The WaPo reports that the Dalai Lama has given up hope on any meaningful talks with the Communist Chinese Party. John Pomfret explains why the CCP never meant to deal honestly with the Dalai Lama.
The CCP and Bad Faith . . .
Previous post: Korea Juxtipostioning
Next post: Japan’s New Class of Working Poor
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
Somehow I’m not surprised.
Well, it’s obvious that they are waiting for him to die. Just think bout it: it will be years before his replacement becomes an adult.
I admittedly don’t know very much about this, but what exactly is it that the Dalai Lama wants? I mean concretely. Presumably the Chinese Government are willing to give up their right to smash up monastries and burn religious documents for no reason. They probably deny that they do this anyway, so signing away their right to do it isn’t going to be a problem.
Would the Dalai Lama accept a Tibetan relationship with China similar to the one that Scotland has with England and the United Kingdom, or Hawai’i has with the United States? Have the Scots and Hawaiians failed to keep alive their indigenous culture in the eyes of the Dalai Lama? Is the Dalai Lama asking for religious and assembly rights that other people in China do not have, or is he just arguing that Tibetans should have the same rights and legal protections as other Chinese who live in Shanghai say?
Does he want to stop the influx of non-Tibetans into Tibet but remain part of China? Does he want visas or quotas for Chinese citizens to enter Tibet similar to whatever system they have running for the Hong Kong SAR? What about the non-Tibetans who are born in Tibet or own businesses in Tibet? Do they have to leave or accept some different legal status while in Tibet? Does he even want to change the rights of non-Tibetan Chinese in other parts of China?
Is the issue some technical problem about subsidising non-Tibetan businesses in Tibet, like hotels and tourism companies? Is there a right of return problem for refugees, similar to the one in Israel?
As far as this BBC Q&A goes, it seems to me that the two sides agree on the underlying issues. So what are the real underlying issues that are causing a disagreement?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7299221.stm
deleted (off-topic)
Now that DL has acknowledged the futility of of dealing with China on his issue, can Bush/Condi/Hill admit the same vis-a-vis the NORKs?
Eujin @ #3,
At the very least, from my limited understanding of the situation, the DL, like many Tibetans, want a greater degree of autonomy than what the CCP gives it – I think that the CCP has long claimed Tibet as part of China, and I know that the CCP has long subjected Tibet to a series of abuses when the idea of nationhood for Tibet by Tibetans has reared its head, not to the degree that Hungary in 1957 or Czechoslovakia experienced in 1968, but very harsh nonetheless.
You must log in to post a comment.