|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
03-04-2009, 12:14 PM
Quote:
You've not sufficiently countered anything I've had to say regarding self-determination and Tibet. All you do is keep going on all sorts of random tangents to try and abstractly justify China's occupation of Tibet. 
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
03-04-2009, 12:36 PM
Quote:
Government's role is to provide framework for prosperity for its citizens (I'm sure you'll agree to this) 1. China in 1978 was a socialist republic and a command economy and it had many many social upheavals since the fall of the Qing dynasty. This process is very painful as people go out of jobs with no social security but it is necessary and the government basically said put up or shut up. 2. The path to prosperity requires education, social stability (China hasn't had too much of this last century), food, infrastructure amongst other things and it is severe lacking in 1978. 3. China set a goal in 1978 to go full steam ahead with capitalism and in the same time, set up education, give food to people, prop up the infrastructure, while keeping social stability an top priority. 4. THe reason why Tibetans rioted is because of economics. Western China was left way behind compared to the east coast. The Han's were running most of the show in Lasah but they were the ones who brought capital into TIbet in the first place. Government is in the process of fixing this unbalance but it takes time. But if instead, at height of discontent, the government throws out a election, will the unhappy Tibetans be able to think rationally? Of course they would want independence because they blame all their problems on the Hans because they seem to be the fat cats. This will signal to the other 55 minority groups in China that if you make enough noise, you can set up a nation, what would you think will happen to China? Say goodbye to social stability. Without that, you are an anarchy. The cost is just too great. If you still think it is in China's best interest to throw an election, you are out of your mind because there are still people in China that lives below the poverty line and China is still not rich enough yet. This free Tibet bs is only in the best interest of idealists and hippies. Oh and China has as much right on Tibet as the europeans have on Australia, New Zealand, and the US. By your standard, I totally agree that all of the above mentioned including China really does not deserve it but, who cares right? 
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
03-04-2009, 01:18 PM
Quote:
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
03-04-2009, 01:26 PM
First
Let me summarise my points -China invaded Tibet in the 1950's, exiled the spiritual leader and head of state and has been an occupying force since. -Tibet as a nation (now keep in mind the difference between nation and state that I explained earlier) has a right to self-determination as far as I'm concerned. The UN recognises this. -The only way for Tibetans to be able to achieve any sort of self-determination as a part of the Chinese nation is via constitutional democracy Your points have nothing to do with what I said. In fact they're largely irrelevant to what I'm saying. The only points I can filter from your rant is that according to you -China not only knows what's best for Tibet (arrogant and completely ignores Tibet's right of self-determination) but it has a right to be in Tibet due to some association with the region a long time before Tibet became an independent nation-state. -Without Chinese occupation, Tibet could not achieve prosperity. (A big and baseless assumption). Now with regard to democracy which is a seperate issue which you've brought up to abstractly justify China's occupation (again a justification that fails because you've completely ignored my points). Your theories regarding prosperity and democracy are hollow and simplisitc. There are a myriad of factors which make a nation less prosperous. You mentioned India earlier... in fact India is not far behind China as the world's 2nd fastest growing economy but while it has a huge proportion of people subject to poverty, you can't simply blame democracy or a lack of authoritarian central government for it. One could easily blame the legacy India's Hindu majority caste system has left behind. Also democracy seems to have brought these people prosperity relative to where they were at least. India's poor now have a political voice which governments have to court.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
03-04-2009, 01:29 PM
Kirakira, we've had this discussion before. What Ronin4hire seems to have forgotten from that debate was the main point that if Tibet were to become independent, people would live in poverty. China has invested a lot of money on infrustructure, education, health, transport etc. If China were to just drop everything, it'd go back to the way it was in the 1950's, which any Tibetan old enough to have lived through this horrific period, would rather avoid.
And another thing, I'm sure Ronin will once more ignore my post, but, Tibet has been part of China for centuries. The so called nation of Tibet that existed for a couple of decades prior to the 50's was illegal and China never agreed to it (heck, even if the treaty actually existed, it was signed by a Russian, 2 Tibetans and 2 Mongolians. There was no China in the equation so it's as if a French, 2 Scotish and 2 Welsh people signed on a treaty of Scotlands independence from UK). The British simply f**ked up. They thought they could be sly and get away with it, but it only took a matter of time for China to get through it's priorities and sort this out. EDIT: If however you take the other side of the story which says that the Chinese DID in fact sign the independence of Tibet, then anyone that knows anything about the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties would know that forcing someone to sign a treaty is illegal and does not validate the treaty. The British forced the Chinese to sign over at the time when China was weak. So, whatver version of the story you take, the independence of Tibet was ILLEGAL!!! lol, the funny thing is, if other countries force China to give independence to Tibet today, it'd still be an illegal independence... Sorry for all those blind Free Tibet supporters, you're simply supporting something that is in a sense illegal. Unless China WANTS to and Agrees to, Tibet is theirs.. o__O ALL chinese citizens have a right to Tibet. Just because the Majority are Tibetan, it doesn't mean that it truely only belongs to Tibetan people. The same goes for Tibetans and the rest of China. There are lot's of Tibetans in other parts of the country, working in cities like Shanghai where there are more oportunities. What will happen to them if Tibet becomes independent? It will cause huge tensions between Tibetans and the rest of the Chinese. Thousands if not millions will suffer needlesly. Heck, if I was the Chinese Government, and Tibet wanted freedom, I'd give it to them, but I'd also destroy the Qingzang railway and anything that was built/created/made by the other 55 ethnic groups of China.  Giving independce to a people just because it fits a fantasy idiology is silly. It's like Berbers in Algeria. The majority want independence for stupid reason, like Pride! What they don't realise is that if they get independence from the part of Algeria in which most Berbers live (Kabylie), they will suffer. Explaining this to anyone that isn't well educated is a nightmare. If Tibetans really want independence, wait a couple more years before giving them the option (even though, I personally believe that the majority would not vote for independence. They've seen the improvements in their life and the future only looks brighter in the sense of quality of life).
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
03-04-2009, 01:30 PM
Quote:
I'm talking about International Relations and foriegn policy rather than domestic politics. Some advice.... Stop trying to be a smartass because at the moment you just look like a troll who is way out of his league.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
03-04-2009, 01:34 PM
Quote:
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
03-04-2009, 01:50 PM
Quote:
I ignore your posts because after filtering out whatever points you might be making you say the exact same shit kirakira says. Except while he may be irrelevant.. he's coherent at least and displays some understanding of the field of International Relations. Anyway I'm not going to repeat myself. I'll point you in the right direction in from which to start reading if you're truly interested in learning. It starts from my belief that a nation has a right to self determination. The definition of nation is a self-aware group of people based on things like but not necessarily history, laws, language, culture etc who have political ambitions (whether it be exercised within a civic nation-state or via independence or some other way which I can't think of).
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
