From: EE102@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK (Gao Mr ZhiJie)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: Conference, Sino-Tibetan Relations: Prospects for the future
Date: 1 Oct 92 06:44:49 GMT
 <BvAxp9.AI2@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> <1992Sep29.003105.12208@marlin.jcu.edu.au>
 <BvCIoH.39A@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Organization: University of Liverpool

=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
>In article: < 29 Sep 92 15:21:52 GMT > <BvCIoH.39A@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
richter@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (C. Richter) writes:

>>In article <1992Sep29.003105.12208@marlin.jcu.edu.au> phsj@marlin.jcu.edu.au
(su jianfeng)
>>Why should Tibet be allowed to be independent?

>I take it then that you agree that China has "behaved like a bully" by
>invading Tibet, since you do not rebut this point in my previous posting
>
  You are absolutely right here.  The Tibet's sovereignty
  was taken by force some 700 years
  ago and the invader behaved like a bully ( biggest bully in the history
  that then had governed Russia for about 100 years.).
  You probably meant to refer to the use of military force by the
  Chinese Government to suppress an organised
  and armed rebellion in Tibet about 30+ years ago.
  But you should be aware that using the word  'invading Tibet' to
  the describe that event is very vague in English. First of all, Tibet
  (officially called Xizang Autonomous Region) was a part of the China
  and the Chinese army was stationed there. Although there might be
  reinforcement from outside the region. ( You don't usually say that
  the US government was going to invade LA during the late riots
  when President Bush ordered troops to move into that area. )
  Secondly, although the Dalai Lama, the nominal leader of the rebellion
  , was the head of the administration of that region, the legality of
  his rebellion is out of question and he no longer represented the
  people of that region after he betrayed his home country and the
  constitution under which he assumed the duty. ( You can again take
  the US Civil War as an example < I presume you know American
  history better > ) Thirdly, the rebels by no means represented
  the interests of then one million population in that region.
  If you really interested in that bit of history you won't have any
  problem finding out sufficient documents that would tell the the
  follows:  Some Tibetan nobles and lamaists fundamentalists resorted
  violences because they did not want to free the slaves (amounted 95% at that
  time ) which was a part of the social reform agreed by the Dalai Lama
  to be carried out in Tibet. NOT (as the Dalai Lame & Co later claimed)
  because they suddenly felt they wanted to regain the independence that
  their ancestors lost 700 years ago.
  These traitors indeed managed to organise and armed a significant amount
  of Tibetans ( about 10 thousands maybe? ) in the revolt. But you have
  got to appreciate the speritual
  power of the Dalai Lama, as the Head of the
  lamaists, over the religious people ( Tibetans are most devoted
  religious people in todays world as you probably already knew ) and
  the royalty of the nobles private troopsand some
  slaves who were still not freed. ( Tibetans also
  have high reputation of royalty and honesty. <BTW, many of them
  went back and settled down in Tibet in last decade.>  The amount of lies
  produced by the Dalai Lama & Co is really exceptional, which just
  tells you how desperately they wanted their privileges back. And the way
they stuck to these lies are also amazing. Reflecting the influence of their
ex-Nazi adviser? )

>irrelevant stuff deleted.....
>                                Somehow, I doubt very much that the
>Chinese leadership would ever consider giving so-called "Autonomous
>regions" like Tibet and Xinjiang a chance to opt out of the Chinese
>union through a democratic vote.
>:w
>
--
>Conrad Richter                     richter@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china