NationStates Jolt Archive

Should we support the Dalai Lama in word, deed, or not at all?

The Chinese occupation of Tibet has seen forests felled, resourses plundered, the people repressed. Yet the Dalai Lama refuses to fight. I say we take it back and give it back to the rightful ruler of Tibet.

Should we support the Dalai Lama in word, deed, or not at all?
Once again a thread poll with too few options. :(

Once again a thread poll with too few options. :(

Really, what should I have added?

No.

Next question!

The question is not if the world should, but how can the world do it.

- Declare war on China?Such war could probably kill more people than those that exist on Tibet.

- Diplomatic pressure? China seems impervious to that. The Dalai Lama is hugely popular, he is treated like a head of state wherever he goes, and that doesnt help much.

- Economical pressure and sanctions? Could help, but the west is too greedy to let go the huge chinese markets in exchange for more rights for the people of tibet.

-Support for resistance groups? Even if it could be done without china finding out, it is doubtful that a resistance group could kick out the Chinese army.


Result: They are fubar'ed.

Really, what should I have added?
How about ...

Diplomatic pressure
Economic pressure
Fund an insurgency

Nope, the world shouldn't, it's all this intervention mess that's left over from the second world war and hasn't helped anyone as much as direct force against the main aggressor would. we should leave tibet alone, if stuff happens it happens.

just my two pence. feel free to flame me and tell me what an insensitive lazy callous communist etc. i am.

In before someone blames the US for not liberating Tibet.

How about ...

Diplomatic pressure
Economic pressure
Fund an insurgency

Or let them free themselves...

Tell GWB that there's oil in Tibet and Osama was last seen heading in that direction pregnant with Saddam's love child.

Sounds about right. He'd send the marines in quicker than you can fix a Dade county election.

The Chinese occupation of Tibet has seen forests felled, resourses plundered, the people repressed. Yet the Dalai Lama refuses to fight. I say we take it back and give it back to the rightful ruler of Tibet.

If the "rightful owner" does not want to fight, why should we go against his desires?

Protest, complain, boycott, embargo etc. All these are possible and commendable, but "take it back" is not.

If the "rightful owner" does not want to fight, why should we go against his desires?

Protest, complain, boycott, embargo etc. All these are possible and commendable, but "take it back" is not.

Okay, okay. Stop all trade with China untill they 'give' it back. :)

Greed versus principles. Or alternately; pragmatism versus idealism.

Almost every nation that trades with China gets massive profits right?
How many nations would give those profits up willingly?
Trade embargos only work if a broad coalition supports them right?
How do you form a braod coalition of people who are giving up money willingly for any longer than a few days?
Now note that nations that DON'T join said coalition would continue to profit, and indeed more trade would be shifted to them.

Thus everyone who supported the principled desicion would lose massive profits and every unprincipled nation would gain handsomely.

The math simply doesn't work out. The amount of profit you would gain from supporting the principled choice is nil or less. Nations work to keep their own interests; not greater principles of government.

It would take a global grassroots movement with a strong catalyst to even start moving in that direction; scenerios do exist where that might happen though. I just don't think they are likely or desireable.

How about ...

Diplomatic pressure
Economic pressure
Fund an insurgency

Now there is a curious concept, Tibetan budhists promoting an insurgency. Does not compute.

Lord Montgomery said it best:

"There are two thing the west must never do if it is to survive. First, you must never march on Moscow, second, you must never engage in a land war in Asia."

How about a massive international media campaign designed to make China lose face over this issue? It'd be worth a try.

I'm not seeing any way to use hard power that would be beneficial. China's a tough target.

How about a massive international media campaign designed to make China lose face over this issue? It'd be worth a try.

I'm not seeing any way to use hard power that would be beneficial. China's a tough target.
This is the same China that did their thing at Tiananmen Square. They could care less how the West perceives them.

Tibet DID fight for its freedom when the Chinese first invaded, but their army was swiftly crushed. Since then China has proceeded to destroy Tibetan Buddhism to such an extent that it is probably impossible to put it back together again. Should the current Dalia Lama die i dread to think what would happen, as with the Panchan Lama China would probably claim theyd found the next Dalia, and the Buddhists would find their own.

By the way, has anyone heard any news of the Buddhists Panchan Lama he must be a teenager by now, if he wasnt killed by the Chinese long ago.

China is preparing to let Tibet go, its moving as many Chinese in as possible, so that when they altruistically allow its independence go to vote it will remain Chinese, or that they will eventually be able to claim a majority over the Tibetan natives.

This is the same China that did their thing at Tiananmen Square. They could care less how the West perceives them.

How much truth came out after Tianamen though? In all honesty, I'm too young to know. However, after reading Red China Blues (good read if you're interested in China) and experiencing China first hand it makes me wonder just how much control China exerted over the foreign media.
Afterall, I couldn't access BBC News while in China as the country had banned the website.

China is preparing to let Tibet go, its moving as many Chinese in as possible, so that when they altruistically allow its independence go to vote it will remain Chinese, or that they will eventually be able to claim a majority over the Tibetan natives.

Why does that remind me of region crashers who move nations into a target region early on so that later when they invade, the moderators are forced to see the invaders as mostly natives?

By the way, has anyone heard any news of the Buddhists Panchan Lama he must be a teenager by now, if he wasnt killed by the Chinese long ago.

China is preparing to let Tibet go, its moving as many Chinese in as possible, so that when they altruistically allow its independence go to vote it will remain Chinese, or that they will eventually be able to claim a majority over the Tibetan natives.


No-one's heard sight nor sound of him since the Chinese found him. He's reported to still be alive, but if they thought they'd get away with it the Chinese would probably say the same about Mao.

The Karmapa, third in the Tibeten spiritual line-up, is about 20 years old at the moment and managed to make a run for it to India. He disagrees with the Dalai Lama at the moment, and wants a full-scale insurgency.

As for moving as many Han Chinese into Tibet as possible, that could simply be because they've run out of other places to put them.

Tibet and China have done the same thing for about 4000 years, on and off. It doesn't matter if we DO liberate them, since they'll be re-occupied within about 100 years. Personally, I can't see why at all. What's the point in taking control of Tibet anyway? Their major export is Buddists.

Why does that remind me of region crashers who move nations into a target region early on so that later when they invade, the moderators are forced to see the invaders as mostly natives?
Because China is not a fool? They couldnt possibly let Tibet go now, theyd lose so much face.

Because China is not a fool? They couldnt possibly let Tibet go now, theyd lose so much face.

How are they going to avoid losing face on this issue?

How are they going to avoid losing face on this issue?
Put it off for as long as possible, and then if they are EVER forced to face up to it, make sure they win. That's the only way :P.

No. Don't really care about Tibet. If the Dalai Lama wants freedom, he should have send in the ninja's to kong-foo the chinese butts long time ago.

Damn hippy.

Oh yeah! World war three and economic chaos for some inhospitable mountains. I'm sorry, but unless they discover a vital resource there the EU and the US will do nothing for Tibet.

Put it off for as long as possible, and then if they are EVER forced to face up to it, make sure they win. That's the only way :P.

Silly China!!

Why aren't the worlds Buddhist brethrens from all nations coming to aid their forsaken brothers??

Curses!

Frankly, while it would be lovely to have a free Tibet, there's absolutely no chance. We don't actually give a damn at all about freedom, or justice, or anyone apart from ourselves. Otherwise Nike would go bust, the CIA would be outlawed and we'd shoot Bill Gates.

2 thoughts

1) china wont be letting tibet go, they think of tibet as an integral part of china and to lose it would be to lose face. its already a huge losing proposition for them but they would no more let it go than we would let alaska go.

2) the dalai lama would activley oppose any military action we would take to liberate tibet. he would probably actively oppose any boycott or pressure we would put on china that would hurt the tibetan people.

I am not sure about this, but isn't buddhism primarily peace-promoting?

This is what I gather, and so those who have complained about the Dalai Lama not sending silly ninjas and going rambo to take back Tibet are sorta forgetting the point...

if I am incorrect in this manner, my apologies.

I was just joking. Plus, Ninja's are Japanese.

Out of interest, did someone watch Ultimate Force last night ;)

Frankly, while it would be lovely to have a free Tibet, there's absolutely no chance. We don't actually give a damn at all about freedom, or justice, or anyone apart from ourselves. Otherwise Nike would go bust, the CIA would be outlawed and we'd shoot Bill Gates.

In after being right about someone blaming the US for not freeing Tibet.

Now there is a curious concept, Tibetan budhists promoting an insurgency. Does not compute.

Lord Montgomery said it best:

"There are two thing the west must never do if it is to survive. First, you must never march on Moscow, second, you must never engage in a land war in Asia."


Are you sure that was Lord Montgomery? I mean, doesn't Vizzini the sicilian say that in the princess Bride?

Vizzini: "You only think I guessed wrong - that's what's so funny. I switched glasses when your back was turned. Ha-ha, you fool. You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is "Never get involved in a land war in Asia", but only slightly less well known is this: "Never go in against a Sicilian, when *death* is on the line". Hahahahaha!"


Looks like he did.



On topic... I don't think anyone can do anything to get Tibet back. Which nation could you possibly convince to start the nukes flying, for a piece of land which has no worth to anyone except the Tibetans!

As well as all the other points that have been made, like the "Countries don't want to not trade with China" and "the Dalai Lama hasn't endorsed an invasion, and he's the leader of the place, so no-one has the right to."

Something I just thought about:
Israel/Palestine. :headbang:

Hi, my name is Helen and I favor non-intervention, the more that I think about it.

I think the higher democratic generations that MAY come (I say 'may' because there have been reports that some youth have actually dropped the idea of rebellion against authority) will soon realize what China has done to Tibet and how strong Tibet has to be to not fight, and do what some other country might do, thus end up standing up for Tibet's liberation.

Something I just thought about:
Israel/Palestine. :headbang:

Hi, my name is Helen and I favor non-intervention, the more that I think about it.

Yes. That is what we need to do with MUCH of our active intervention around the world. Do this and see how far terrorism lowers.
However, we have stepped to far in already to have terrorist just "forget about us". Thanks America and the military machine supporters. Not to forget politicians.

Yes. That is what we need to do with MUCH of our active intervention around the world. Do this and see how far terrorism lowers.
However, we have stepped to far in already to have terrorist just "forget about us".

Yeah, to put it eloquently, "we're boned."
I'd really like to see a US Foreign Policy of trade and not too much else. Foreign Aid would be nice but the second we start donating to a cause, another cause feels as if they got the short end of the stick and begins to hate us. :confused:

Oh well, it'll be interesting to see what happens when this era of American dominance/"Pax Americana" (again, not saying it to be cocky, saying it to be realistic) ends.

Yeah, to put it eloquently, "we're boned."
I'd really like to see a US Foreign Policy of trade and not too much else. Foreign Aid would be nice but the second we start donating to a cause, another cause feels as if they got the short end of the stick and begins to hate us. :confused:

Oh well, it'll be interesting to see what happens when this era of American dominance/"Pax Americana" (again, not saying it to be cocky, saying it to be realistic) ends.

That's why I hugely believe China or India and their rising economies and entry into the international arena will surely take over after the American Empire falls.

That's why I hugely believe China or India and their rising economies and entry into the international arena will surely take over after the American Empire falls.

I don't know about China. It's absolutely amazing seeing the progress that nation has made over the last 10 years alone but seeing it also made me wonder where on earth they got the money to finance such growth.

Why did you not include the European Union? I really wonder what direction they'll go over the next 100 years and if they'll develop into the same sort of unified statehood as the US did.

The European Union is also increasing greatly. Now with the euro out-valuing the dollar, it seems they may rise mostly in the social/scientific industry. China and India will have to become more economically powerful to be able to support more issues. And once that's done, America will begin to lose interest.

Btw, China go the money from all the trading connections they made these past years. How many object that you own happen to have MADE IN CHINA?

Yes. That is what we need to do with MUCH of our active intervention around the world. Do this and see how far terrorism lowers.
However, we have stepped to far in already to have terrorist just "forget about us". Thanks America and the military machine supporters. Not to forget politicians.

I do get rather irritated with the American current righteousness about terrorism. When terrorism was confined to South America, Africa, the Middle East etc. , did the powers that be in America give a damn. No. They certainly did nothing to stop the funding of terrorist groups in Northern Ireland, Central and Southern America and the middle east. If non intervention means stop funding wars, then I am all for it.

I know I'll probably be flammed for this, but the hypocrisy really does get my back up.

If the "rightful owner" does not want to fight, why should we go against his desires?

Protest, complain, boycott, embargo etc. All these are possible and commendable, but "take it back" is not.

Why do you think the Tibetans have never tried guerrilla warfare? (They did) There is no real easy way to make China give the Tibetans their country back. How long has the UN been screaming at the Israeli's to get out of the West Bank?

Furthermore despite the PR the Dali Lama is just another Osama but with a smily face. You should read about his veiws on homosexuality if you want an idea of what Tibetan society would probably be like. Not that living in a Stalinist state is fun, but Tibet would probably revert back to the old feudal system that it was under before the Chinese stole it where 98 percent of the population were feudal serfs, women had no rights etc.

Should Tibet be able to be free or independent - Sure.

But isn't what the Chinese is did/doing the same thng as our ancesters(Canadian and US) did to the natives of North America.