Clipmarks
aspherefollowshare
3-22-2008 6:59 AM1398 views
asphere says:
" China's economy is totally dependent on "Made in China" exports that we all buy, and the government is keen to make the Olympics in Beijing this summer a celebration of a new China, respected as a leading world power. China is also a very diverse country with a brutal past and has reason to be concerned about its stability -- some of Tibet's rioters killed innocent people. But President Hu must recognize that the greatest danger to Chinese stability and development comes from hardliners who advocate escalating repression, not from Tibetans who seek dialogue and reform. "

http://www.avaaz.org/en/tibet_end_the_violence/97.php/?cl_tf_sign=1
3 Comments   | Add a Comment
3-23-2008 2:09 PM
phabulosa
The problem is how much control Dalai Lama has over his followers. If he was against violence, how on earth did this kind of horrible violent riot started? If there are still large number of Tibetan exiles prefer violence over dialogue, the negotiation between Chinese government and Dalai Lama makes so sense at all.
As a matter of fact, Dalai Lama has sent his brother to China and Chinese government has welcomed him. However, no agreement was made. There are two reasons:
1. Dalai Lama was asking for much more than what Chinese can give me. He wants autonomy not only in Tibet, but any place where there are Tibetans. This will includes so many provinces where Han Chinese and Tibetans coexist...
3-23-2008 2:14 PM
phabulosa
@asphere
You are partly correct. Chinese economical boom was largely based on its exports. However, any sort of boycott or sanction won't have too much effects on such a huge country. Chinese economy itself is self-sufficient. The western world blocked China during Mao's years, but it achieved nothing but tighter Communism control over Chinese people. Today, China is much powerful than in the old days. So, another blockade makes even less sense.
3-23-2008 6:03 PM
blueridge
Ironic how Democrats and Republicans alike fully support what China considers "insurrection", and secession from a totalitarian "central government". by praising Dali Llama's dissent.

While there are differences in degree, in principle this is hypocritical, given than the U.S. central Federal government made war against the southern states for wanting to secede and a Union was forced at gunpoint. How was that different than what China wants, or how was the principled dissent of Robert E Lee or the South's elected President Jefferson Davis different from that of Dahli Llama and Tibet?

Today the states are resisting REAL ID, federal PATRIOT ACT powers, and the citizens an increasingly fas...
Login to Comment.  Not a member yet? Sign up





Embed This Clip In Your Site...


OK