From: phsj@marlin.jcu.edu.au (su jianfeng)
Subject: Re: Conference, Sino-Tibetan Relations: Prospects for the future
Organization: James Cook University
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 01:52:53 GMT

In article <BvEG76.FKt@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> richter@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (C. Richter) writes:
>In article 1455 phsj@marlin.jcu.edu.au (su jianfeng) writes:
>>>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 have made a mistake here.  I didn't make the correpsonding comment
>>does not mean I agree with your view.  It just means that I was not
>>interested in giving comments on those words.
> 
>Sorry.  Would you care to explain what you think China behaved like 
>by invading Tibet?
It is wrong here.  Tibet is a part of China.  CCP was trying to control
the whole country by force.

> 
>>From my understanding of your words above, Canada (only one of many
>>Western countries) is going to consider the right of self-determination
> 
>I don't expect to teach you anything; I am merely expressing views 
>which Tibetans and many others hold on the political situation in
>Tibet.  
> 
>There are many PRC nationals in the West learning all kinds of things. 
>Unfortunately, for them, some of the things they learn here are a 
>little uncomfortable to them.  One of those things are that peoples  
>of all types have rights to self-determination, and increasingly
>they are demanding that those rights be fully realized.  We are 
>learning that in Canada.  It *is* uncomfortable for *all* of us.  
I feel more comfortable to see that self-determination of local people
is not recongonised by most of the Western countries, such as USA, UK,
Australia,.....(Canada may or may not be an exception).  The Chinese
government is doing as good or as bad as most of the Western countryies
in treating the similar problems.

> 
>>Would you please explain the sentence 'If Canada or any single province
>>votes no ........ Canada.'.  Why Canada is at the same level as the
>>provinces?  Do you mean that the future of Quebec depends on the result
>>of the vote based on all of the provinces, but not only on people in
>>Quebec.
> 
>The rules are that there must be a majority in favour of the new 
>constitutional accord in *each* province.  So, to be absolutely
>clear here: if Quebec or any other province decides "no", then 
>the accord will not be promulgated.  It is widely expected that 
>Quebec will leave the Canadian federation if the new accord is not 
>accepted, and they will have that right.
> 
>>I don't mind to have a vote of national wide in China to determine the
>>future of Tibet and Xinjiang.  The result is quite obvious.
> 
>Why not let each province and autonomous region decide in the same 
>way Canada is deciding?  Are you afraid of the results?
I am not happy about the way of making the decision concernning the
future of a country.

> 
>In article 1456 phsj@marlin.jcu.edu.au (su jianfeng) writes:
>>Canada should return the whole country to the aboriginals.  That means you
>>may have to leave the country.
> 
>Shall I go to China?  
There you can go is your bussiness.  But you have not answered my question
yet.  Should all Canadians except for the aboriginal leave Canada and
leave the whole Canada back to the original owers of the land?

> 
>>Can you give more details of the amends?  You should teach Chinese what
>>to do after you have fixed your similar problem.  China is trying to learn
>>from the Western countries.  The Chinese government is defending Tibet like
>>the Great British government which sent troops and warships to defend a small 
>>island closed to Argentina.
> 
>Large land claims have been negotiated or are under negotiation in most 
>provinces and territories.  Large tracts of land have already be given 
>back to various aboriginal groups.  We are talking millions of acres 
>of land.  
There is no clear boundary between a small land and a big land.  The
British government also used troops to keep the land 'Northern Ireland'
as similar as the Chinese government did for keeping Tibet.

>In article 1457 phsj@marlin.jcu.edu.au (su jianfeng) writes:
>>Aboriginals in Canada do not want other people to organise the country
>>for them. The Canada government should show some maturity and let the
>>Aboriginals decide for themself.  All Canadians except for the
>>aboriginals should leave the country immediately and leave the whole
>>Canada to the aboriginals.
> 
>The aborigines *are* deciding for themselves.  They have taken part 
>as full partners in the constitutional debates.  They have accepted 
>the process, and they are looking forward to further negotiations 
>with the Canadian and provincial governments.
The aboriginal are expecting the right of deciding for themself from the
Canadian government.  The answer is still not known.

The Tibetans in Tibet share the same right as the same as other parts of
citizens of PRC.  The Chinese government is also trying to negotiate
with them.  After another 50 years, a common negotiation will be
reached.

>-- 
>Conrad Richter                     richter@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca
>Richters Herbs                     71550.3411@compuserve.com
>Goodwood, ON L0C 1AO Canada        Tel 416-640-6677 / Fax 416-640-6641

J Su


Newsgroups: talk.politics.china