Kieran Lawrence looks at autonomous weapons and the effect they could have on modern warfare
Continuing a series on world leaders, Miles Deverson takes a look at Angela Merkel
Ben Bland examines the fallout from the Iowa caucuses and looks forward to the New Hampshire primaries.
In the first of a series on world leaders, Miles Deverson takes a look at Nicholas Sarkozy
In a controversial move, President Obama welcomed the Dalai Lama to the USA for an unofficial state visit last month. The debate that arose was due to the fact that Obama managed to somehow anger both the Chinese government and human rights groups with his noncommittal stance. Though a shuffle in the right direction, the “kowing” of America to outside pressure gave the occasion a farcical feel and left many feeling puzzled as to the true agenda of the meeting. Though the Dalai Lama was welcomed and received large amounts of press coverage, Obama’s reluctance to allow him the honour of a proper state visit to the Oval office seemed to cause confusion. Obama goes so far as to aggravate China by agreeing to meet with the Tibetan ruler, but he will not support him outwardly by giving him the honour of an official head of state greeting.
Instead, the meeting was held in the Map Office without the usual press conference that would accompany a foreign dignitary, in a form echoing our own prime minister’s miserable effort at placation. Gordon Brown chose to meet the spiritual leader on neutral ground at Lambeth Palace so that China would not misconstrue Britain’s intentions.
The Dalai Lama has been exiled now for over half a century and in this time Tibet has changed, most would argue, irreversibly. From his current residence in Dharamsala, Northern India, he can only watch as his own culture crumbles away. Even after 50 years of protests and political pressure, China has unashamedly assimilated Tibet and brushed off foreign disapproval without a second thought. It leads me to wonder just why President Obama would schedule such a controversial meeting yet still stay firmly on the fence; does he want to raise his humanitarian profile by jumping on a popular bandwagon or does he just feel like shaking things up with China, to remind them that they are not as powerful as they would like to believe? It is not difficult to insult such a sensitive country who are quick to anger and slow to forgive, criticism of Tibet or internet censorship being the most simple and direct routes to having an angry dragon snapping at your throat and your assets. In a time of ballooning national debt, is it right for America to stumble into a political minefield with their second biggest creditor, where one wrong move could blow up in their face? In a perfect world America should take the righteous route, supporting Tibet without fear of repercussion, as this is the right thing to do and as they say, they do not deal with Terrorists. It may be rather overzealous to call China terrorists but their use of intimidation, the fear that they could sell all their American bonds to cripple the dollar, and their bullyboy tactics still leave a lot to be desired.
Unfortunately ‘Free Tibet’ protests no longer seem to be in fashion, losing out to the more contemporary anti-terror and anti-war protests, but this has not stopped the Dalai Lama trying to maintain awareness. The Dalai Lama himself said that he would like to return to his homeland before he dies, which seems as unlikely now as it ever did with China’s stance unwavering and unrepentant. Although neither Tibet or China, nor indeed the world, have forgotten China’s murky and brutal recent past but for the sake of trade and relations with one of the largest and fastest growing countries, it has certainly been overlooked for the most part. The Tibetan Leader however, stated that it had been an honour to meet with the President of “the greatest democratic country" and he was very happy with the outcome of the meeting.
Finally, I would like to stress that this is not an attack on China as a country; having travelled through some of their major cities, I found the people charming and friendly, the infrastructure infinitely usable and reliable, and the countryside beautiful. Politically however, I regard them as the petulant child who appears to be holding all the power in the playground, intimidating and un-likable but also fearless. Some try to be defiant in attempts to humble the supercilious nation but, at the moment, it appears none will ever really challenge because there is too much to lose and no real way to win- and this, I fear, will come at the expense of the Tibetans, the Taiwanese and the battle for human rights everywhere.
Really good article!
Sensitive?
What if an indigenous religious/political figure from California were to seek "autonomy" (no US troops allowed)for California and also Oregon, Washington State And Nevada (a quarter of the USA; and because they have minorities there as well)and say China's CIA supported this person and welcomed him in the Great Hall of the People? Would the US government take it lightly even if China said that they still believed these US States were part of the USA?
I also think the Dalai is a wonderful religious figure and has made Buddhism fashionable and mainstream. But religion and politics don't mix.
Some other things people are not aware of are:
- Many countries recognize(d) Tibet a party of China. It has been part of China longer than the US has been around. It didn't just happen when the Chinese "invaded" Tibet.- The Chinese have done a lot of good things for Tibet even if they have been repressive. But communism prior to China's reform was repressive throughout the country, not just in Tibet. Remember those red guards? Those were crazy times for all of China.- Tibet wasn't the Shangri-la portrayed in Hollywood. It was run by religious figures that were pretty oppressive.- The Dalai eats meat even though he is a buddhist, for health reasons he saysBuddhists are allowed to eat meat, i would check my facts if i were you.
Only those who pray to Kuanyin dont eat beef..
The solution?
One, don't use the Dalai as a political tool to grandstand or to show other countries how much you value human rights (guantanamo aside). Better to do it in private. Grandstanding hasn't worked in the past when China was weak, what makes you think it will now.
Two, look at Taiwan. The relations there have never been better.
Three, pin down the Dalai by what he really means by autonomy. If it means no Chinese troops in Tibet then he may as well forget it. Reason? China and India fought a border war in the 60's and China wants its tropps at the border.
I checked. It appears that HH Dalai takes the less strict interpretation. If you don't hear, see or suspect the animal being killed then all's good?
... recorded in the Pali scriptures, the Buddha did not prohibit consumption of meat, even by monks. In fact, he explicitly rejected a suggestion from Devadatta to do so. In modern Theravada societies, a bhikkhu who adheres to vegetarianism to impress others with his superior spirituality may be committing an infringement of the monastic rules.
On the other hand, the Buddha categorically prohibited consumption of the flesh of any animal that was "seen, heard or suspected" to have been killed specifically for the benefit of monks (Jivaka Sutta, Majjhima Nikaya 55). This rule technically applies only to monastics, but it can be used as a reasonable guide by devout lay people.
One more thing. HH Dalai also agrees that Tibet is part of China.
So it all boils down to what is autonomy. The devil is in the details.
Another. The government spend millions renovating the potala palace.
Another. Minorities are not bound by the one-child policy that the majority Han have to follow.
My point is: The government is repressive and is no saint. But neither is it the devil portrayed in the west. We must all do our own research.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report