NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you think China is a modern fascist state bent on world domination (http://www.washtimes.com/specialreport/20050626-122138-1088r.htm) ?

Not world domination, but they DO want to be as powerful as the U.S...

No, not world domination, mabye world communation :sniper:

Not Domination, as I guess after a time it would get boring for the as they would be left with no one to fight (other than theselves). I think they are just trying to become the World's 2nd Superpower.

7th superpower actually....in sucseession but definatly the 2nd modern superpower.....and even if thety do want world domination...meh..so does the US

I wasn't aware that a mere build-up of one nation's armed forces and the changes in their foreign policy would make a government "fascist". Does this mean that the Soviet Union in the late 70es and 80es is fascist just because it attacked Afghanistan?

My second question is do you regard them as fascist? I think they fit the bill. I have concerns about there hardcore nationalism. The government is adamant in thier "One China" policy.

My second question is do you regard them as fascist?
How is a nation fascist when they don't even have a dictator, circled by a personality cult?

I have concerns about there hardcore nationalism.
And it is extremely wrong for a nation to be confident in itself and stand up for its beliefs?

I wasn't aware that a mere build-up of one nation's armed forces and the changes in their foreign policy would make a government "facist".

Nationalism in addition to state run economy makes a nation fascist. Granted I have provded a simple definition.

I don't think China exemplifies facism at all. What I see is a recovering "pseudo-communist" nation, that is beginning to shift towards capitalism. They aren't economically free enough to satisfy facism, but they certainly are arguably authoritarian enough. But in comparison to the states of the pre-WWII era (such as Italy, Germany, Spain), China is still quite different.

people get called facist for anything today, why in 5 years, people will call communists, facists for not beign nationalist enough.

oh and no-ones bothering about the US building their military and putting thier U-2 spys everywhere. basing planes in every corner of the earth.

Errrm... let me get this straight...

China is a communist state right (Technically, they're moving towards capitalism, and so they're still communist)

Communisum is the extreme left of politics...

Facism is on the extreme right... so they are complete oposites.

Unless I've missed something, which I probably have

You have, but I don't have time to explain that China isn't communistic.

Interesting post from a similar discussion.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/sgabriel/321forum/messages/41.html
Has the Communist Party of China morphed into a fascist party?

Setting aside for the moment the abhorrent racial policies of the Nazi Party, the question arises whether the CCP has evolved, or is evolving, into a classic Fascist Party. Historically, communist parties have always justified their claim to a monopoly of power on a revolutionary ideal of expropriating the means of production and apportioning the products of labor on a needs basis to the population, as well as the creation of a classless society.

In reality, in each case, a new upper class, or Nomenklatura, was created from Party members who, by virtue of their party connections, ran the commanding heights of government, business and the arts -- and shopped in special stores, etc. The masses remained simple units of labor and production, not human beings. In exchange for universal poverty, good education and abysmal medical care, the masses lost their freedom and their souls. Thus, in Nicaragua, the Sandinistas drove Volvos while the masses walked or took the bus (when they were running).

In China today, as I see it, the Party no longer has any excuse or even a theoretical basis for justifying its monopoly of power, as it no longer maintains central control of the economy, but rather mismanages a mixed economy. Corruption is pervasive from the bottom to the very top. As such, it has, in my view, evolved into the Corporate State, which was the hallmark of classic fascism.

Fascism, of course, was based on Labor, Big Business and the Church all being harnessed (bound together in the fasces) to serve the interests of the State. Private property was respected and protected. The basic support for the Party and its Government was an appeal to the glory of the country, its past, patriotism and a glorification of military prowess. Fascist states, including Italy, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania and Spain were powerful police states claiming a monopoly on power and suppressed all dissent. How is that different from present day China?

Communist China is -- and always has been -- a brutal police state. Its main hold on the people now is an appeal to nationalism and patriotism. We see that when Beijing was selected to host the 2008 Olympic Games, the kids were racing up and down the streets waving little red flags (not the Little Red Book). The spy plane incident was all about whipping up nationalist fervor and so is the nonsense about risking nuclear war over Taiwan and confronting the United States.

How does the CCP's main economic policy -- exploiting cheap Chinese labor to work in foreign-owned factories to earn currency with which to make the lives of Party members comfortable and to build up the military and the organs of repression -- square with classic Marxist-Leninist principles?

If the CCP is, in fact, a slick up-dated fascist organization, shouldn't we be as quick to condemn it as we are to condemn the slightest tendencies toward fascism in other countries, as with Joerg Haider's party in Austria? Can we be consistent, or must we close our eyes to reality because the CCP claims to be a party of the Left?

Query, suppose that prior to WWII the Nazis had spent greater effort explaining the socialist aspects of their National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party -- shouldn't leftists have supported the Nazis, as long as they didn't break the Nazi-Soviet Pact of 1939?

China is a totalitarian nationalist capitalist state with some vestiges of socialism.

Not faschist.

A growing economic powerhouse but with no real military ambitions (although they do want their land back, particularly Taiwan).

How is a nation fascist when they don't even have a dictator, circled by a personality cult?


And it is extremely wrong for a nation to be confident in itself and stand up for its beliefs?

The nation is a dictatorship. It has one party rule. The power of the state is supreme over all else. When the state is questioned, it destroys the inquisitor. The prime example being Tiananmen Square.

When beliefs run against freedom and self determination, they are wrong. China wants to take what it wants. China's agression towards Tibet and Tiawan shows the purpose of the "State" of China.

Facism is on the extreme right... so they are complete oposites.

Actually, facism isn't technically the extreme-right. It favors big-government, which is contrary to true right-wingers who want a small government. Communism and facism are somewhat similar in that they both tend to be authoritarian. Basically they differ in the private sector (buisness, land ownership etc.), but otherwise are shockingly similar.

How is a nation fascist when they don't even have a dictator, circled by a personality cult?


And it is extremely wrong for a nation to be confident in itself and stand up for its beliefs?


Actually they DO have a dictator chosen by the Communist party much like the USSR in the days of Stalin and Krushev. No, they are not fascist but they are totalitarian. People regularly dissapear in the middle of the night and are never seen again. Prisoners are regularly tortured and the people are purposely kept destitute(extremely poor) so that they rely on the government for servival.

A typical communist country... :(

China is a totalitarian nationalist capitalist state with some vestiges of socialism.

Not faschist.

A growing economic powerhouse but with no real military ambitions (although they do want their land back, particularly Taiwan).

The island of Formosa(Taiwan) was never under communist control so it was never THEIR land. Instead, mainland China was actually under republican control. So, Taiwan should want to get THEIR land back. ;)

Errrm... let me get this straight...

China is a communist state right (Technically, they're moving towards capitalism, and so they're still communist)

Communisum is the extreme left of politics...

Facism is on the extreme right... so they are complete oposites.

Unless I've missed something, which I probably have

Actually, they are closer to each other than Capitalism and Socialism in practicality... hence they are not really 'extreme' in anything but the Governmental system.

Look up the Horse shoe model of Political thought.

As for China being 'Fascist'... I hardly think so... its more a classic case of where the 'Communism' ideology falls down and has hence become a combination of Controlled Capitalism and Authoritarian Communism (Market Communism I think they call it?)...

Anyway, China is set to become a Super Power (Economically even if its Military is somewhat backward) along with the (declining) USA and the possible rise of the EU (unified or not)... possibly India and at a stretch Brazil as well in future...

The island of Formosa(Taiwan) was never under communist control so it was never THEIR land. Instead, mainland China was actually under republican control. So, Taiwan should want to get THEIR land back. ;)

But hereditarily China has included Taiwan.

And, for the last time. China isn't communist.

And, for the last time. China isn't communist.
You're right. China is more of a mix of state economy fascism and communistic totalitarianism. Honestly, the only think keeping them from being completely fascist is that China is an atheistic state. If the government embraced a religion, they would be a completely fascist state, by definition.

If the government embraced a religion, they would be a completely fascist state, by definition.

Is state-worship considered religion?

It may not be communist but it is run by the communist party.

And it is extremely wrong for a nation to be confident in itself and stand up for its beliefs?

Only if it's America.

Oh for....


Drop the word 'Communist", "Communism" or "Communistic" completely, China has completely departed from that.

First, its called "Market Socialism" (which is a load of bullshit), Communism can have no additatives, it has a strict definition if you ever had read Marx extensively.

Communism has no state, Communism is not authoritarian, Communism is not totalitarian, the word you are looing for is "STATE SOCIALISM" or better yet, "State Capitalism".

I would call China fascist, it does regulate the capitalist economy quite a bit just Fascist Italy and Francoist Spain, as well as Nazi Germany, which is a part of fascism; capitalism that works for the state, not for the individual profit. Rapid militarization is also fascist.

Secondly, it uses nationalism; which is extremely un-leftist and pro-fascist.

No country has ever been Communist, trust me on that, I've read all of Marx and nothing comes near to what he envisioned as a Communist society.

China even fails as a "Marxist-Leninist" country.

And saying Communists and Socialists should support Nazi Germany is rather dumb. First of all, its called "National" Socialism; which is a big hint to us International Socialists/Communists. And historically, the word Socialism and the red in the Nazi flag was there to entice the workers.
Furthermore, Nazi Germany was not interested in giving workers control, they wanted to harmonize class relations with state controlled employeer and worker unions.

We Communists want to smash the burgoeisie and install the working class as the rulers. ;)



It may not be communist but it is run by the communist party

So? I could call my party the "Democractic Alliance" and act like fascists. Plus, alot of communists are anti-party, its only the Leninists who believe in the Communist Party as the organ of class rule, which doesn't work.

its important to understand that China hasn't been a socialist country since 1976, when the communist leaders of the party were all either executed or exiled in a coup by the revisionists. It is important to understand that Deng Xaioping (the leader of the coup) was NOT a communist. He was what Maoists and Communists call "a Revisionist." Revisionism means communist in name, and capitalist in action.

China is a state-capitalist empire, that in no way reflects the actual goals of Mao or socialism. since the restoration of capitalism in China, the Chinese peasants have endured unbearable hardship, free speech and criticism of the state have been liquidated, the state has committed atrocities such as the Massacre of Tiananmen Square, and the list goes on. The capitalist restoration in China is literally a horror for the Chinese.

Only if it's America.

Yeah, only if it is a country that believes in freedom and NOT killing people in their sleep! Only if it is a country that frees people from dictators not oppressing a free people(Taiwan) under their own(Mainland China)!

China will never take Taiwan without losing fifty million of their soldiers to US warheads! The FREE people of Taiwan are worth it.

:sniper:

I do not believe China is on the same path as Nazi Germany. I think its on the same path as South Korea or Taiwan.

Back in the 1970's and 1980's both S.K. and Taiwan experenced rapid economic growth like China is undergoing today. They both were ruled by authoritian governments that slowly gave the people more and more freedoms as the population grew weathly. Eventually the enough people demanded democratic reforms. Barring an economic crash, China could reach this point between 2020 and 2030.


The economy is essentually 'free market' and has been decentralized greatly since 1978.

The government of China is authoritian not Totalitarian. From what i'm told they are free to do many things but are not 'free' like we are in the west and other developed countries.

Do you think China is a modern fascist state bent on world domination (http://www.washtimes.com/specialreport/20050626-122138-1088r.htm) ?

No.

The capitalist restoration in China is literally a horror for the Chinese.

And the Maoist Cultural Revolution wasn't?! Or the Stalinist Purges?! Or the Imprisonment of dissidents under Castro?! Or the Killing Fields of Pol Pot?! Or the Dissappearances in Romania?!

WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO GO ON?

You're right. China is more of a mix of state economy fascism and communistic totalitarianism. Honestly, the only think keeping them from being completely fascist is that China is an atheistic state. If the government embraced a religion, they would be a completely fascist state, by definition.
Well, the Nazis didn't embrace any single religion. They persecuted most of the established ones (Protestants, Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jews) and some actually embraced Pagan beliefs of the Norse. But Hitler and the Party can't be considered as having embraced any specific religion (though they wanted to instrumentalize the established "aryan" ones).
One thing that fascist governments have in common is a strong differentiation between the role of the woman and the man. The men were the pillars of society and the women had the role of housewife and birthmother. China isn't following that path, though you could certainly argue that there is plenty of sexism around.

Yeah, only if it is a country that believes in freedom and NOT killing people in their sleep! Only if it is a country that frees people from dictators not oppressing a free people(Taiwan) under their own(Mainland China)!

China will never take Taiwan without losing fifty million of their soldiers to US warheads! The FREE people of Taiwan are worth it.

:sniper:

China has warheads too.......

The capitalist restoration in China is literally a horror for the Chinese.None of the Chinese I've talked to seem to mind.

China has warheads too.......

We have Star Wars. And we have balls. The totalitarians of China have neither.

Nationalism in addition to state run economy makes a nation fascist. Granted I have provded a simple definition.

Thats not true, fascist economies are not all that state run. There is no obvious definition of fascism, the only thing you can state as true of fascism is nationalism and dictatorship.

Thats not true, fascist economies are not all that state run. There is no obvious definition of fascism, the only thing you can state as true of fascism is nationalism and dictatorship.

What make a government fascist is the belief in superiority of the state and nothing else.

We have Star Wars. And we have balls. The totalitarians of China have neither.

You sound more nationalistic then the Chinese.

What make a government fascist is the belief in superiority of the state and nothing else.

Not necessarily, the only thing Mussolini considered superior was himself.

"Controlled capitalism" and "state capitalism" are inherent contradictions. I see these terms used constantly when people on these forums debate the USSR, the PRC and any other such nation. Capitalism is when the government exersizes NO control over the economy.

"We may be seeing in China the first true fascist society on the model of Nazi Germany, where you have this incredible resource base in a commercial economy with strong nationalism, which the military was able to reach into and ramp up incredible production," a senior defense official said.

-
Oh, right, just like Nazi Germany. Good thing we don't have an incredible resource base, a commercial economy, or strong nationalism in the USA 'cuz then we'd be Nazis too...

China has warheads too.......
Aye, but the PRC long range nuclear arsenal is surprisingly limited. There are two aging SLBM subs, and about 12 ICBMs, all aging Soviet rockets. Liquid fueled, so they take a goodly amount of time to prep for launch. They lack any long range bombers or the like. They are by and large a regional nuclear threat.

You sound more nationalistic then the Chinese.

At least I believe others deserve freedom.

Well defence officials would say that wouldnt they. Nothing works up a country to want to bomb the hell out of another like saying its fascist! Unfortuneately for Bush people dont hate commies quite as much as Nazis

-
Oh, right, just like Nazi Germany. Good thing we don't have an incredible resource base, a commercial economy, or strong nationalism in the USA 'cuz then we'd be Nazis too...

I will make this clear one more time:

China: People disappear in the night.

USofA: People DON'T disappear in the night.

Got it?

My second question is do you regard them as fascist? I think they fit the bill. I have concerns about there hardcore nationalism. The government is adamant in thier "One China" policy.

They are hard core nationalist like you say. I have been to China several times to purchase items for my business. Can tell you the nationalism is somewhat hardcore over there. I think the world needs to take notice of what is going on there. I honestly dont think its going to be peaceful for long. There will be a shooting war at some point. Who with remains to be seen. I would think it will be either Taiwan or over rescources. Maybe both. But if I were China's direct neighbors I would be very wary.

We have Star Wars. And we have balls. The totalitarians of China have neither.

Over confidence and lack of knowledge can cause a war.

What make a government fascist is the belief in superiority of the state and nothing else.

Bingo! It is taught to the pupils of China in this manner. This can be a very dangerous situation if it turns the wrong way. It will make WWII casualties look light.

I will make this clear one more time:

China: People disappear in the night.

USofA: People DON'T disappear in the night.

Got it?

People don't disappear in the night in the USA? Wow, I wonder where all those faces on the milk cartons come from.

Wake up, my comment had nothing to do with comparing the US and China, it was an attempt to show the stupidity of likening China to Nazi Germany on those flimsy conditions listed by mister senior defense official.

At least I believe others deserve freedom.

Of course I believe Taiwan should have freedom! But the question is should we risk WW3 by intervening to stop it.

I don't believe the PRC would invade Taiwan anyway. The PRC government is very pragmatic and would not do anything to slow down economic growth. If China did stop its economic growth the Communist Party rule over China would come to an end very quickly and they know it.

Of course I believe Taiwan should have freedom! But the question is should we risk WW3 by intervening to stop it.

I don't believe the PRC would invade Taiwan anyway. The PRC government is very pragmatic and would not do anything to slow down economic growth. If China did stop its economic growth the Communist Party rule over China would come to an end very quickly and they know it.
The PRC would invade if they thought they could get away with it. Now consider that this does not mean that they wouldn't invade if they couldn't. They just have to think they can. Should China's nationally owned companies grab hold of strategic resources in the US markets, they might try to pull it off.
Remember, Saddam invaded Kuwait because he grossly underestimated the international community. He wouldn't have done it if he hadn't thought there wouldn't be a reaction.

"Controlled capitalism" and "state capitalism" are inherent contradictions. I see these terms used constantly when people on these forums debate the USSR, the PRC and any other such nation. Capitalism is when the government exersizes NO control over the economy.


Wrong, shows how naive you are of Marxist theory.


It is still capitalism from the viewpoint of the worker. He is still alienated from the means of the production.

And the class system does not change, the Communist Party becomes the new burgoeisie and the working class is still ruled by this burgeoisie; whether or not it waves a red flag or not.

WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO GO ON?

No, you've spouted enough bullshit for one day.

And the Maoist Cultural Revolution wasn't?! Or the Stalinist Purges?! Or the Imprisonment of dissidents under Castro?! Or the Killing Fields of Pol Pot?! Or the Dissappearances in Romania?!

The Cultrual Revolution wasn't at all horror. It was a period of history in which Mao unleashed the power of the peasantry to transform culture and social relations, and to stop China from going down the capitalist road (which Mao saw happening). You can read a really good article about the cultural revolution here: http://rwor.org/a/1251/communism_socialism_mao_china_facts.htm

As for Stalins purges... that is something that we Maoists sharply criticize. The main problem with Stalin's line was that be believed that the communist party could never have conflicting interests with the masses of people, so that logic basically extends to the belief that everything the CCCP would do would be right, and that just isn't true. So you have to allow and encourage the masses to criticize and dissent. Criticism and dissent are not something we should be afraid of, but rather something we should seek, because those things strengthen the political line of our party.

Maoists consider Castro to be a revisionist. Cuba is not, and never has been, a socialist country. The Cubans never had a real revolution. You see, socialism means the dictatorship of the proletariat, over the bougeoisie. So in order to achieve the dictatorship of the proletariat, the proletariat has to be the class carrying out the revolution. What Che did, was instead of forming a solid communist party and working among the masses, he instead built a guerilla army with no political party, that never really worked with the Cuban masses. So Che and Castro overthrew the state, not the masses themselves. You cannot achieve socialism by means of a coup, it can only espout from the masses of people themselves.

As for Pol Pot... Pol Pot isn't even a communist. His ideology was primitivism. He called Maoists "counter-revolutionaries." Blaming communists for the things our enemies do is like blaming cats for dogs that tear up the furniture.

HAVE PEOPLE BEEN DEFAMING CHINA AS I WAS LEARNING ABOUT THE CONCEPTS OF EVOLUTION?? HOW DARE YOU!!

Lol.

Originally Posted by The Peoples Communes
The Cultrual Revolution wasn't at all horror. It was a period of history in which Mao unleashed the power of the peasantry to transform culture and social relations, and to stop China from going down the capitalist road (which Mao saw happening). You can read a really good article about the cultural revolution here: http://rwor.org/a/1251/communism_so...china_facts.htm Holy crap, I never thought I'd encounter somebody who'd actually stoop to "defending" the Cultural Revolution. I think 20 Million people dying of starvation or "purges" would count as horror in my book. Mao was a disgusting moron who massacred his people and only sought to gain power. He is utterly indefensible. He stands equal to Stalin as one of the greatest mass-murders in the history of Humanity.

BTW, I checked out your link, it doesn't work for me, but seeing as it comes from the Communist Party of the U.S.A., I wouldn't pay it much mind even if I could read it. There is no justification for the brutal terror which China endured during Mao's inept and hideously barbaric rule. I hope one day the Chinese people learn the truth and not idiotic proto-fascist propaganda. They'll be mighty pissed off, I can tell you.

I reckon China will move to a more confucian state over time. Back to the roots one could say, with people very mindful of their history and so on.
And yes, China is nationalistic, but not because of their government, but because they have been for something like 6000 years. For most of that time they were world leaders in everything, and they knew it. Now they're catching up again, but I don't think China will show any more interest in other countries than they have done in the past.
They'll use trade to keep their own standard of living high, and diplomacy to make sure that no one tries to cross them. The Taiwan thing is clear to me. Over time China will turn more into what Taiwan is now, and while that happens, the Taiwanese will eventually be happy to reunite with their brothers and sisters. The PRC is just so aggravated because they see it as insolence that foreigners (with long noses... :) ) intervene in what is essentially a Chinese affair.

"We left the million-man swim behind in about 1998, 1999," the senior Pentagon official said. "And in fact, what people are saying now, whether or not that construct was ever useful, is that it's a moot point, because in just amphibious lift alone, the Chinese are doubling or even quadrupling their capability on an annual basis."

I like this quote. You hear that "China can't project their power" argument a lot on this forum.

Fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Communism: a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R. b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d : communist systems collectively



It seems the difference between the two is the difference between who exacts control: the party or a single individual. Also whether nationalism plays an important role.

China apparently has qualities that put it in both categories. Nationalism and economic management make it fascist, party control and ideology make it communist. It is much more authoritarian than autocratic, so that puts some distance between it and fascism.

By comparison Stalinist USSR was completely autocratic but its nationalism was a joke, and it too claimed to by communist. Hitler's Germany was completely autocratic, completely nationalistic, and staunchly opposed to the notion of Communism.

Holy crap, I never thought I'd encounter somebody who'd actually stoop to "defending" the Cultural Revolution. I think 20 Million people dying of starvation or "purges" would count as horror in my book. Mao was a disgusting moron who massacred his people and only sought to gain power. He is utterly indefensible. He stands equal to Stalin as one of the greatest mass-murders in the history of Humanity.

BTW, I checked out your link, it doesn't work for me, but seeing as it comes from the Communist Party of the U.S.A., I wouldn't pay it much mind even if I could read it. There is no justification for the brutal terror which China endured during Mao's inept and hideously barbaric rule. I hope one day the Chinese people learn the truth and not idiotic proto-fascist propaganda. They'll be mighty pissed off, I can tell you.

While there is no doubt that Mao had a part in promoting the Cultural Revolution, there is evidence that the situation got completely awry of his original plans to restore socialist elements to the country. It was really his cult and his name, cooked up by the notorious Gang of Four, that influenced the Red Guards. Secondly, historical evidence points to a theory that Mao was actually less concerned about his power than the wellbeing of his nation - he truly believed that socialism was going to work in China, and all the problems stemmed from capitalism (given what he had experienced in the 1920s to 1940s, it isn't surprising).

Lastly, you also have to consider the benefits the Chinese people had gained after the Communist revolution. Chiang Kaishek could not rule and let the Japanese run over half of the nation. His government was corrupt, inefficient, squandering American aid etc. The Chinese people, by 1976, were far better off in health, education, and social status than they had been in 1948.

You need to be objective in history.

The Cultrual Revolution wasn't at all horror.

:rolleyes:

Maoists may not like this. So censor this.

http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.php?id=20467&cat_id=1

Mao: ten parts bad, no parts good
By Gwynne Dyer

WITHIN a year, the book will be translated into Chinese. It will be banned in China, of course, but it will find its way in nevertheless, mostly on CDs, and it will find fascinated but appalled readers in every corner of the country. Nothing will change right away, but over time it will probably have the same impact on how Chinese see their own history and the Party that rules over them that Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s GulagArchipelago had on Russians.

The book is Mao: The Unknown Story, a massively researched biography of the Great Helmsman that strips all the flattering myths away and reveals the founder of China’s Communist regime as a monster with no redeeming qualities whatever. The authors, Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, spent 10 years trawling through previously untapped archives and interviewing literally hundreds of people who were close to Mao Tse-tung at some point in his life, and the picture they draw of the man is as definitive as it is repellent.

He was a mass murderer on an even bigger scale than Hitler or Stalin – and unlike them, he took a sadistic pleasure in watching films of his victims being tortured and killed. The one heroic episode of his career that has never before been challenged, the 9,000km Long March that began in 1934, turns out to have been a fraud: his Nationalist enemies never tried to stop his army, but rather shepherded it through various areas where they wanted to frighten the local warlords into submission. And he didn’t actually march; most of the way he was carried in a bamboo litter.

From the start of his career, he killed people, mainly in order to terrorise everybody else into submission. In the Communist-ruled enclaves of south-central China in 1931-35, he oversaw the killing of 700,000 people. In the Yenan enclave in the north where he sat out the Japanese invasion (systematically sabotaging any Nationalist attempts to create a co-ordinated anti-Japanese front), he had at least a million killed.
By the time of the Great Leap Forward in the late 1950s, Mao’s absurd attempt to “overtake all capitalist countries in a fairly short time and become one of the richest, most advanced countries in the world” by driving peasants off the land and into factories, his contempt for the lives of his subjects was so great that he cheerfully acknowledged that “half of China may well have to die” in the famines caused by the sudden loss of farm labour. (In the event, 38 million people died of starvation
in four years.)

His senior Communist colleagues found the courage to sideline him after that, but he fought his way back into power by instigating the Cultural Revolution of 1965-67, an upheaval that brought torture, humiliation and death to millions and purged the Party of his rivals. By the time he died in 1976, according to Jung Chang’s reckoning, Mao had been responsible for some 70 million deaths: not even Genghis Khan had killed so many Chinese. And over his 30 years in power, despite all his violent extremism, China’s economy had grown no faster than democratic India’s.

His personal life was as self-centred and self-indulgent as his politics. He had 50 palatial official residences scattered all over China, furnished with flocks of young women whom he worked his way through tirelessly. He neglected his wives and his children. And he didn’t take a bath for 25 years. The book is an indictment both of the political and the personal Mao that is so unrelenting and comprehensive that it invites disbelief – but the documentation is overwhelming.

Yet Mao remains a hero for the Communist regime because they can’t get away from him: he created them. They can’t deny the fact that some of his decisions were catastrophically bad, but the official line, first formulated by Deng Xiaoping, is that he was three parts wrong, seven parts right. So a book demonstrating that he was bad and wrong one hundred per cent of the time is a danger to that regime, but can a book ever bring down a regime? Well, consider Solzhenitsyn – and consider Nikita Khrushchev’s lethal comment: “I look at Mao, I see Stalin, a perfect copy.”

In 1962, Solzhenitsyn published One Day in the Life of IvanDenisovich, his fictionalised memoir of life in the vast system of concentration camps (gulags) in Stalin’s Soviet Union. It broke the long silence on the mountain of cruelty, suffering and murder that lay behind the facade of Soviet power. Then, after a decade of research, he published The Gulag Archipelago, a massively documented three-volume history of the Stalinist terror that consumed tens of millions of lives.

The book was banned and Solzhenitsyn was sent into exile abroad, but copies circulated everywhere in “samizdat” (illegal, often handwritten copies). A decade later, everyone knew the truth and the Communists’ long struggle to bury the past and foster myths that would legitimise their rule lay in ruins. They lost power five years later.
Eleven years ago, Jung Chang published Wild Swans, a fictionalised memoir of her family’s sufferings under Mao’s rule. After a decade of research, she and her historian husband Jon Halliday have published Mao: The Unknown Story, which documents Mao’s crimes and failures in unrelenting, unprecedented detail. A decade from now, everybody in China will know the gist of the information in this book (though few will have ploughed through all 800 pages of it). And then we shall see what happens.

Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist

Errrm... let me get this straight...

China is a communist state right (Technically, they're moving towards capitalism, and so they're still communist)

Communisum is the extreme left of politics...

Facism is on the extreme right... so they are complete oposites.

Unless I've missed something, which I probably have

According to another thread that discusses the political spectrum fascism is the extreme left and anarchy is the extreme right. This does not, however make communism and fascism synonymous.

We have Star Wars. And we have balls. The totalitarians of China have neither.

I was in a sporting goods store the other day and all the balls said "made in China" :confused:

:rolleyes:

Maoists may not like this. So censor this.

http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.php?id=20467&cat_id=1
Blah blah blah.

China wouldn't have gotten that far without Mao. While Mao did make some serious mistakes, wiping away all his achievements is just unfair. UN. FAIR.

Do you think China is a modern fascist state bent on world domination (http://www.washtimes.com/specialreport/20050626-122138-1088r.htm) ?

I dont think China is Fascist...because, well, they are Communists.

Do you think China is a modern fascist state bent on world domination (http://www.washtimes.com/specialreport/20050626-122138-1088r.htm) ?

There's a little contradiction in your statement

A fascist state would be an ultra right-wing nation like hitler's germany. China is not because their communist regime is an ultra socialist left-wing government.

According to another thread that discusses the political spectrum fascism is the extreme left and anarchy is the extreme right. This does not, however make communism and fascism synonymous.

Oye Oye, if hitler is a fascist dictator, then why did he hate communism? You should read history books instead of threads in the forum.

Not world domination, but they DO want to be as powerful as the U.S...

They already own half of it, they own most of the bonds, most of the businesses outsource there, and the economy relies on items made there.

According to another thread that discusses the political spectrum fascism is the extreme left and anarchy is the extreme right. This does not, however make communism and fascism synonymous. I don't think it's really that simple. Politics isn't just one scale and there are multiple forms of communism, fascism and anarchy.

A fascist state would be an ultra right-wing nation like hitler's germany. China is not because their communist regime is an ultra socialist left-wing government. Hitler's Nazi Germany was not ultra-right. Yes, they were slightly on the right in terms of economic policies but what made them so bad was their extreme authoritarianism. The state held precedence over the individual.

There's a little contradiction in your statement

A fascist state would be an ultra right-wing nation like hitler's germany. China is not because their communist regime is an ultra socialist left-wing government.



Oye Oye, if hitler is a fascist dictator, then why did he hate communism? You should read history books instead of threads in the forum.

I've read plenty of books and spend about two hours a day reading articles on the internet. The reason why I referred to the thread in the forum is because I believe in giving credit where credit is due.

Regarding the political spectrum I stand by the claim that anarchy is extreme right and facism is extreme left, if the criteria for the spectrum is the amount of government control in the daily lives of it's citizens.

Now if you had read my post thoroughly you would have seen that I included the statement that communism and fascism are not synonymous. One deals with an attitude towards distribution of a societies wealth, the other deals with the manner in which that distribution is enforced.

Blah blah blah.

China wouldn't have gotten that far without Mao. While Mao did make some serious mistakes, wiping away all his achievements is just unfair. UN. FAIR.
You could say the same about Hitler. I mean...we have the Volkswagen and all of the medical advances that came out of the Nazi medical/torture experiments on Jews.

Hell, for that alone, we should celebrate Hitler's reign! To not do so would be UNFAIR. :rolleyes:

@ above,

well said.

The Chinese state controlled history text books blacks out many of the atrocities committed by the commies. Especially the invasion and occupation of Tibet, great leap forward, cultural revolution etc.

Dragons bay,

what is unfair? putting Mao in perspective?

China DID NOT achieve anything economically due to Mao's policies. It was Deng who brought in the prosperity with his reforms.

Give me a straight answer as to why Mao invaded Tibet ?

You could say the same about Hitler. I mean...we have the Volkswagen and all of the medical advances that came out of the Nazi medical/torture experiments on Jews.

Hell, for that alone, we should celebrate Hitler's reign! To not do so would be UNFAIR. :rolleyes:

I agree. Hitler Day! When everyone celebrates their fondness for lederhosen and Charlie-Chaplin mustaches. An opportunity for families to get together... in boxcars...

hmm maybe not... I think there could be a PR issue.

You could say the same about Hitler. I mean...we have the Volkswagen and all of the medical advances that came out of the Nazi medical/torture experiments on Jews.

Hell, for that alone, we should celebrate Hitler's reign! To not do so would be UNFAIR. :rolleyes:

If Hitler did those things Hitler should be commended ON THOSE THINGS ONLY. It doesn't mean that these achievements can cover the mistakes he made. You have to mention both sides at the same time everytime or make sure you distinguish between achievements and mistakes to make the assessment fair.

Hey, that's history. Objective. Whether you like it or not shouldn't affect assessments.

Nobody's a complete hero and nobody's a complete bastard.

According to another thread that discusses the political spectrum fascism is the extreme left and anarchy is the extreme right. This does not, however make communism and fascism synonymous.

You have it backwards my friend.

@ above,

well said.

The Chinese state controlled history text books blacks out many of the atrocities committed by the commies. Especially the invasion and occupation of Tibet, great leap forward, cultural revolution etc.

Dragons bay,

what is unfair? putting Mao in perspective?

China DID NOT achieve anything economically due to Mao's policies. It was Deng who brought in the prosperity with his reforms.

Give me a straight answer as to why Mao invaded Tibet ?

Chinese textbooks indeed hide the shameful sides of modern history. That is unfair, but I didn't say that everything the Chinese government does is good anyway.

Putting Mao in perspective, you have to not only look at his faults and mistakes and also his achievements.

What about leading the Chinese Communist Army against the Japanese in 1940s when Chiang was squandering American aid?

What about improving the education and healthcare system?

During the Great Leap Forward, while there were disastrous policies, it also helped China's economy to diversify. Industry was shifted towards the inland areas and helped the interior develop. While there is a long way from equalising the coast and the interior, first steps are important. Deng opened China's economy, but what about the June 4th Incident? So will you say Deng was "good" or "bad"? You can't judge a person by single incidents or events or policies, can you?

The straight answer is not "invasion". It's called "restoration". Also, Tibet was falling under the influence of India and strategically speaking, an Indian Tibet would be disastrous to China because most of China's rivers originate from Tibet and that Tibet is at a higher altitude than any other place in the country and makes an Indian invasion easier.

A fascist nation is one in which the military is glorified (as it should be, but that's besides the point), an idea of racial/ethnic purity and nationalism sweeps the nation, and a dictator or oligarchy of dictators seizes sole power in the nation by feeding off feelings of nationalist fervor and promising a glorious future (or return to an idealized past, as in the case of Mussolini's fascist Italy seeking a return to the power of the Roman Empire).

China doesn't fit the bill quite yet, but it's starting to get there.

Chinese textbooks indeed hide the shameful sides of modern history. That is unfair, but I didn't say that everything the Chinese government does is good anyway.



hiding? what about the alternate history taught ?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/06/international/asia/06textbook.html?ex=1120104000&en=3dae629de28cc9a1&ei=5070&oref=login

China's Textbooks Twist and Omit History

HANGHAI, Dec. 5 - The history teacher maintained a blistering pace, clicking from one frame quickly to the next, during a lecture on China's relations with the world from 1929 to 1939 in one of this country's most selective high schools.

There was Hitler, shown on parade, his hand lifted in the Nazi salute. The teacher mimicked the gesture, to brief laughter, announcing the year the dictator came to power, with no pause for a discussion of fascism. Pushing ahead quickly, he said the United States was exploiting Canadian and Latin American resources, while Britain fed off India. Wherever it could, France, which was dismissed in barely a sentence, mostly followed Britain's example.

Getting to the meat of the lesson, the teacher said Japan decided to pursue its own longtime desire for a continental empire, and attacked China. The presentation lingered on a famous 1937 picture of a Chinese baby sitting in the middle of a Shanghai road amid the Japanese aerial bombing of China. Then, moments later, the teacher announced plainly, "America's attitude toward the Japanese invasion of China stopped at empty moral criticism."

This country has made a national pastime of wagging its finger at its neighbor, Japan, which it regularly scolds for not teaching the "correct history" about Japan's invasion of China in the 1930's, straining relations between Asia's biggest powers.

However, a visit to a Chinese high school classroom and an examination of several of the most widely used history textbooks here reveal a mishmash of historical details that many Chinese educational experts themselves say are highly selective and often provide a deeply distorted view of the recent past.

Most Chinese students finish high school convinced that their country has fought wars only in self-defense, never aggressively or in conquest, despite the People's Liberation Army's invasion of Tibet in 1950 and the ill-fated war with Vietnam in 1979, to take two examples.

Similarly, many believe that Japan was defeated largely as a result of Chinese resistance, not by the United States.

"The fundamental reason for the victory is that the Chinese Communist Party became the core power that united the nation," says one widely used textbook, referring to World War II.

No one learns that perhaps 30 million people died from famine because of catastrophic decisions made in the 1950's, during the Great Leap Forward, by the founder of Communist China, Mao Zedong.

Similar elisions occur in everything from the start of the Korean War, with an invasion of South Korea by China's ally, North Korea, to the history of Taiwan, which Beijing claims as an irrevocable part of China.

"The Anti-Japanese War finally succeeded, and Taiwan came back to the motherland," another leading textbook states, referring to Japan's defeat in World War II and the loss of its colonial hold on Taiwan.

"The closer history gets to the present, the more political it becomes," said Chen Minghua, a 12th grade history teacher at the No. 2 Secondary School in Shanghai. "So for things after the founding of the People's Republic, we only require students to know the basic facts, like what happened in what year, and we don't study why."

Although some defend the curriculum, many academics say the way history is taught in China forces even the best teachers to bob and weave around anything deemed delicate by the country's leaders and leaves students confused about their own country's place in the world.

Asked what they made of the discussion of the 1930's, one student at the Shanghai high school eagerly volunteered that China had prevented Japan from taking over much of the world. Another said war was inevitable. And a third, who approached the teacher after class to pursue the discussion, said the war had not been a bad thing, since it had prevented Japan from becoming a world power.

Defenders of China's curriculum say that whatever its shortcomings, history education has vastly improved in recent years. There is more choice among textbooks, even if all textbooks are carefully screened by the government, and once taboo subjects, like the Chinese Nationalists' contribution during the war against Japan and even the Cultural Revolution are being mentioned, if only cursorily, in more and more textbooks.

Asked why Chinese textbooks do not mention such matters as Tibet's claim to independence at the time Communist troops invaded, Ren Penjie, editor of a history education magazine in Xian, said: "These are still matters of controversy. What we present to children are less controversial facts, which are easier to explain."

Others said such events were too recent to be seen with objectivity, or that the facts were still coming in, both of which are common explanations offered by Japanese historians who defend the lack of candor about Japanese atrocities in World War II.

For his part, Mr. Ren, who took part in the 1989 protests in Tiananmen Square, which ended in a military crackdown that left hundreds of civilians dead, counted that event as being far too recent to touch upon.

One 1998 textbook that alludes to the demonstrations calls them a "storm" created by the failure of leaders to stop the spread of "bourgeois liberalism," adding vaguely that "the Central Committee took action in time and restored calm." The most recent edition of the same textbook is vaguer still, speaking only of thoughts fanned by a small number of people whose aim was to overthrow the Communist Party, with no mention of the lethal aftermath.

Some Chinese history specialists were less inclined to make excuses for the evasions, however.

"Quite frankly, in China there are some areas, very sensitive subjects, where it is impossible to tell people the truth," said Ge Jianxiong, director of the Institute of Chinese Historical Geography at Fudan University in Shanghai and a veteran of official history textbook advisory committees. "Going very deeply into the history of Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping and some features of the Liberation" - as the Communist victory is called - "is forbidden. In China, history is still used as a political tool, and at the high school level, we still must follow the doctrine."

Taking the long view, though, Mr. Ge, 59, who taught high school during the 1966-76 Cultural Revolution, when teachers were beaten and education became hyper-politicized, said things were gradually getting better.

Su Zheliang, a historian at Shanghai Normal University, who is himself the author of a new textbook, agreed.

"Sometimes I want to write the truth, but I must take a practical approach," he said. "I want my students to learn, and I've put out the best book that I can. In 10 years, perhaps, China will be a much more open country."


THAT is what the Chinese history books are doing. No wonder the Pew attitude poll showed that Chinese as the leading narcisstic / ethno centric country beating even the French !


Putting Mao in perspective, you have to not only look at his faults and mistakes and also his achievements.

What about leading the Chinese Communist Army against the Japanese in 1940s when Chiang was squandering American aid?

What about improving the education and healthcare system?

During the Great Leap Forward, while there were disastrous policies, it also helped China's economy to diversify. Industry was shifted towards the inland areas and helped the interior develop. While there is a long way from equalising the coast and the interior, first steps are important. Deng opened China's economy, but what about the June 4th Incident? So will you say Deng was "good" or "bad"? You can't judge a person by single incidents or events or policies, can you?



Improving education and health care systems etc is the DUTY OF A LEADER. You don't get points for what you are supposed to do. Many leaders have done more without conducting genocidal massacres on their own citizens.

Compared to Mao, Deng was a far better leader.


The straight answer is not "invasion". It's called "restoration". Also, Tibet was falling under the influence of India and strategically speaking, an Indian Tibet would be disastrous to China because most of China's rivers originate from Tibet and that Tibet is at a higher altitude than any other place in the country and makes an Indian invasion easier.

I asked you a straight answer. You don't have to dress it up with empty euphemistic words like "restoration".

It was pure hegemony and unashamed land grab.

India had no territorial ambitions on Tibet. India did not even annex Nepal when the Nepalese monarch OFFERED to join the Indian Union. Tibet was historically considered a "Buffer state" between India and China.

"India invading Tibet" - a nice joke there. How would an Indian invasion be "easier" when it is the same heights from this side of the Himalayas?

And invade with what ?

Even in 1962 Indo-China war, India could barely get its act together and suffered a humiliating defeat losing the Aksai Chin (33,000 square kilometres of eastern Kashmir) to Chinese occupation.

There's another unprovoked war due to Chinese hegemony. What's your take on that war?

lemme guess...India thought about invade China, but Chairman Mao foresaw it and invaded India, eh? :rolleyes:


ADDED LATER: Forgot to add the little factoid that now ethnic Tibetans are a MINORITY in their own province (Tibet) due to the Han Chinese migration.

A fascist nation is one in which the military is glorified (as it should be, but that's besides the point), an idea of racial/ethnic purity and nationalism sweeps the nation, and a dictator or oligarchy of dictators seizes sole power in the nation by feeding off feelings of nationalist fervor and promising a glorious future (or return to an idealized past, as in the case of Mussolini's fascist Italy seeking a return to the power of the Roman Empire).

China doesn't fit the bill quite yet, but it's starting to get there.

*shock*

You make some sense!

*shock*

You make some sense!

I like to do that every now and then. Not too often, though, it ruins my image.

hiding? what about the alternate history taught ?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/06/international/asia/06textbook.html?ex=1120104000&en=3dae629de28cc9a1&ei=5070&oref=login


THAT is what the Chinese history books are doing. No wonder the Pew attitude poll showed that Chinese as the leading narcisstic / ethno centric country beating even the French !

I concur. History would not be my major if I was going to study in Chinese universities. The Communists are indeed quite hypocritical in accusing Japan to "face up to their history".

Improving education and health care systems etc is the DUTY OF A LEADER. You don't get points for what you are supposed to do. Many leaders have done more without conducting genocidal massacres on their own citizens.

But any leader could have NOT improved education and healthcare systems (Hitler didn't). Compared to the situation in the 1940s under the rule of Chiang, Mao had far greater achievements.


Compared to Mao, Deng was a far better leader.

Fine. Up to you.

I asked you a straight answer. You don't have to dress it up with empty euphemistic words like "restoration".

It was pure hegemony and unashamed land grab.

Tibet had been part of China since the Qing Dynasty. It broke away from Chinese rule because of the British occupation in the 19th Century. I don't see why it's so wrong to take back something that was originally yours.

India had no territorial ambitions on Tibet. India did not even annex Nepal when the Nepalese monarch OFFERED to join the Indian Union. Tibet was historically considered a "Buffer state" between India and China.

"India invading Tibet" - a nice joke there. How would an Indian invasion be "easier" when it is the same heights from this side of the Himalayas?

And invade with what ?

Even in 1962 Indo-China war, India could barely get its act together and suffered a humiliating defeat losing the Aksai Chin (33,000 square kilometres of eastern Kashmir) to Chinese occupation.

There's another unprovoked war due to Chinese hegemony. What's your take on that war?

lemme guess...India thought about invade China, but Chairman Mao foresaw it and invaded India, eh? :rolleyes:

The Cold War changed all that. India was an American ally after they got independence. With the American attitudes to the Communists during the Civil War it would be so natural for Mao to fear an invasion of Tibet by India. If India does occupy Tibet the entire China proper would be under a severe invasion threat.

You should read my friend's research on the Sino-Indian War. Objective she came to a conclusion that the Sino-Indian War was not caused by "Chinese hegemonic" desires, but a desire to protect China - a sort of preemptive strike which America used on Iraq and Japan used on America. It's called 先發制人, and is highly revered in Sun Zi's "Art of War". Immoral? Maybe. Successful? Very.


ADDED LATER: Forgot to add the little factoid that now ethnic Tibetans are a MINORITY in their own province (Tibet) due to the Han Chinese migration.
Tsk. So? Are Native Americans a majority or minority in Utah? Colorado?

I like to do that every now and then. Not too often, though, it ruins my image.

Lol! :D:D:D

Tibet had been part of China since the Qing Dynasty. It broke away from Chinese rule because of the British occupation in the 19th Century. I don't see why it's so wrong to take back something that was originally yours.


Funny that the overwhelming majority of Tibetan folks think otherwise.

Qing dynasty lasted around 250 odd years, with Tibet under direct manchu control for less than 200 years. At no period before that was Tibet under the rule of chinese. Around 13th and 14th century both Tibet and China were under the Mongol rule (Yuan empire) and with the fall of the Mongol empire in the 15th century, ethnic chinese empire (the Mings) did not inherit control over Tibet. Tibet was very much free from the 15th to 17th century.

Considering the fact that Tibet was free from Chinese political control for much of its recorded history (which goes back to pre Buddhist era itself) , I don't see how Tibet "belongs" to China just cuz it was under China for 200 odd years. Heck many countries have been under colonial rule for more than that and are we to take it that those colonies also "belong" to the imperial country?

And then there is this thing about invading a country which did not have a professional standing army and massacring the Tibetans and the Spiritual leader Dalai Lama fleeing the country. Not to speak of the encouragement of Han chinese immigration to Tibet to a point where today Han Chinese outnumber Tibetans in Tibet.

"Peaceful rise" is the word, eh? ;)


The Cold War changed all that. India was an American ally after they got independence. With the American attitudes to the Communists during the Civil War it would be so natural for Mao to fear an invasion of Tibet by India. If India does occupy Tibet the entire China proper would be under a severe invasion threat.


Please bear me while I ROTFLMAO.

India an American ally ? Dude, you have some serious "alternative" history there. A civil-war (partition) ravaged impoverished India could not even feed its people, barely recovering from the Bengal famines which killed 3-4 millions.
Moreover India did not have territorial ambitions on Tibet at any time in its history.

So this excuse that Mao "feared an invasion of Tibet" is pure unadulterated BS.

You should read my friend's research on the Sino-Indian War. Objective she came to a conclusion that the Sino-Indian War was not caused by "Chinese hegemonic" desires, but a desire to protect China - a sort of preemptive strike which America used on Iraq and Japan used on America. It's called 先發制人, and is highly revered in Sun Zi's "Art of War". Immoral? Maybe. Successful? Very.


"Pre-emptive" strike is only when there is something to be "pre-empted" :)

The real reasons are not that. After the annexation of Tibet, China badly needed a road from western Tibet to Uighurstan(xinjiang/sinkiang) and Aksai chin was needed for that route. Hence the feigning attack at Arunachal Pradesh while the actual attack was on Aksai Chin of Kashmir. After the requisite land was occupied, China announced ceasefire.

Aksai Chin of Kashmir is still under Chinese occupation.

The background of the war is the one that makes it interesting. Have you heard of "Panch-sheel" ? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panchsheel)

Oh and it's Sun Tzu not Sun Zi (unless it is pronounced that way in your dialect)


Tsk. So? Are Native Americans a majority or minority in Utah? Colorado?

So you agree that much like the Settlers committed genocide on the natives, Han Chinese are committing genocide on Tibetans?

What kind of logic is this? Is it OK for you to do whatever you have done just because somebody else has done this ?

Funny that the overwhelming majority of Tibetan folks think otherwise.

Qing dynasty lasted around 250 odd years, with Tibet under direct manchu control for less than 200 years. At no period before that was Tibet under the rule of chinese. Around 13th and 14th century both Tibet and China were under the Mongol rule (Yuan empire) and with the fall of the Mongol empire in the 15th century, ethnic chinese empire (the Mings) did not inherit control over Tibet. Tibet was very much free from the 15th to 17th century.

Considering the fact that Tibet was free from Chinese political control for much of its recorded history (which goes back to pre Buddhist era itself) , I don't see how Tibet "belongs" to China just cuz it was under China for 200 odd years. Heck many countries have been under colonial rule for more than that and are we to take it that those colonies also "belong" to the imperial country?

And then there is this thing about invading a country which did not have a professional standing army and massacring the Tibetans and the Spiritual leader Dalai Lama fleeing the country. Not to speak of the encouragement of Han chinese immigration to Tibet to a point where today Han Chinese outnumber Tibetans in Tibet.

"Peaceful rise" is the word, eh? ;)

Tibet was under Chinese influence for ages. Tributary state, colony, whatever. Tibet was still part of China until the Republic of 1912, when the Brits forcefully took it away. Tibetians are Chinese. Not Han, but Chinese. It's the concept of "nation" and "people". While I agree that some policies implemented by the Chinese government on Tibet were harmful, that is outside the question.

Please bear me while I ROTFLMAO.

India an American ally ? Dude, you have some serious "alternative" history there. A civil-war (partition) ravaged impoverished India could not even feed its people, barely recovering from the Bengal famines which killed 3-4 millions.
Moreover India did not have territorial ambitions on Tibet at any time in its history.

So this excuse that Mao "feared an invasion of Tibet" is pure unadulterated BS.

"Pre-emptive" strike is only when there is something to be "pre-empted" :)

No, seriously. "My enemy's enemy is my friend". Mao was obsessed with the internal security of China. Tibet always had the idea of befriending India which would threaten the internal security of China.

The real reasons are not that. After the annexation of Tibet, China badly needed a road from western Tibet to Uighurstan(xinjiang/sinkiang) and Aksai chin was needed for that route. Hence the feigning attack at Arunachal Pradesh while the actual attack was on Aksai Chin of Kashmir. After the requisite land was occupied, China announced ceasefire.

Aksai Chin of Kashmir is still under Chinese occupation.

The background of the war is the one that makes it interesting. Have you heard of "Panch-sheel" ? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panchsheel)
I don't know too much about the Sino-Indian War, so I can't go on in depth. Please forgive. I have head of the Panch Sila. It was good but it didn't carry on and it's a sad thing. China and India could have partnered and stormed the Western World.


Oh and it's Sun Tzu not Sun Zi (unless it is pronounced that way in your dialect) You are using Wade-Giles. I am using Pinyin. In my dialect (Cantonese) it's Syun Jzee. ;)


So you agree that much like the Settlers committed genocide on the natives, Han Chinese are committing genocide on Tibetans?

What kind of logic is this? Is it OK for you to do whatever you have done just because somebody else has done this ?

I don't. But I'm saying that in occupation this is inevitable.

Tibet was under Chinese influence for ages. Tributary state, colony, whatever. Tibet was still part of China until the Republic of 1912, when the Brits forcefully took it away. Tibetians are Chinese. Not Han, but Chinese. It's the concept of "nation" and "people". While I agree that some policies implemented by the Chinese government on Tibet were harmful, that is outside the question.


Now you are introducing words without historical accuracy.

"Tributary/State/Colony/Whatever"

Like I outlined earlier, for much of its history Tibet WAS an independant political entity. ONLY for 200 odd years did the Manchu's rule Tibet, that too not a direct rule, since Tibet still had its own governance. So when Tibet came under the British protecterate, Tibet ceased to be a part of China and so when the British withdrew, Tibet was restored to its original state of Independance (as it was before the Qing dynasty).

Tibetans are not Chinese. Don't give me this "One China" bull. :D There are many ethnicities in China like the turkic Uighurs, the Han, the Mongols and Tibetans - to name a few. Historically Chinese = Han Chinese. This "One China" thing is a recent construct.


No, seriously. "My enemy's enemy is my friend". Mao was obsessed with the internal security of China. Tibet always had the idea of befriending India which would threaten the internal security of China.


Tibet did not have any "idead" since Tibet WAS ALREADY a friend of India. India was the spiritual fountainhead of Tibet (Buddhism).

So now we have climbed down from "India was preparing to invade Tibet, so Mao pre-empted it " to " Tibet had the idea of befriending India" :confused:

Why don't we call it what it is. Chinese hegemony .


I don't know too much about the Sino-Indian War, so I can't go on in depth. Please forgive. I have head of the Panch Sila. It was good but it didn't carry on and it's a sad thing. China and India could have partnered and stormed the Western World.

You are using Wade-Giles. I am using Pinyin. In my dialect (Cantonese) it's Syun Jzee. ;)


Nehru had this "hindi-chini-bhai-bhai" thing ( Indians and Chinese are brothers). But Mao had other plans and invaded India. Suffice it to say that China managed to make an enemy of India.

I don't. But I'm saying that in occupation this is inevitable.

That's why it is called an occupation and that is why I condemn the occupation of Tibet by China. :)

Now you are introducing words without historical accuracy.

"Tributary/State/Colony/Whatever"

Like I outlined earlier, for much of its history Tibet WAS an independant political entity. ONLY for 200 odd years did the Manchu's rule Tibet, that too not a direct rule, since Tibet still had its own governance. So when Tibet came under the British protecterate, Tibet ceased to be a part of China and so when the British withdrew, Tibet was restored to its original state of Independance (as it was before the Qing dynasty).

What it's called doesn't matter. Stripping away all the names, Tibet is Chinese. When the British grabbed Tibet away from China, it's an act of theft. When that theft is rectified, the object returns to its original owner.


Tibetans are not Chinese. Don't give me this "One China" bull. :D There are many ethnicities in China like the turkic Uighurs, the Han, the Mongols and Tibetans - to name a few. Historically Chinese = Han Chinese. This "One China" thing is a recent construct.

Nationalism is indeed a new construct. So? We are all part of CHINA. There is no such nation called "America". America is a "country", a political construct. Does it mean that every ethnicity inside the United States can claim their independence?


Tibet did not have any "idead" since Tibet WAS ALREADY a friend of India. India was the spiritual fountainhead of Tibet (Buddhism).

So now we have climbed down from "India was preparing to invade Tibet, so Mao pre-empted it " to " Tibet had the idea of befriending India" :confused:

Why don't we call it what it is. Chinese hegemony .

Tibet had the idea of closer ties with India, and why would India refuse such an offer? It's not "Chinese hegemony". It's "Chinese right to territory".


Nehru had this "hindi-chini-bhai-bhai" thing ( Indians and Chinese are brothers). But Mao had other plans and invaded India. Suffice it to say that China managed to make an enemy of India.

Mao sure had other plans - he wanted to concentrate on internal policies than re-establishing the Chinese Empire. He wanted to work with Third World, which is what the developing world was called then, firstly to counter the Americans and secondly to counter the Soviets. India was first allying with the United States and later taking Soviet aid and arms. That's not nice to do to a neighbour who wants to concentrate on domestic policies while worrying about foreign invasions.


That's why it is called an occupation and that is why I condemn the occupation of Tibet by China. :)
Occupation, yes, but restoration more.

What it's called doesn't matter. Stripping away all the names, Tibet is Chinese.



Don't obfuscate. Tibet is NOT Chinese. Ethnic Tibetens have little in common with Han chinese. I am not saying this, the Tibetans themselves are saying this. There are over 80,000 Tibetan refugees in India alone at Dharamsala.

When the British grabbed Tibet away from China, it's an act of theft. When that theft is rectified, the object returns to its original owner.


You seem to not get the point. Extending your analogy, the "object" should rightfully returns to its original state in which it was BEFORE the Chinese occupation (Qing Dynasty). There was no transfer of power between the British and Chinese and as such there is no "inheritence" of territory from the Brits to the Chinese.

By that logic, should'nt the Mongols rule the "Inner Mongolia" province since they had it under their control for so many centuries, until it was "stolen" from them.

You are trying to defend the indefensible.


Nationalism is indeed a new construct. So? We are all part of CHINA. There is no such nation called "America". America is a "country", a political construct. Does it mean that every ethnicity inside the United States can claim their independence?


More attempts at obfuscation. The creation of the nation-state of USA is different from China. USA was not a civilisation which became a nation (like China and India). In the US, there is no occupation of another ethnicity/state (Texans would have you believe otherwise ;) ) like how the Hans have occupied Tibet (and Uighurstan too, in a way).

"we are all part of CHINA" is NOT a sentiment shared by the majority of Tibetans and Uighurs (atleast in some districts) and definitely not by the Taiwanese.

Tibet had the idea of closer ties with India, and why would India refuse such an offer? It's not "Chinese hegemony". It's "Chinese right to territory".

I don't get you at all. You have completely lost me.

You said that India was going to invade Tibet and Mao pre-empted it. I pointed out to the obvious untruths in that statement. Then you said that "Tibet had the idea of befriending India" , which is not relevant since Tibet was already a friend of India (and China too), which is why it was considered as a "Buffer state" between India and China.

Now you are saying that "Tibet had the idea of closer ties with India, and why would India refuse such an offer?"
:confused:

Is it wrong for a country to have closer ties with another country? So , India is having closer ties with Nepal, are the commies gonna invade Nepal now ? :confused:

It's not "Chinese hegemony". It's "Chinese right to territory"

When it is not your territory, unprovoked aggression and occupation is called hegemony.

Like I have been repeatedly saying, in more than 2000 years of existence, Tibet was under the political control of China for hardly 200 years. It does not give the Han Chinese any "right to territory" of Tibet, anymore than the Tibetans themselves !! :)


Mao sure had other plans - he wanted to concentrate on internal policies than re-establishing the Chinese Empire. He wanted to work with Third World, which is what the developing world was called then, firstly to counter the Americans and secondly to counter the Soviets. India was first allying with the United States and later taking Soviet aid and arms. That's not nice to do to a neighbour who wants to concentrate on domestic policies while worrying about foreign invasions.


Developing world is still called the third world. :)

And I absolutely do not have a clue on what you are talking about and I suspect you also don't .


Occupation, yes, but restoration more.
:rolleyes:

Let's restore it fully by freeing Tibet and restoring the refugees and Dalai Lama. :D

Don't obfuscate. Tibet is NOT Chinese. Ethnic Tibetens have little in common with Han chinese. I am not saying this, the Tibetans themselves are saying this. There are over 80,000 Tibetan refugees in India alone at Dharamsala.

Tsk. We are the same nation. The same people. Han, Mongolian, Chinese Turks, Urghurs, Tibetians, Taiwanese

You seem to not get the point. Extending your analogy, the "object" should rightfully returns to its original state in which it was BEFORE the Chinese occupation (Qing Dynasty). There was no transfer of power between the British and Chinese and as such there is no "inheritence" of territory from the Brits to the Chinese.

It's too late. Tibet had been part of China for over 200 years since 1700 - before the era we call "modern". Tibet has been Chinese enough to be part of China. TIBET IS PART OF CHINA.

By that logic, should'nt the Mongols rule the "Inner Mongolia" province since they had it under their control for so many centuries, until it was "stolen" from them.

Actually, China should rule Mongolia.

You are trying to defend the indefensible.
I'm trying to get you to understand the Chinese motive and my belief.


More attempts at obfuscation. The creation of the nation-state of USA is different from China. USA was not a civilisation which became a nation (like China and India). In the US, there is no occupation of another ethnicity/state (Texans would have you believe otherwise ;) ) like how the Hans have occupied Tibet (and Uighurstan too, in a way).

Whatever. Cut this analogy. It's irrelevant. If you think it's relevant I'll respond.

"we are all part of CHINA" is NOT a sentiment shared by the majority of Tibetans and Uighurs (atleast in some districts) and definitely not by the Taiwanese. Many Hong Kongers do not feel they are part of China - BUT WE ARE! Politics and international relations have to be objective.



I don't get you at all. You have completely lost me.

You said that India was going to invade Tibet and Mao pre-empted it. I pointed out to the obvious untruths in that statement. Then you said that "Tibet had the idea of befriending India" , which is not relevant since Tibet was already a friend of India (and China too), which is why it was considered as a "Buffer state" between India and China.

Now you are saying that "Tibet had the idea of closer ties with India, and why would India refuse such an offer?"
:confused:

Is it wrong for a country to have closer ties with another country? So , India is having closer ties with Nepal, are the commies gonna invade Nepal now ? :confused:

It's two halves of the same coin. Tibet, with its alliance to India, and India's alliance with the United States and later the Soviet Union all culmulated to China rightfully thinking that India is posing a threat of Chinese interal security.


When it is not your territory, unprovoked aggression and occupation is called hegemony.

Yes, but it IS our territory. AND it's a matter of national security, so by the logic of Bush, Blair and Howard, it's called preemptive strike. Two birds with one stone! Great!

Like I have been repeatedly saying, in more than 2000 years of existence, Tibet was under the political control of China for hardly 200 years. It does not give the Han Chinese any "right to territory" of Tibet, anymore than the Tibetans themselves !! :)

That means anybody and everybody can go in and grab, no? Just because the Chinese got there first...If the Indians got it would you be saying the same thing?

Developing world is still called the third world. :)

Shhh! It's not! Governments from the developing world have expressed their protests. Classifying First, Second and Third Worlds sound discriminating, and its used is rapidly being phased out. Seriously.


And I absolutely do not have a clue on what you are talking about and I suspect you also don't .

I DO! I just don't know how to express it. Lol. English is not my first language.


:rolleyes:Let's restore it fully by freeing Tibet and restoring the refugees and Dalai Lama. :D

Let's not! :D

Tsk. We are the same nation. The same people. Han, Mongolian, Chinese Turks, Urghurs, Tibetians, Taiwanese


That notion is not shared by all the ethnicities (certainly not by Tibetans and Uighurs). The need for a totalitarion regime is partly because of that reason.
There is an ongoing seperatist struggle in Uighurstan, which we scarcely know the details of due to the lack of information.

If all these ethnicities are the "same nation", then what was the need to militarily occupy them. If Tibetans felt that they are the "same nation", then surely Mao would not have needed an invasion of Tibet, right?



It's too late. Tibet had been part of China for over 200 years since 1700 - before the era we call "modern". Tibet has been Chinese enough to be part of China. TIBET IS PART OF CHINA.


So, If the Japanese had managed to hold on the Nanjing for 200 years, would Nanjing qualify as part of Japan ?

The way that you cavalierly dismiss the rights of Tibetans is scary.

Should'nt the Tibetans decide what they should be doing, instead of the Han deciding that Tibet is a part of China?


Actually, China should rule Mongolia.


Lemme guess, Mongolia was a part of China for 200 years? :confused:

Or is it vengeance for the atrocities of the golden horde :D

Don't worry, with the least density of population in the world, Mongolia is under severe demographic pressure from the Hans already. Mongolia is doomed anyway.


Whatever. Cut this analogy. It's irrelevant. If you think it's relevant I'll respond.


It was your poorly thought analogy.

Many Hong Kongers do not feel they are part of China - BUT WE ARE! Politics and international relations have to be objective.


Honk kong = Tibet :confused:

Honkkong and China have a shared history. They have more in common when it comes to ethnicity, language, and many other parameters. More over, it was a legal thing after the expiry of the treaty.

Tibet, OTOH, is totally different. Tibetans and Hans do not have a shared history. They don't share ethnicity, language, culture, and many other things which defines a person's identity.

Your analogy is again poor.

It's two halves of the same coin. Tibet, with its alliance to India, and India's alliance with the United States and later the Soviet Union all culmulated to China rightfully thinking that India is posing a threat of Chinese interal security.


:confused:

err...somehow the whole Non-Aligned Movement have totally missed you it seems.

"China rightfully thinking that India is posing a threat of Chinese interal security"

LOL. "rightfully" , eh?

When did it become "rightful"? What is this threat that India posed to Chinese internal security?

Show me ONE source of Indian claims on Chinese territory or even Tibet. India actually refused King Tribhuvan of Nepal's offer to accede to India.

FYI, India also lobbied UN for China inclustion in UN in the 1950s.

http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2210/stories/20050520001005300.htm
It was in the political milieu of non-alignment as an evolving policy perspective that Nehru reportedly did not respond positively to the idea, said to have been proposed by Soviet leader Nikolai Bulganin in June 1955, that Moscow could suggest India's inclusion, though at a later stage, as an additional permanent member of the U.N. Security Council.

The People's Republic of China was then outside the U.N. framework because of Washington's political prejudices, and the sustained support India extended for China's admission to the world body is well known.

It is Chinese hegemony. Land grab - pure and simple.



Yes, but it IS our territory. AND it's a matter of national security, so by the logic of Bush, Blair and Howard, it's called preemptive strike. Two birds with one stone! Great!


You lost me there. :(


That means anybody and everybody can go in and grab, no? Just because the Chinese got there first...If the Indians got it would you be saying the same thing?


Huh ?

I was saying that China engaged in landgrab, meaning that it did not care for the aspirations of Tibetans.

You keep raising this "India would have invaded, so we pre-empted" nonsense without any basis or substance or a shred of proof. Prove it instead of repeating it.


English is not my first language.


Same here.

Read this: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=429084

as evidence of a joint American-Indian threat against China.

In the US, there is no occupation of another ethnicity/state

You're absolutely kidding me, right?

the chinese aren't either. they're fascocommunist. or something like that! :cool:

Read this: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=429084

as evidence of a joint American-Indian threat against China.

I feel like I have been banging against the wall like this :headbang:

Is this the "proof" that I asked you for..

The defence pact was signed NOW, Chinese invasion of Tibet was in 1950s and Chinese invasion of India was in 1962.

You have no clue on US-India-China relationship in the past.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB79/
New Documentation

The fact that the conflict occurred over 30 years ago makes it possible now to look at United States actions and policy through documents released at the National Archives under the U.S. government's historical declassification program. The record is far from complete: numerous materials remain classified both by the State Department, CIA and other agencies as well as the Nixon Presidential Materials Project. Nevertheless, the available documents offer many useful insights into how and why Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger made important decisions during the 1971 South Asian Crisis.

Highlights from this briefing book include:

<snip>

# Henry Kissinger's duplicity to the press and toward the Indians vis-à-vis the Chinese. In July of 1971, while Kissinger was in India, he told Indian officials that "under any conceivable circumstance the U.S. would back India against any Chinese pressures." In that same July meeting Kissinger said, "In any dialogue with China, we would of course not encourage her against India." However, near the end of the India-Pakistan war, in a highly secret 12/10/1971 meeting with the Chinese Ambassador to the UN Huang Ha, Kissinger did exactly this encouraging the PRC to engage in the equivalent of military action against the Indians. [Documents 14-15, 30-32]

# Details of U.S. support for military assistance to Pakistan from China, the Middle East, and even from the United States itself. Henry Kissinger's otherwise thorough account of the India-Pakistan crisis of 1971 in his memoir White House Years, omits the role the United States played in Pakistan's procurement of American fighter planes, perhaps because of the apparent illegality of shipping American military supplies to either India or Pakistan after the announced cutoff.(7) Of particular importance in this selection of documents is a series of transcripts of telephone conversations from December 4 and 16, 1971(Document 28) in which Kissinger and Nixon discuss, among other things, third-party transfers of fighter planes to Pakistan. Also of note is a cable from the Embassy in Iran dated December 29, 1971 (Document 44) which suggests that F-5 fighter aircraft, originally slated for Libya but which were being held in California, were flown to Pakistan via Iran. [23, 26, 28, 29, 33-45]



China does not have any half-decent excuse for invading and occupying Tibet and later invading India and occupying Aksai chin, other than hegemony and land grab.


Stop trying to defend the indefensible.

*snip*


We'll never get through this, lol.

My final stand: Tibet is Chinese.

Let's move on.

I can't wait to reinstate the legitimate government of China. These red bastards have been a stick up our asses way too long.

It's our mistake we let the Communists get in power in the first place. We abandoned our ally Chiang Kai-Shek and look how it comes back and screws us. The next time we support a fascist dictator, how about not fucking with them? :sniper: (Like assassinating the leader of South Vietnam)

They turn out to be some of our very few reliable allies in the end anyway. No elections or public opinion is going to change their relationship with us.

I advocate returning all of China to the Nationalists with the exception of Tibet which will become an independent country under the leadership of the Dalai Lama.

I can't wait to reinstate the legitimate government of China. These red bastards have been a stick up our asses way too long.

It's our mistake we let the Communists get in power in the first place. We abandoned our ally Chiang Kai-Shek and look how it comes back and screws us. The next time we support a fascist dictator, how about not fucking with them? :sniper: (Like assassinating the leader of South Vietnam)

They turn out to be some of our very few reliable allies in the end anyway. No elections or public opinion is going to change their relationship with us.

I advocate returning all of China to the Nationalists with the exception of Tibet which will become an independent country under the leadership of the Dalai Lama.

In the 1930s and 1940s Chiang Kaishek's government was in shambles. It was corrupt, inefficient, cowardly and failed to win popularity. When the Communists won in 1949 the people of China cheered. It was "just a bunch of red bastards", but the majority of the population of China was behind the Communist revolution. Of course, times have changed now, but I just wanted to set the record right.

I do not advocate returning any bit of China to anybody except the Chinese people - Tibetians included.

I can't wait to reinstate the legitimate government of China. These red bastards have been a stick up our asses way too long.

It's our mistake we let the Communists get in power in the first place. We abandoned our ally Chiang Kai-Shek and look how it comes back and screws us. The next time we support a fascist dictator, how about not fucking with them? :sniper: (Like assassinating the leader of South Vietnam)

They turn out to be some of our very few reliable allies in the end anyway. No elections or public opinion is going to change their relationship with us.

I advocate returning all of China to the Nationalists with the exception of Tibet which will become an independent country under the leadership of the Dalai Lama.

You do know that the Republic of China claims dominion over Tibet, as well as Mongolia? The Nationalists would be just as loathe to grant Tibet independence as the Communists.

In the 1930s and 1940s Chiang Kaishek's government was in shambles. It was corrupt, inefficient, cowardly and failed to win popularity. When the Communists won in 1949 the people of China cheered. It was "just a bunch of red bastards", but the majority of the population of China was behind the Communist revolution. Of course, times have changed now, but I just wanted to set the record right..

True. It was shambles. But it was war. Cowardly? They nearly won Mao, except they loss the momentum after the Americans told Kai Shek to back off.And to some extent.. no communist China, no Korean war, no vietnam war, no Cold War.

Then again, look at Taiwan, I wonder what would China could have been?

We'll never get through this, lol.

My final stand: Tibet is Chinese.

Let's move on.

In effect, you have no coherent defense for the unprovoked invasion and occupation of Tibet.

I am guessing you have not met any ethnic Tibetans, have you?

lest this be forgotten,

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article294976.ece
Tibetan nun's tale of torture reveals Chinese brutality
By Elizabeth Davies
Published: 27 June 2005

Ngawang Sangdrol was just 13 when she was first imprisoned by China in Tibet. She was so small her prison guards found it easy to pick her up by the legs and drop her, head first, on to the stone floor of her cell.

They beat her with iron rods, placed electric shock batons in her mouth and left her standing in the baking heat until she collapsed of exhaustion. They called her the "ballerina", because when the pain became too much for her, she would stand on the tips of her toes like a dancer. "The more we cried out in pain," she said, "the more they laughed."

"They would put a rope around your neck, tie both your hands and hang you down from the ceiling. They used iron bars to beat you systematically," she says. "And once you are imprisoned there is no difference between a child and an adult and an elderly person, or between a man and a woman. All punishments and torture methods are equal for everyone."

Ngawang Sangrol, now 28, is a Tibetan nun who spent more than a decade in prison. Released shortly before a visit by the then Chinese President Jiang Zemin to George Bush's Texan ranch, she was made to sign papers promising she would never speak of her experiences in the notorious Drapchi prison.

She was critically ill after years of abuse and doctors believed she would not live long. But she has survived to tell her gruesome tale, to the acute discomfort of the Chinese authorities.

The nun was arrested in 1990 for joining a peaceful demonstration calling for independence for Tibet. She was freed after nine months, and rearrested in 1992. In an interview with The Independent, she said: "I was imprisoned for saying just two things. 'Long live the Dalai Lama' and 'Free Tibet'. For these I was imprisoned and tortured. The sufferings our people went through after the invasion are well documented: everyone seems to know about them. But people seem to think that these days our problems are over, and this is not true. I have experienced persecution at the hands of the Chinese, and I can see it continuing."

There are an estimated 200 political prisoners in Tibet, almost all monks and nuns whose only crime is to have pledged support to the Dalai Lama, the head of the Buddhist faith, who leads a government in exile in India but whom Beijing regards as a separatist threat.

The London-based human rights group Free Tibet, says torture "forms a part of these prisoners' everyday lives". Human Rights Watch reports document the "mistreatment in detention" of religious figures and activists, citing Tibet as one of the two regions in China where torture is most rife. Beijing denies this, but none of the numerous claims of torture has been investigated by the Chinese authorities.

Life outside the prison walls is also tough, say rights activists. Since direct rule was imposed by Beijing in 1950, the authorities have denied charges of restricting basic freedoms.

Ngawang Sandrol, now living in the US, is in London to urge the UK to use its forthcoming EU presidency to appoint a special EU rapporteur for Tibet and to promote negotiations between Beijing and the exiled Tibetan government.