Over the past weeks, Pro-Chinese and Pro-Tibetan netizens, including the media have been reporting and counter-reporting the current tensions at hand. Without doubt, each side has their own biases motivated by their own agendas. So it was a breath of fresh air that I found this article in the midst.
Be informed. Enjoy!
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
A Plea for Peace. Hopefully not another Tiananmen Square
The protests that began a week ago with a peaceful procession of monks in Lhasa, the Tibetan capital calling for an end to religious restrictions and the release of imprisoned colleagues, have quickly evolved into the largest outpouring of Tibetan rage against Chinese rule in 20 years, and is spreading towards other provinces in China.
Violence is not a path towards reconciliation.
In an attempt to bring peace to the region, Tibet's political and spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama has threatened to resign if Tibetan protesters continue their run of violence as he (the Dalai Lama) is anti-violence. The Dalai Lama further called for an restraint and an end to violence from both sides.
In a BBC report, The Dalai Lama stated that even if "1,000 Tibetans sacrificed their life", this would be "not much help (in achieving autonomy)".
The Dalai Lama's government in exile in Dharmsala, India has determined at least 80 casualties while the Chinese government reported 16 casualties and dozens injured. The numbers are difficult to verify impartially as China has restricted access by foreign journalists to Tibet, and officials have kicked out the few in the region, making it difficult to verify the reported number of deaths.
In an AOL news reports, '...the situation inside Tibet remains unclear, much of the violence appears to have been committed by Tibetans attacking ethnic Han Chinese, the majority ethnicity in China. ... The protests by Buddhist monks spiraled to include cries for Tibet's independence and turned violent when police intervened. Pent-up grievances against Chinese rule came to the fore as Tibetans directed their anger against Chinese and their shops, hotels and other businesses...In the days since then, worries have grown that Chinese troops trying to reassert control over Lhasa were exacting retribution against the Tibetans.'
While China is trying to prepare for its role as host for the the summer olympic games, it is trying to polish up its image as a peacefully rising nation, but the violent crackdown on Tibetan protesters acts to the contrary of China's aspirations. Many Tibetan protesters have called upon the world to boycott the summer olympics as an expression of solidarity with the Tibetan cause.
However, given China's economic and strategic importance, UN leader, Ban Ki-Moon and many world leaders merely called upon China to show restraint.
In India, the New Delhi government forbade and arrested Tibetans who attempted to enter Tibet to protests to reiterate New Delhi's stance on non-interference and intervention in another sovereign country's affairs.
The New Delhi government was quoted as stating, '(India) does not permit Tibetans to engage in anti-China political activities in India".
In an Economic Times report, former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe urged China to "respond in an appropriate manner as the host of the Olympic Games." While in his relatively short term in office, Abe has sought to reestablish close ties with China which was severely cooled under his predecessor, Junichiro Koizumi.
Abe was quoted, "Japan has engaged in diplomacy around Asia to spread universal values such as freedom, democracy and the rule of law, so we want to make efforts to secure the human rights of people in Tibet," Abe said.
Accusations are not paths towards peaceful reconciliation.
An Asian Times report quoted Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao's accusations that the Dalai Lama is to blame for the violent protests as an attempt to wreck Chinese ambitions for a successful summer olympics.
"There is ample fact - and we also have plenty of evidence - proving that this incident was organized, premeditated, masterminded and incited by the Dalai clique," Wen said in Beijing at the end of the annual National People's Congress
The Dalai Lama has vehemently denied those charges and challenged Jintao to investigate his accusations carefully.
And who would not agree with the Dalai Lama, a spiritual leader of peace, who for decades has repeatedly called for non-violent behavior amongst his followers.
Despite the accusations Premier Wen Jiabao reiterated China's stance for negotiations with the Dalai Lama.
"We have repeatedly stated that the Dalai Lama gives up his independence position, recognizes Tibet as an inseparable part of China's sovereign territory and recognize Taiwan as an inseparable part of China's sovereign territory. [Then] our door is open to him for talks ... But the recent events exactly prove he is hypocritical on these two key issues. Even so, I want to reiterate that we still keep our word. Now what is key to this is his action."
Now, if only China were to listen more carefully and closely to the Dalai Lama's pleas for true cultural and religious autonomy. And If only China were to not use heavy handed measures to quieten protests, perhaps they will be viewed in a better light. But the violent crackdown is definitely a large smear on the Chinese government's already much challenged human rights record, and definitely a large blot on their run towards a successful hosting of the summer olympic games.
Will the Dalai Lama's calls for peaceful and vigilant protests go unheeded by the majority of Tibetans who are seemingly fed-up with Chinese heavy-handed rule? Certainly, if Tibetans still revere the Dalai Lama as their leader. However, mounting frustration amongst Tibetans against Chinese rule is significantly rising and escalating in violence.
It is certainly time for China to shine if they were to only safeguard the civil rights of the people of Tibet, re-open serious attempts at civil dialogue, negotiations and attempt reconciliation with the Dalai Lama (whom I believe as a moral and religious leader will not turn against his words). Another pro of Chinese - Tibetan reconciliation would be that the Dalai Lama would be able to lend moral weight and bring much needed stability into Tibet.
"Violence is against human nature...We must not develop anti-Chinese feelings. Whether we like it or not we have to live side-by-side."
Well spoken words of wisdom. I can only hail and offer much admiration for such a being.
Violence is not a path towards reconciliation.
In an attempt to bring peace to the region, Tibet's political and spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama has threatened to resign if Tibetan protesters continue their run of violence as he (the Dalai Lama) is anti-violence. The Dalai Lama further called for an restraint and an end to violence from both sides.
In a BBC report, The Dalai Lama stated that even if "1,000 Tibetans sacrificed their life", this would be "not much help (in achieving autonomy)".
The Dalai Lama's government in exile in Dharmsala, India has determined at least 80 casualties while the Chinese government reported 16 casualties and dozens injured. The numbers are difficult to verify impartially as China has restricted access by foreign journalists to Tibet, and officials have kicked out the few in the region, making it difficult to verify the reported number of deaths.
In an AOL news reports, '...the situation inside Tibet remains unclear, much of the violence appears to have been committed by Tibetans attacking ethnic Han Chinese, the majority ethnicity in China. ... The protests by Buddhist monks spiraled to include cries for Tibet's independence and turned violent when police intervened. Pent-up grievances against Chinese rule came to the fore as Tibetans directed their anger against Chinese and their shops, hotels and other businesses...In the days since then, worries have grown that Chinese troops trying to reassert control over Lhasa were exacting retribution against the Tibetans.'
While China is trying to prepare for its role as host for the the summer olympic games, it is trying to polish up its image as a peacefully rising nation, but the violent crackdown on Tibetan protesters acts to the contrary of China's aspirations. Many Tibetan protesters have called upon the world to boycott the summer olympics as an expression of solidarity with the Tibetan cause.
However, given China's economic and strategic importance, UN leader, Ban Ki-Moon and many world leaders merely called upon China to show restraint.
In India, the New Delhi government forbade and arrested Tibetans who attempted to enter Tibet to protests to reiterate New Delhi's stance on non-interference and intervention in another sovereign country's affairs.
The New Delhi government was quoted as stating, '(India) does not permit Tibetans to engage in anti-China political activities in India".
In an Economic Times report, former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe urged China to "respond in an appropriate manner as the host of the Olympic Games." While in his relatively short term in office, Abe has sought to reestablish close ties with China which was severely cooled under his predecessor, Junichiro Koizumi.
Abe was quoted, "Japan has engaged in diplomacy around Asia to spread universal values such as freedom, democracy and the rule of law, so we want to make efforts to secure the human rights of people in Tibet," Abe said.
Accusations are not paths towards peaceful reconciliation.
An Asian Times report quoted Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao's accusations that the Dalai Lama is to blame for the violent protests as an attempt to wreck Chinese ambitions for a successful summer olympics.
"There is ample fact - and we also have plenty of evidence - proving that this incident was organized, premeditated, masterminded and incited by the Dalai clique," Wen said in Beijing at the end of the annual National People's Congress
The Dalai Lama has vehemently denied those charges and challenged Jintao to investigate his accusations carefully.
And who would not agree with the Dalai Lama, a spiritual leader of peace, who for decades has repeatedly called for non-violent behavior amongst his followers.
Despite the accusations Premier Wen Jiabao reiterated China's stance for negotiations with the Dalai Lama.
"We have repeatedly stated that the Dalai Lama gives up his independence position, recognizes Tibet as an inseparable part of China's sovereign territory and recognize Taiwan as an inseparable part of China's sovereign territory. [Then] our door is open to him for talks ... But the recent events exactly prove he is hypocritical on these two key issues. Even so, I want to reiterate that we still keep our word. Now what is key to this is his action."
Now, if only China were to listen more carefully and closely to the Dalai Lama's pleas for true cultural and religious autonomy. And If only China were to not use heavy handed measures to quieten protests, perhaps they will be viewed in a better light. But the violent crackdown is definitely a large smear on the Chinese government's already much challenged human rights record, and definitely a large blot on their run towards a successful hosting of the summer olympic games.
Will the Dalai Lama's calls for peaceful and vigilant protests go unheeded by the majority of Tibetans who are seemingly fed-up with Chinese heavy-handed rule? Certainly, if Tibetans still revere the Dalai Lama as their leader. However, mounting frustration amongst Tibetans against Chinese rule is significantly rising and escalating in violence.
It is certainly time for China to shine if they were to only safeguard the civil rights of the people of Tibet, re-open serious attempts at civil dialogue, negotiations and attempt reconciliation with the Dalai Lama (whom I believe as a moral and religious leader will not turn against his words). Another pro of Chinese - Tibetan reconciliation would be that the Dalai Lama would be able to lend moral weight and bring much needed stability into Tibet.
"Violence is against human nature...We must not develop anti-Chinese feelings. Whether we like it or not we have to live side-by-side."
Well spoken words of wisdom. I can only hail and offer much admiration for such a being.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Economic Efficiency vs Social Inequality and once again, Tibet
As I listened to the first presentor on the problems and rise of social inequality due to China's economic transition from a socialist, control and command economy to a capitalist, free-market economy. I was thoroughly disheartened with many of my classmate's impertinent conduct and their 'I-know-so-much-better-than-you' attitude towards our guest speaker.
The speaker, a lady raised in the socialist era of China, is from the sociology department, and she was just merely trying to explain that social equality is compromised by the economic transition of China towards capitalism. She was merely trying to convey the point that there is no simple black and white, that people need to see the nature of its complexity. But most of my fellow classmates scoffed at her idea.
She, reiterated many times that she is not promulgating the cause of Communism. She agreed, many times, that standards of living in China are now much better, people drive more expensive cars, are able to to lead a more consumer based life, but she also kept on reminding us of the social cost involved. Sure, there were social costs in Communist China, but the differences were more dismal than compared to now.
Basically, how she views the subject of social equality and economic efficiency will be different from that of an economist. However, I agree with her on so many levels. Though I am economics minor, I am not an economist at heart. I find the idea of maximization of profits, economic efficiency and whatever laws and theories formulated by economists to be lacking a warm touch and a human face. It is simply too cold, lonely, mechanized and rigid for me.
Sure, let scarce resources be used by the most efficient means of production. Everything will eventually end up in equilibrium in a free competitive market. People make informed rational choices? Free and fair trade?
Is that so? Really?...hmmm...
In reality, this is never the case. Economic theory and all its assumptions and suppositions, ceteris paribus are better suited in controlled classroom models.
I hold no solution to which economic model is best. Capitalism or Socialism?
But socialism captivates me more than capitalism solely because of the equity involved. However, many countries that practiced or continute to practice socialism are probably doing so very undemocratically. Therefore I cannot provide you with a good example. However, I can show a simple aspect of the good of socialistic practices.
Heck, if I'm in dire need of a doctor, I would rather be in Cuba (socialized medicine) than in America (private, profit-to-gain healthcare system).
in Cuba there is free quality healthcare for everyone. In Cuba, there is no need for a health insurance plan, hospital stays are free, medicine fees are at a minimum, the poor will never feel anxiety if they fall sick in Cuba, rest assured that if you accidentally chopped of your finger, you will be guaranteed that it will be reattached for no fee at all. But in America, if unfortunately you do not have an insurance plan, and especially if you are poor, you will be either paying off your debts for the rest of your life or you will have your chopped of finger kept in a jar someplace.
Some will argue that democracy and capitalism goes hand in hand. Socialism is not democratic. In socialism, power has always been held by an authoritarian power, which is precisely why I do not advocate a single sole authority on power, I believe democratic processes can be adopted into socialism.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that communism was and is the best ideology, but the core fundamentals of communist ideology can be considered idealistic and utopian. Who doesn't want equitable wealth, definite job security, everyone-looks-out-for-another' plans, and so on and forth egalitarian schemes?
Mind you that socialism does not equate to communism, though there are similarities and communism is a spin off of socialism, they are at once different and the same.
I am all out for raising the standards of living for humankind. However, I do not believe in the profit maximization schemes of capitalism. I do not believe that wealth should belong in the hands of 10% of a nation's population. I do not believe in entirety the lifestyle of consumption is the way to maximize utility, thus happiness. I believe that such measures of material wealth, rises in income and so on and forth does not equal and define true quality of life. Sure it helps, but it is not the ultimate yardstick to measure all forms of happiness and living standards by.
Another thought to chew on. My previous post dealt in general the problems faced in Tibet. The Dalai Lama accused China for ethnically swamping Tibet with Han Chinese, and blaming China for cultural cleansing. However, the next presentor, a German economics professor specializing in labor and migration economics, claimed in a study that population and migration data for Tibet is unavailable from the Chinese Census Bureau. However, I suspect that it is due to the sensitivity of the nature of the topic that such data is unavailable. Great Chinese method of keeping potentially volatile figures under wraps. Then another thought formed in my mind, and my question is, if such data on migration is unavailable for Tibet. How can the Dalai Lama's claims be entirely accurate? I am not saying that the Dalai Lama is capable of lying. I will never say that. But the accuracy and merit of his claims can be questioned. I brought this thought up to the presentor, and he simply said that he doesn't know. And neither do I! Perhaps the Dalai Lama's claims were more or less subjective in nature. Though once again, I do not completely refute his claims as it must hold some truth to it.
But whatever is is, Chinese and Tibetans need to really work it out with one another. The Chinese government should respect the right of the Tibetans need for cultural and religious autonomy, and let them be. Tibetans should keep in mind that to hold to violent behavior is against the principles of the Dalai Lama. There is definitely a great need for dialogue and flexible negotiations, mutual respect and understanding between China and the Dalai Lama for peace to arise in Tibet.
The speaker, a lady raised in the socialist era of China, is from the sociology department, and she was just merely trying to explain that social equality is compromised by the economic transition of China towards capitalism. She was merely trying to convey the point that there is no simple black and white, that people need to see the nature of its complexity. But most of my fellow classmates scoffed at her idea.
She, reiterated many times that she is not promulgating the cause of Communism. She agreed, many times, that standards of living in China are now much better, people drive more expensive cars, are able to to lead a more consumer based life, but she also kept on reminding us of the social cost involved. Sure, there were social costs in Communist China, but the differences were more dismal than compared to now.
Basically, how she views the subject of social equality and economic efficiency will be different from that of an economist. However, I agree with her on so many levels. Though I am economics minor, I am not an economist at heart. I find the idea of maximization of profits, economic efficiency and whatever laws and theories formulated by economists to be lacking a warm touch and a human face. It is simply too cold, lonely, mechanized and rigid for me.
Sure, let scarce resources be used by the most efficient means of production. Everything will eventually end up in equilibrium in a free competitive market. People make informed rational choices? Free and fair trade?
Is that so? Really?...hmmm...
In reality, this is never the case. Economic theory and all its assumptions and suppositions, ceteris paribus are better suited in controlled classroom models.
I hold no solution to which economic model is best. Capitalism or Socialism?
But socialism captivates me more than capitalism solely because of the equity involved. However, many countries that practiced or continute to practice socialism are probably doing so very undemocratically. Therefore I cannot provide you with a good example. However, I can show a simple aspect of the good of socialistic practices.
Heck, if I'm in dire need of a doctor, I would rather be in Cuba (socialized medicine) than in America (private, profit-to-gain healthcare system).
in Cuba there is free quality healthcare for everyone. In Cuba, there is no need for a health insurance plan, hospital stays are free, medicine fees are at a minimum, the poor will never feel anxiety if they fall sick in Cuba, rest assured that if you accidentally chopped of your finger, you will be guaranteed that it will be reattached for no fee at all. But in America, if unfortunately you do not have an insurance plan, and especially if you are poor, you will be either paying off your debts for the rest of your life or you will have your chopped of finger kept in a jar someplace.
Some will argue that democracy and capitalism goes hand in hand. Socialism is not democratic. In socialism, power has always been held by an authoritarian power, which is precisely why I do not advocate a single sole authority on power, I believe democratic processes can be adopted into socialism.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that communism was and is the best ideology, but the core fundamentals of communist ideology can be considered idealistic and utopian. Who doesn't want equitable wealth, definite job security, everyone-looks-out-for-another' plans, and so on and forth egalitarian schemes?
Mind you that socialism does not equate to communism, though there are similarities and communism is a spin off of socialism, they are at once different and the same.
I am all out for raising the standards of living for humankind. However, I do not believe in the profit maximization schemes of capitalism. I do not believe that wealth should belong in the hands of 10% of a nation's population. I do not believe in entirety the lifestyle of consumption is the way to maximize utility, thus happiness. I believe that such measures of material wealth, rises in income and so on and forth does not equal and define true quality of life. Sure it helps, but it is not the ultimate yardstick to measure all forms of happiness and living standards by.
Another thought to chew on. My previous post dealt in general the problems faced in Tibet. The Dalai Lama accused China for ethnically swamping Tibet with Han Chinese, and blaming China for cultural cleansing. However, the next presentor, a German economics professor specializing in labor and migration economics, claimed in a study that population and migration data for Tibet is unavailable from the Chinese Census Bureau. However, I suspect that it is due to the sensitivity of the nature of the topic that such data is unavailable. Great Chinese method of keeping potentially volatile figures under wraps. Then another thought formed in my mind, and my question is, if such data on migration is unavailable for Tibet. How can the Dalai Lama's claims be entirely accurate? I am not saying that the Dalai Lama is capable of lying. I will never say that. But the accuracy and merit of his claims can be questioned. I brought this thought up to the presentor, and he simply said that he doesn't know. And neither do I! Perhaps the Dalai Lama's claims were more or less subjective in nature. Though once again, I do not completely refute his claims as it must hold some truth to it.
But whatever is is, Chinese and Tibetans need to really work it out with one another. The Chinese government should respect the right of the Tibetans need for cultural and religious autonomy, and let them be. Tibetans should keep in mind that to hold to violent behavior is against the principles of the Dalai Lama. There is definitely a great need for dialogue and flexible negotiations, mutual respect and understanding between China and the Dalai Lama for peace to arise in Tibet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
