even as we try to change them. No one here is taking a position just to be outrageous, I think everyone truly believes what they say. Except for me, of course, who always adds the proviso "until shown otherwise..."

 

If we can have rational discourse here, then there's no excuse for the rest of the world not to. Please continue maintaining the high standards of this forum, despite the emotionally-charged subject matter. I truly appreciate all the contributions here. I do believe that "nothing's better left unsaid." Only when all the facts and opinions are on the table do we have a chance of making informed opinions of our own.

[philbo]

 

I don't think you're going to find a very sympathetic reading here or anywhere among free thinking, fair-minded individuals, of your blanket condemnation of an entire religion. And when that religion is one founded on principes of love for humanity and respect for life, it's going to be especially tough for many to swallow your broadside. It would have some parallels to condeming all Christians and all of Christendom for the sins and crimes of, say, the Inquisition or the so-called Crusades. Except, of course, you haven't even cited these crimes against humanity by Buddhism. You apparently see unruly criminals -- while much of the rest of the world sees a people who have never come to love the yoke of oppression and subjugation by a foreign culture imposed on them by violence. The twisted reasoning of your take on the plight of the Tibetans and your willingness to make a broad and absolute condemnation of a religion suggests a deep-seated inability to see differentiation and nuance that suggests rather greater problems than just simplistic and rigid social views and lack of respect for the intellectual and human rights of others.

 

 

It is just a variation of viewpoint. Remember, history is always written by the people who 'won'.

[philbo]

I could be wrong, for sure. But I am careful to differentiate between the people of a country and its government. I don't think change happens top down -- government to people -- from from bottom up, people to government. Generally, I think it is in a government's best interests to maintain the status quo, because by definition, they want to preserve what got them into power. Conversely, it is in the people's interest to question the status quo, for all the reasons mentioned in this thread of what's wrong with China -- there are a lot of things wrong with that country, and which affects the common person. Any corruption hurts the average Chinese person just trying to make a living more than it hurts us, for sure. Let me make it clear...what's right with China isn't the aging ruling class. It's the people who keep applying pressure, sometimes subtle, sometimes dramatic, for change. It's the people who, if you're an American standing on a street in Shanghai for more than a minute and look puzzled, will come up to you and do everything they can to help you out -- whether you need directions, or help interpreting a sign. They'll do it even if they don't speak English, they'll use sign language if they have to. I feel it's important to do everything we can to support the next generation of Chinese, who I believe do not generally support the doctrinaire thinking of the 60s and prior. From everything I've seen, and the people I know who spend a lot of time in China dealing with the music scene, they are intensely interested in the outside world and building bridges that transcend their current environment. They need us to help build those bridges, otherwise they will be isolated further. I do not think (correct me if I'm wrong) that China's athletes are part of the government, I think they are part of the people. If some Chinese becomes a huge Olympic star and speaks out, the government cannot suppress that person without serious consequences. I see the Olympics as a people-to-people opportunity, not a government-to-government opportunity. To pass up such an opportunity would, I believe, be a mistake. True, the "collateral damage" in that situation is the government would be offered a platform to showcase its "progress." But I think the people-to-people connections would be more important and long-lived. Then again, I may be a hopeless optimist I don't think so, though. Do not think that the people of a country are always in lock-step with what their government espouses. In putting pressure on a government, we need to be careful not to also put pressure on agents of change by accident. I don't have any personal involvement in all of this, unlike Ken or John. I just feel that the world is at a tipping point. A China working for the good of the world would be a huge asset. A China that solely seeks hegemony over others would be a disaster. Anything we can do to encourage the former and discourage the latter would be great. I don't think we'll get where we want to go with the current leadership, but there's something bubbling underground in China, and there's a lot of promise there. It's sort of what the 60s were like here, but hopefully they won't end up selling out as yuppies and buying BMWs...and perhaps, because they've gone through the wringer, they'll appreciate freedom more than those who have taken it for granted. And maybe they'll teach us something about how precious freedom really is.

 

 

If I may, I suggest another variation of viewpoint. Read through your entire response again, substituting 'USA' for 'China' throughout. Why? Just for the hell of it...

 

Nah... never mind.

[Anderton]

I am acutely aware that people in other countries make a differentiation between US citizens and their government, and was completely aware of that when I wrote what you quoted. However, one point of differentiation is that I do feel that the "upcoming generation" of Chinese kids in general doesn't take freedom for granted due to how hard they've had to fight for small gains, whereas Americans often do. I don't really see the same kind of underground movement bubbling under the surface here that I see in China.

[John Sayers]

May I offer a small history for you all to consider.

 

China had a civil war from 1927 - 1950. It was between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) backed by Russia and the Ruling party, Kuomintang (KMT or Chinese Nationalist Party) backed by the West. The war was interrupted by the Japanese invasion in WWII in which all Chinese combined to fight the Japanese who they eventually threw out. It cost 19 million lives, (second only to Russia in lives lost in WWII).

 

In 1946 the civil war continued with the CCP eventually winning and the Kuomintang escaping to Taiwan, Tibet and a few islands. The two regions of China that are in contention, Tibet and Taiwan, are the two regions the west's supporters had a footing in after the CCP took Government and it's also one of the reasons for the eventual invasion of Tibet and fleeing of the remaining Kuomintang along with the Dalai Lama to India.

 

The communist revolution from 1950 - 80s was horrendous. Words can't describe it, it's worth your while to read about it if you can. Teachers were humiliated by their students, crucifixes and Buddhas were smashed in the streets. It scarred the people who lived through it in unimaginable ways. Everyone dressed the same, men and women, unisex, no sex. I'm sure the Tibetans who couldn't escape to India lived through it also. Plus they starved.

 

Last weekend Taiwan voted out the party of the Kuomintang that has driven Taiwan since 1950 and has steadfastly refused to be a part of China claiming "independence" and replaced it with a new party that says they will engage - which for me, down here in Aussiland is a great relief because the tension between Taiwan and China is the major potential flash point of East Asia according to our ex Prime Minister, Paul Keating.

 

As I'm typing the TV has a doco on the sexual revolution in China today. It's the new generation Craig was refering to, they are going through a classic 60s revolution just like we did except unfortunately they have AIDS to contend with.

 

I'm with Craig, we have to engage with China. The old guard of China is the craggy old bastards we associate with communist dictators and the like, and they have their reasons for being the way they are as I hope I've explained. It's the new young China that I wish to engage with, those students I spoke to in 91 (I spent a couple of evenings in the University gardens 'talking english' with them) are in their late 30s early 40s now and are probably part of the driving force of the country. They were great kids, I was most impressed with them.

 

I was telling them not to strive to be like us but to meet us in the middle, that way we might all have a future.

[Cry Logic]

Dalai Lama reiterates threat to quit

(http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23432258-1702,00.html)

 

EXILED spiritual leader the Dalai Lama has reiterated a threat to resign

as leader of Tibet's exiles if there are more violent anti-Chinese protests

inside or outside China.

"If the violent demonstrations continue, I would resign,'' the Buddhist leader

said today.

"I think inside or outside China, if the demonstrators utilise violent methods,

I am totally against it,'' the Dalai Lama said.

 

Last week the spiritual leader, who has been based in the northern Indian

town of Dharamshala since a failed uprising against Chinese rule in 1959,

issued a similar warning.

[UstadKhanAli]

Just for the sake of clarification (even though y'all probably know this already), when the Dalai Lama talks about resignation, he's talking about his role as political leader of the Tibetan government-in-exile, not as a spiritual leader.

 

Also, if we are discussing athletes boycotting the Beijing Olympics, then I am against that.

 

I also agree that we have to continually engage China.

 

I also think that the internet may eventually be a catalyst for change in China. Yes, I know that their internet is heavily blocked, but there are still "cracks" in the internet.

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

Peking just cited our ambassor, and told him that they will use the toxic lacquer for the toys again if we further refuse to incarcerate the demonstrating Tibetans

[Cry Logic]

There's a report on news.com.au this morning

that says CHINA wants its army to oversee the

Australian leg of the Olympic torch relay to

ensure protests do not mar the event.!!!!

 

It's quite scary that they really might think that Australia,

or any country, would agree to such a proposition.

 

If this is really true, all I can say is WTF!!????